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

391–400 of 507 posts

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#391

Post by mrb »

baddox wrote: post #286
ropiku wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're talking about something used to surf the web. An ARM is still powerful enough and will use way less power.

Web browsing is pretty darn good on the iPad and comparable Android tablets, but it's still a far cry from the performance you can get on x86 hardware. Many Surface Pro reviews mention this specifically. Now, there's still obviously value judgement to be made: is the Pixel worth the extra money, extra weight, and worse battery life compared to an Apple or Android tablet?

Worse battery life compared to an Apple? I think you are wrong. I think Google is being pessimist when estimating the battery life to be 5h when their capacity is 59Wh. For comparison, Apple advertises the MacBook Air 13" battery to be 40% longer (7h) when their capacity is 15% less (50Wh). Maybe Google estimated a higher average power consumption (eg. using the LTE wireless network which is more power consuming than wifi).

  MacBook Air 13": 50Wh - starts at $1200
  Pixel: 59Wh - starts at $1300
  MacBook Pro 13": 74Wh - starts at $1500
Basically, the more you pay, the more capabilities and battery life you get. And both Apple and Google seem in line.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#392

Post by gilgoomesh »

dman wrote: post #299
j-b wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why pay $1,299 for a thin client OS even if it's running thick client hardware? I can run a browser and so much more in a macbook air or thinkpad in the same price range.

To encourage a world where a) companies build desirable hardware b) companies realise having a good screen is a feature c) companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios

> companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios

I hear this complaint a lot and I think it's based on a flawed premise.

Taller aspects might be better on very small screens that only fill tiny portions of your vision but on bigger screens -- the sort you should be using if you're working regularly on a computer -- you want wider not taller. It's the only way to usefully use your field of view. This is why wider aspects exist.

On my 16:9 aspect 27" desktop screen, my vision is practically filled in the vertical direction -- it is easier to glance to the horizontal edges than the vertical ones. I would use more horizontal space before I used more vertical.

And this is the point of wider aspects -- they use your eyes better. If you buy three screens for your desktop, you don't stack them vertically -- you arrange them horizontally so you can actually see them.

People who keep asking for squarer displays for work should simply get bigger displays and stop pretending that a 13" laptop display is ever a good choice for a working display.

Frankly, anything sub 24" is not a working environment. Anything smaller is either (a) something you use occasionally when you're not at your desk or (b) for people who are not working.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#393

Post by phaus »

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.

My theory is that maybe this announcement was intended to make the $1500 Google Glass seem slightly less ridiculous. It's going to take more than a $1300 Chrome book to do that.

In all seriousness though, I was really excited about this when I saw the first video, then it was reported to be a fraud, and now all of a sudden it has an i5 and it costs twice what I thought it would.

At 600-700 bucks, I was ready to trade in my iPad, but for this amount, I'd rather get an XPS dev edition or a 13" retina macbook for just a bit more.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#394

Post by lutusp »

mrb wrote: post #391
baddox wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web browsing is pretty darn good on the iPad and comparable Android tablets, but it's still a far cry from the performance you can get on x86 hardware. Many Surface Pro reviews mention this specifically. Now, there's still obviously value judgement to be made: is the Pixel worth the extra money, extra weight, and worse battery life compared to an Apple or Android tablet?

Worse battery life compared to an Apple? I think you are wrong. I think Google is being pessimist when estimating the battery life to be 5h when their capacity is 59Wh. For comparison, Apple advertises the MacBook Air 13" battery to be 40% longer (7h) when their capacity is 15% less (50Wh). Maybe Google estimated a higher average power consumption (eg. using the LTE wireless network which is more power consuming than…

> I think Google is being extremely pessimist when estimating the battery life to be 5h when their capacity is 59Wh.

The battery life depends, not on the watt-hour rating, but on the watt-hour rating divided by the power required. More power, fewer hours. Maybe Google knows something about the actual power requirements that resulted in this estimate.

Just as an example, if the unit requires 11.8 watts, then the battery life will be:

59 watt-hours / 11.8 watts = 5 hours

> For comparison, Apple advertises the MacBook Air 13" battery to be 40% longer (7h) when their capacity is 15% less (50Wh).

Different battery, but also different power requirement.

> Maybe Google calculated it while assuming you were using the LTE wireless network, or streaming HD movies, or something else quite power-hungry.

You're speaking as though all these units have the same power requirements.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#395

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

incongruity wrote: post #224
rayiner wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the iPad? I remember the iPhone having a very positive reaction. As a general rule, most of the time when people say "this is going to be a failure" they are right. The iPad is the exception, not the rule. And Apple has market-making ability that Google can only dream of.

Well, I mean, given that most new product launches and most new business ventures fail, of course the naysayers will be right more often. That doesn't mean they actually have insight into why products fail. So, that having been said and because this is the internet, I'll rush in with my probably foolish and ill-advised explanation for with this won't be a game changer: In this case, I think the price vs. capabilities…

>Well, I mean, given that most new product launches and most new business ventures fail, of course the naysayers will be right more often. That doesn't mean they actually have insight into why products fail.

Here's a great article on that subject "How to be right 90% of the time, and why I'd rather be wrong": http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-to-be-right-90-...

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#396

Post by mrb »

lutusp wrote: post #394
mrb wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse battery life compared to an Apple? I think you are wrong. I think Google is being pessimist when estimating the battery life to be 5h when their capacity is 59Wh. For comparison, Apple advertises the MacBook Air 13" battery to be 40% longer (7h) when their capacity is 15% less (50Wh). Maybe Google estimated a higher average power consumption (eg. using the LTE wireless network which is more power consuming than…

> I think Google is being extremely pessimist when estimating the battery life to be 5h when their capacity is 59Wh. The battery life depends, not on the watt-hour rating, but on the watt-hour rating divided by the power required. More power, fewer hours. Maybe Google knows something about the actual power requirements that resulted in this estimate. Just as an example, if the unit requires 11.8 watts, then the batte…

I am well aware that the battery life depends on the power required. My point (implied) was that the MacBook Air 13" has roughly the same hardware as the Pixel: same CPU, same GPU, same amount of RAM, same type (DDR3L), etc. The only significantly more power-consuming devices in the Pixel are the display and LTE hardware. So if you don't use too much these (eg. turn brightness down, don't use LTE), then shouldn't the Pixel be expected to consume about the same amount of power as the MacBook?

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#397

Post by lutusp »

mrb wrote: post #396
lutusp wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Google is being extremely pessimist when estimating the battery life to be 5h when their capacity is 59Wh. The battery life depends, not on the watt-hour rating, but on the watt-hour rating divided by the power required. More power, fewer hours. Maybe Google knows something about the actual power requirements that resulted in this estimate. Just as an example, if the unit requires 11.8 watts, then the batte…

I am well aware that the battery life depends on the power required. My point (implied) was that the MacBook Air 13" has roughly the same hardware as the Pixel: same CPU, same GPU, same amount of RAM, same type (DDR3L), etc. The only significantly more power-consuming devices in the Pixel are the display and LTE hardware. So if you don't use too much these (eg. turn brightness down, don't use LTE), then shouldn't the…

Let me reply this way -- why would Google sell their unit short? What reason would they have to underestimate battery life?

It occurs to me that, if they exaggerated battery life in normal usage -- typical user brightness settings and typical peripheral activation -- it might create a public relations disaster not unlike the infamous Tesla test drive.

Also, even with the same battery technology, units won't necessarily behave the same as the battery voltage falls. Some will cut out sooner than others as they approach the end of battery charge, a trait that depends on the power supply design.

On general principles, I just don't think they would intentionally undercut their own unit.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#398

Post by SquareWheel »

skc wrote: post #237

I'm confused. People said the Surface Pro was overpriced. This thing does much, much less than a Surface Pro but costs $300 more. And it's being praised? Wow.

It's a laptop with a good screen. Pretty much what people have been wanting for years.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#400

Post by kunai »

gilgoomesh wrote: post #392
dman wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To encourage a world where a) companies build desirable hardware b) companies realise having a good screen is a feature c) companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios

> companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios I hear this complaint a lot and I think it's based on a flawed premise. Taller aspects might be better on very small screens that only fill tiny portions of your vision but on bigger screens -- the sort you should be using if you're working regularly on a computer -- you want wider not taller. It's the only way to usefully use your field of view. This is…

May be true for desktops, but if you have ever tried to code on a 1366x768 14" laptop display, you'll agree.

8:5/16:10 or even 3:2 fill the horizontal field of view well while also delivering more vertical space.

Even if 16:9 is theoretically better, why shouldn't we have a choice? Every notebook computer out there besides Apple has a 16:9 display, and I'm sick of it, and many others are as well. At least offer us more than one choice.

Post reply on HN