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

411–420 of 507 posts

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#411

Post by gmkoliver »

kunai wrote: post #343
kunai wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios Let's hope Lenovo takes a look at this. I'd love a Thinkpad with a high-res screen, 3:2 display, and of course, the venerable TrackPoint and keyboard. Touchscreen is a nice novelty feature but really isn't required.

> I'll take any steps in the direction of square as positive If someone proposes a Kickstarter project for a mobile developer workstation with a solid design, 4:3 high-res screen, pointing stick, and great keyboard, I'll be the first to hop on. Or maybe I should go ahead and make that Kickstarter project a reality instead of waiting for someone to.

a mobile developer workstation with a solid design, 4:3 high-res screen, pointing stick, and great keyboard

The lack of something like this is why I'm still using a 7 year old Thinkpad.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#412

Post by tr4656 »

sbrother wrote: post #408
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Linux would boot at native resolution, making the contents of your screen microscopic and useless. Linux isn't ready for High DPI.

I'd argue that Unity looks much, much better on high DPI. I run it on an old crappy 1024x768 and a newer 1920x1080 of around the same size, and the icons/launcher actually look sane at almost double the DPI of the older screen. Unity makes the low-DPI computer look (and feel) like a toy, but I like it a lot on my new computer. I'd agree with you if you're running Gnome 2, or KDE, though.

Well the thing is that most people don't prefer Unity and neither do I. I don't really think that there are so many devs using Unity either.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#413

Post by dnissley »

glogla wrote: post #107

Oh boy. If only they gave it 128 GB drive. The way it is it's useless for me (and I guess most people on HN, though I think basic Ubuntu could fit into 32/64 GB), but it still makes me cautiously optimistic that after years of stagnation and perhaps even regression, the 1366x768 era might be nearing it's end. I can hope that in a year, "reasonable-resolution" (as Linus called it) laptop like the Pixel will be not out…

I can't wait for a teardown. I'm crossing my fingers for there to be an ssd in there attached to an msata interface which could be easily swapped out for something bigger.

I'm guessing that the ram is soldered in though, due to the thinness of the device. Oh well, 4gb is workable.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#414

Post by cricketer »

mrb wrote: post #403
lutusp wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 necessari…

Everybody knows there is no industry standard to measure battery life (basically which workload to run when measuring it). For example Anandtech measured the MacBook Air 13" as having a battery life varying between 3 and 7.52 hours depending on the workload: http://www.anandtech.com/print/6063 So my point is that Google would not specifically have the goal of underestimating battery life, but just that it is almost g…

The battery life testing mechanism for Chrome OS is documented here: http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/testing/power-testing.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#415

Post by Evbn »

nwh wrote: post #113
yuxt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also provide "One terabyte of Google Drive cloud storage, free for 3 years"

It would cost me $20,000 to transfer that amount of data over 3G, and almost ten times that on another common carrier. The amount of "cloud" storage is irrelevant in most countries.

WiFi....

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#416

Post by hiker »

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.

Before I read your comment I though that computers only good for accounting and scientific simulations. But then I remembered that it's not 1951 any more. Thank you.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#417

Post by Evbn »

bitcartel wrote: post #108

Where are the real specs? Google have gone and copied what Apple do, and just dumped marketing blurb everywhere. "Intel® Core™ i5 Processor (Dual Core 1.8GHz)" - What's the model number? There are numerous Core i5 processors and their performance varies, which one am I getting? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html 32 GB SSD - What kind of read/write speed? Standard SATA or mSATA interface? 4 GB DDR3 RAM - Is the R…

Are you certain these are 3rd gen core chips?

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#418

Post by hiker »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
pm90 wrote: post #20

What kind of apps can you run on this? Chrome OS wasn't a touch based OS as far as I recall... have they integrated touch into the OS now?

> What kind of apps can you run on this? Well, its Chrome OS, so anything that runs on Chrome browser anywhere (including Native Client apps), plus additional apps using the Chrome OS-specific APIs. > Chrome OS wasn't a touch based OS as far as I recall... have they integrated touch into the OS now? Chrome browser (and, therefore, Chrome OS) has been integrating touch features for several versions. Since I don't use…

Or nuke Chrome OS and install a OSX/linux/windows/whatever-rocks-your-boat on the hardware. I do love Chrome OS though.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#419

Post by Evbn »

rayiner wrote: post #152
spankalee wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discliaimer: I work for Google, but don't know about real strategy decisions about this. I think it's all about establishing more demand for web apps. Already I can do everything I need to in Chrome except for a nice development environment, though Cloud9 is getting closer, and music apps like Logic. Those are quite doable though, especially with the Chrome App APIs, someone just needs to get the ball rolling. The cu…

I can't imagine there are that many people who want to spend $1,300 to use web apps. People use GMail, Google Docs, etc, because they're cheap, not because they're good. That's why the $250 Chromebooks sell any units--because they're cheap. This thing takes the "cheap" aspect out of the equation, which seems like a mind-blowingly stupid decision.

The sort of webapps Google is talking about are very intensive. JavaScript and NaCl replacements for desktop apps.

Re: The Chromebook Pixel

#420

Post by hiker »

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.

You can always nuke Chrome OS and install a OSX/linux/windows/whatever-rocks-your-boat. You're paying for the hardware, not for Chrome OS.
Post reply on HN