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

Chromebox

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 305 posts

Re: Chromebox

#81

Post by vidarh »

ajuc wrote: post #33
josteink wrote: post #30

While definitely an interesting development in computing, I find the advertising used disingenuous. They advertise "built-in anti virus" all over, when the truth probably is that there is no anti-virus at all. You can argue that there is a lack of need for this and as such advertising for a device without mentioning anti virus at all would make it seem "unsafe" or confusing for the less technically inclined. But stil…

Why do you thik there's no antivirus? There are antiviruses that run on unices, like ClamAV for example - it's open source, they can include it for free - maybe they did.

ClamAV for Linux et. al. primarily targets Windows threats. It's primarily used to filter e-mail or scan SMB shares, not look for threats that might affect the machine they run on, so it'd seem a very odd choice to include.

Re: Chromebox

#82

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

josteink wrote: post #60
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually there's going to have to be some merger. I think it could be Chrome OS becoming a variant of Android, considering there's now Chrome for Android. That said, personally, I'd rather see Chrome OS on phones and tablets, and Android die off, since Chrome OS is the most web-first platform out there.

While Chrome OS is definitely the most web-first platform out there, right now that does not really work to its advantage. Right now Android has the massive advantage in being able to work reasonably well while offline, something you can just forget with most web apps run on top of Chrome OS. For a "desktop PC" I'm sure Chrome OS will be more than sufficient, since internet connectivity is not going to be an issue. F…

What are you implying? I think almost all modern browsers support app caching manifests, meaning web apps work offline.

Re: Chromebox

#83

Post by chj »

Where is the target of this device? Certainly I won't buy this, but neither can I think of any reason for a sane people to pay more than 100$ for this box.

People will get an iPad instead, rather than paying 3xx$ for a dumb box.

Re: Chromebox

#84

Post by lmm »

cooldeal wrote: post #29

Looks like there's major spin on this on that page. Whats a Intel Core(TM) processor? Dig deeper and it's an anemic Celeron, not a Core i3 or i5 or i7 as the name implies. Why is there no mention of storage AT ALL? Because it's a 16GB(!) SSD. The Amazon page says "No Blue Screens"? What happens to ChromeOS if RAM gets corrupt? It doesn't crash and magically keeps running? Most BSoDs nowadays are due to hardware issue…

Most BSoDs nowadays are due to badly written drivers. Actual memory corruption is pretty rare.

Re: Chromebox

#85

Post by qxcv »

i386 wrote: post #73

This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed. The inmates are truly running the asylum. The technical specs are completely irrelevant to the interests of the majority of consumers. This page needs to show what this is capable of without the foreknowledge of what Chrome OS is or is capable of or what Googles other offerings are. Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be bet…

The imagemap to the right of the specs is horrible as well, you have to hover over their tiny "+" icons to see the quick selling points which are actually of interest to consumers. Saying "boots in 7 seconds" is great, but only if the user can see it right away.

Re: Chromebox

#86

Post by gojomo »

i386 wrote: post #73

This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed. The inmates are truly running the asylum. The technical specs are completely irrelevant to the interests of the majority of consumers. This page needs to show what this is capable of without the foreknowledge of what Chrome OS is or is capable of or what Googles other offerings are. Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be bet…

It's still early (in the life of this device).

Early adopters will be techies. It's OK to be geeky at this stage.

They can dumb-it-down later.

Re: Chromebox

#87

Post by mtgx »

georgemcbay wrote: post #17

For $199 I'd consider it. For $329, no way.

I think $150-$200 would've been the sweet spot for a ChromeBox, and $200-$300 the sweetspot for a Chromebook, depending on the configuration, quality of materials, etc.

Also, I see no reason why these shouldn't be running ARM chips. All you're using is the web, so it's not tied down to the x86 architecture like Windows is.

Re: Chromebox

#88

Post by CrazedGeek »

cooldeal wrote: post #74
CrazedGeek wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_%28microarchitectu... Although I did forget about the Xeons.

That reference(even if Wikipedia) seems to imply that the first Sandy Bridge processors released were the Core processors, not that all Sandy Bridge silicon will be or is branded Core. Are there any cases of laptops or PCs with Celeron processors being referred to as having Core processors?

My apologies, I meant to link to the list of processors in that article -- by pure count (and, anecdotally, most often), most Sandy Bridge processors are Core processors.

The text "Upgrade To An Intel® Core™ Processor" does appear on Intel's Celeron page, so there's that. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/celeron/ce...

(And, for what it's worth, I'm not completely defending Google on this, just pointing out what their reasoning could be.)

Re: Chromebox

#89

Post by chmike »

platinum1 wrote: post #76
i386 wrote: post #73

This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed. The inmates are truly running the asylum. The technical specs are completely irrelevant to the interests of the majority of consumers. This page needs to show what this is capable of without the foreknowledge of what Chrome OS is or is capable of or what Googles other offerings are. Sell me a story! Tell me why my life is going to be bet…

https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.h... Is that better? edit: To explain, I think how they expect you to experience the website is: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/ (from www.google.com/chromeos) http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features.html http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-key.ht... http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/features-device...…

> Intel Core Processor

Why not specifying what processor and hardware is in the box ?

Re: Chromebox

#90

Post by jyap »

llgrrl_ wrote: post #7

It'll be a very capable PC or thin client if that's at all possible. I wonder how feasible it is to put a Linux distribution here and get it working. I know it is possible with the Chromebook, and if it's gonna work for the Chromebox, then shut up and take my money.

16gb SSD of hard disk spare really limits your options if you're loading up a Linux distribution.

But seriously you can something with cheaper and better specs for less that $329 to run Linux.

Post reply on HN