4 ms·
It's marketing. The emphasis is on the simplicity of the product. That being said, it's a 1.9ghz Celeron CPU. That can give negative connotations since Celer
by jyap 14y ago
It's marketing. The emphasis is on the simplicity of the product.
That being said, it's a 1.9ghz Celeron CPU. That can give negative connotations since Celeron is Intel's cheap line of processors.
- genwin 14y agoGood to know. I just got a quad-core desktop for US$377. The Chromebox w/ Celeron would have to print gold to compare to that.
- VikingCoder 14y agoI'd be curious to compare your time from power off, to viewing a web page. They're very different machines, with very different goals. If you compare the components, then yes, it probably doesn't make any sense for you to get a Chromebox. If you look at the features they both have, then it might make more sense. If I were buying a machine for my grandmother, I'd buy the Chromebox over your $377 desktop, in a heartbeat.
- no_more_death 14y agoI have a chromebook with 1.66 ghz Atom CPU. ChromeOS is lightning on it.
- dangrossman 14y agoMost likely, your desktop would have to print gold to make up for the difference in your power bill compared to a ChromeBox too. My desktop needs a couple hundred watts; my Google TV box needs closer to 10. Running a full-size desktop where you don't need the power is equivalent to a voluntary subscription fee versus a one-time payment.
- no-espam 14y agoUnless you have an overclocked, ultra graphics machine running distributed apps or playing games most of the day, a desktop does not cost that much more to run. Just because your power supply says 500W doesn't actually mean you are using that much. I did the calculations on my mac mini vs my i2500K win7, which is much faster, and I was surprised the difference was about $60 a year.