"Why Chromebook Pundits Are Out of Touch"

[pl001]

Originally Posted by frahse

They thoroughly believe the old Business Adage, "never admit you were wrong."

You mean like the people here claiming Windows 8 is unusable?

I really fail to see why people struggle so much with it. It's very different, yes, but also quite simple to use. It's faster than 7 and more secure. And it still has the desktop when you need or want it.

Microsoft's vision is a good one and not all that different than Google's. Since buying a Surface RT a year ago I rarely use a PC for personal use anymore. Business use is another matter, but so long as the desktop is there and legacy programs are supported I'm just fine. Even in business there's very little left that I need legacy Windows apps for. Almost everything is web-based or covered by the Office suite. And I'm in IT supporting dozens of systems. If it wasn't for this fact, devices like Chromebooks couldn't exist.

[John F]

Originally Posted by pl001

...

I really fail to see why people struggle so much with it. It's very different, yes, but also quite simple to use. It's faster than 7 and more secure. And it still has the desktop when you need or want it.

...

I use Win 7. I haven't needed a new PC, so I haven't upgraded to Win 8. Whenever I look at win 8 in the stores, I get a little lost. I can't seem to find the control panel, and I'm not sure how to start stuff. I used to go Start-> and start typing in "Search Program and Files" (for example type in "Remove Program"), and I was able to get around quickly; with Win 8 I'm not sure what to do or where to go.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by John F

I use Win 7. I haven't needed a new PC, so I haven't upgraded to Win 8. Whenever I look at win 8 in the stores, I get a little lost. I can't seem to find the control panel, and I'm not sure how to start stuff. I used to go Start-> and start typing in "Search Program and Files" (for example type in "Remove Program"), and I was able to get around quickly; with Win 8 I'm not sure what to do or where to go.

Correct. Even if we allow that the inclusion of both Metro and Desktop is good thing for the convergence of computing device types, the changes to the desktop are negative. They changed or removed proven, popular conventions for no good reason. The changes add nothing positive.

If Win8 is indeed faster and more secure than Win7 (Is it really? By what standards? How do you judge such a young, unproven OS as "more secure.") it is certainly not because they removed the Start button and obfuscated the program list. And since Win7 has proven neither particularly slow nor insecure in its now quite mature lifetime, I can't see anything positive about Win8 for a non-touch-screen device.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by ApK

If Win8 is indeed faster and more secure than Win7 (Is it really? By what standards? How do you judge such a young, unproven OS as "more secure.") it is certainly not because they removed the Start button and obfuscated the program list. And since Win7 has proven neither particularly slow nor insecure in its now quite mature lifetime, I can't see anything positive about Win8 for a non-touch-screen device.

That's a fair enough point. Along the same lines, many people see no need for Win 7 over what they have with XP.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by John F

I use Win 7. I haven't needed a new PC, so I haven't upgraded to Win 8. Whenever I look at win 8 in the stores, I get a little lost. I can't seem to find the control panel, and I'm not sure how to start stuff. I used to go Start-> and start typing in "Search Program and Files" (for example type in "Remove Program"), and I was able to get around quickly; with Win 8 I'm not sure what to do or where to go.

To search, just start typing from the start screen. To get the start screen from anywhere, hit the Windows key. The Charms bar is where you'll find the bulk of your settings. It's quite intuitive once you learn the basics. Some of the more advanced stuff is not as intuitive as it is not all available in the Metro interface, but that has improved greatly with 8.1.

[frahse]

I will not be upgrading my old Desktop from XP [TO A NEW MS OS. -- edited]

In fact some years ago, when I thought about it and ran a "test" from MS on the desktop, they said, it would not support Vista.

Since then Win 7 and now Win 8 +.

[frahse]

More info is out on the Toshiba Chromebook at CES 2014.

Yes it does have a 13.3" screen, but no more pixels than the standard 11.6 machines.

It does have Haswell and a projected battery life of 9.1 hours.

It does have 2 USB3 ports and a full size HDMI port.

Other than that, it is stock Chromebook, with 2GB RAM, and 16GB SSD.

For $279.

I will pass.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by frahse

More info is out on the Toshiba Chromebook at CES 2014.

Yes it does have a 13.3" screen, but no more pixels than the standard 11.6 machines.

It does have Haswell and a projected battery life of 9.1 hours.

It does have 2 USB3 ports and a full size HDMI port.

Other than that, it is stock Chromebook, with 2GB RAM, and 16GB SSD.

For $279.

I will pass.

That makes the PPI even worse.

Haswell and battery life are good; and so are the ports

2GB? ...seriously, 2GB at that price point? You can get a 2GB Acer for $199.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That makes the PPI even worse.

Haswell and battery life are good; and so are the ports

2GB? ...seriously, 2GB at that price point? You can get a 2GB Acer for $199.

Yeah, I can only make a compelling case for these things when they are substantially cheaper than a comparable Windows machine. And aren't these prices supposed to, you know, trend DOWNWARD?
2GB is probably enough for the primary target consumer, and the extra battery life is a real plus, but I'm thinking $199 to $229 at most.

$279 would be where I'd expect a 4GB touchscreen Haswell Chromebook to be priced....it's really hard to play Cut The Rope without a touchscreen....

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

2GB? ...seriously, 2GB at that price point? You can get a 2GB Acer for $199.

A 13" Acer for $199? Where? It's not fair to compare an 11.6" screen to a 13" one. Searching Amazon, I can find a 14" Chromebook from HP with similar specs for $299, which makes $279 comparable.

And since we're dealing with a very thin OS, what do you need more than 2GB of RAM for?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sregener

A 13" Acer for $199? Where? It's not fair to compare an 11.6" screen to a 13" one. Searching Amazon, I can find a 14" Chromebook from HP with similar specs for $299, which makes $279 comparable.

And since we're dealing with a very thin OS, what do you need more than 2GB of RAM for?

Sure it's fair to compare the two; especially since these devices are aimed at casual users. They'll be more interested in a $199 price tag versus a $279 price tag.

As to the 2GB, I was referring to the price point. $249 will get you a 4GB Acer.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Sure it's fair to compare the two; especially since these devices are aimed at casual users. They'll be more interested in a $199 price tag versus a $279 price tag.

And since the 11"" 2GB was $199 last year. As I said, these things are supposed to get cheaper....

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Sregener

A 13" Acer for $199? Where? It's not fair to compare an 11.6" screen to a 13" one. Searching Amazon, I can find a 14" Chromebook from HP with similar specs for $299, which makes $279 comparable.

And since we're dealing with a very thin OS, what do you need more than 2GB of RAM for?

I know the HP 11 has IPS. (178 degree viewing)
I am not sure about the HP 14.

That is a big buying point for me.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Sure it's fair to compare the two; especially since these devices are aimed at casual users. They'll be more interested in a $199 price tag versus a $279 price tag.

It is fair to compare the two to see which one gives you the most value for the dollar. It is not fair to compare the price of the two and then find a spec they share in common and say one is not priced properly. It's a bit like saying, "These two cars both have a top speed of 150mph, but one costs almost twice as much money - what were they thinking?" Completely ignoring the fuel economy and passenger capacity of each.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sregener

It is fair to compare the two to see which one gives you the most value for the dollar. It is not fair to compare the price of the two and then find a spec they share in common and say one is not priced properly. It's a bit like saying, "These two cars both have a top speed of 150mph, but one costs almost twice as much money - what were they thinking?" Completely ignoring the fuel economy and passenger capacity of each.

The larger screen isn't worth $80.