Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Chromebook Pixel

chrome.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 507 posts

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#311

Post by rayiner »

pyoung wrote: post #304
rayiner wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're logging on to a remote server to do development,you're not taking advantage of the dual core i5 or 4GB of RAM. You're logged into an image that's giving you maybe 1 GHz of CPU and 512MB of RAM. You're buying a $1,300 machine to do development on a $300 machine, over a shitty internet connection.

But if you also have ~20 tabs open in your browser, and are streaming music etc... I am doing a thin client setup of sorts, and by the end of the day things start slowing down quite a bit. I do agree that $1300 is too much, at that price range you might as well get a mac. If it was 600-800 i'd probably jump on it. However, I think the curve ball here is the touch screen. I'd be willing to bet that Google's strategy f…

> I'd be willing to bet that Google's strategy for this laptop is to do a smaller production run, and get these in the hands of tech/programmer types

If that's the case, pull an Apple and ship great dev tools on the installation disk. As far as I can tell, there are no top-notch Chrome OS development tools, just various ways to remote into a real machine to do that work.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#312

Post by beagle3 »

evv wrote: post #169
derekp7 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the deep fryers I've used years ago had magnetic power connectors. How is Apple's design different? Is it just because it is "on a laptop", and not "on a hot oil basket"? Edit: I looked up the patent, and it appears they've patented various improvements to the connector, such as universal orientation (can plug it in either direction), and something to do with the polarity of the magnets.

It looks like Microsoft got their patent because it transmits data as well as power.

And yet, they wouldn't have been able to use it if Apple didn't let them, because it does power - and that's covered by Apple's patent.

Luckily (for them) most of the incumbents have patent cross-licensing deals, so MS doesn't worry about Apple suing them for patent infringement, and vice versa.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#313

Post by Gormo »

jonknee wrote: post #280
elarkin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you probably would not get this chromebook if you were only going to use SSH. You'd buy the $250 one.

Unless you wanted the gorgeous 2560x1700 display... Many people have paid close to the whole computer's price just for the screen (I'm typing this on a 2560x1440 screen that I paid $999 for).

Is your 2560x1440 screen only 13" though?

I don't see the point of having a pixel density that high; almost no one has sharp enough eyesight to distinguish individual pixels at even lower densities than that, and enough people have poor enough eyesight that they won't be able to read text on software that doesn't scale its fonts properly.

That resolution is appropriate for a monitor with twice the diagonal size.

Also, what's up with the 3:2 aspect ratio? That seems awfully odd.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#314

Post by qu4z-2 »

DigitalTurk wrote: post #71

The Verge has more pictures. http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/21/4013480/google-chromebook-... It looks an awful lot like a Macbook: Just witness the aluminum-like color and the black bevel around the screen. Where it looks different, it's uglier. The hinge looks particularly bad. And judging by the pictures it's an awful lot bulkier than a Macbook Air. Chrome OS strikes me as an underpowered OS. That is, there's a lot…

I would just about buy it purely on the basis of being 4:3, were it so.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#316

Post by ImprovedSilence »

MrVitaliy wrote: post #300
jonknee wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using that logic I don't know how Apple sells so many of its MacBooks. They're all expensive and have "specs like this", but the vast majority are not used for development, design or gaming. I can see the appeal of a small (thinner than a MacBook Air), well constructed, blazingly fast laptop. If I could run 1Password on it I would be very tempted to take it for a spin, with the LTE it would make an excellent travel m…

MBAir is best dev laptop I ever had. Its super light, plenty of power and space for most app development and within reach price wise. Also, I suggest you look up Linus's rant about how he loves Mac book air and SSD for kernel development.

>> MBAir is best dev laptop I ever had.

seconded.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#317

Post by wycats »

mcantelon wrote: post #288
javajosh wrote: post #58

There are only three meaningful things you can do with a computer with specs like this: development, design, or gaming. And yet ChromeOS can't do any of these things. Perhaps this is a vanity product for the wealthy. But wealthy people are going to just surf the web on an iPad. I really don't get this product.

>And yet ChromeOS can't do any of these things. It does seem weird, yes. My guess is gaming is definitely something it will be able to do (if not now then soon) via Native Client.

I was delighted to see Bastion, a game I played on my Mac, available on the Chrome Web Store using Native Client (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bastion/oohphhdkah...)

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#318

Post by glogla »

criley wrote: post #155
stuartmemo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the Secure Shell extension to ssh onto a dev environment and use vim from there. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/secure-shell/pnhec...

So I have to buy another machine to develop and test my stuff on? What's the point of a powerful laptop if it's just a dumb terminal to connect to my actual development machine? Why not just buy a $300 super cheap laptop and do the exact same thing? Sure I'll have less resolution on the machine, but seeing as the developing is happening on another machine all together, it seems like the performance would be similar.

DrDreams you are hellbanned. I don't find your comments especially terrible so perhaps you were just unlucky or something, so I'm telling you.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#319

Post by Domenic_S »

DavidBradbury wrote: post #258
baddox wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If buying a product makes the buyer happy, you can hardly call the purchase "irrational."

A product making a buyer happy is not a condition for whether a purchase is rational or not. If you have a family, then suddenly you decide to buy a ticket to Amsterdam and burn your kids college money on hookers and blow, being 'happy' doesn't suddenly make all of that rational.

Rationality (in this sense) is a matter of perspective, and useful only as a tool to help see the rationale behind decisions.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#320

Post by roc »

pax wrote: post #297
neverm0re wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already braindead easy to put Linux on the ARM Samsung Chromebook. One of the first things I did was to assemble my own personal Linux distro and besides having to copy some blob files out of the original ChromeOS image, it's all very straight-forward stuff and I pulled up about a hundred packages I wanted including an X.org stack without fuss. The compile speeds are adequate if you aren't cross-compiling, I've…

'brain-dead easy ... assemble my own personal distro' :))

You're talking about developers, no?
Post reply on HN