5 ms·

I thought about it a while ago, but then why not just buy a Macbook? Same price, comparable hardware looks, much better specs, much better capabilities. You can

by ufmace 13y ago

I thought about it a while ago, but then why not just buy a Macbook? Same price, comparable hardware looks, much better specs, much better capabilities. You can run Chrome and do all the same stuff you could do on a Chomebook, plus a ton of other stuff too.

lmm 13y ago
If you can find a Macbook with the same specs for anything close to the price of the Chromebook then please do link it.
- arjie 13y ago
  This guy has a down vote but I believe he is referencing the screen, which has a resolution unmatched by Macbooks at this price. The 'Retina' MacBook costs more.
- danieldk 13y ago
  The posts above you are talking about the Chromebook Pixel, which had a release price of $1299 (similar to MacBooks) but inferior specs.
  - MAGZine 13y ago
    The pixel is very similar to a Macbook Air, (IIRC, thiner/lighter) except has a HD-touch screen. If they refreshed the processor, all that would be missing is a decent harddrive.
quanpod 13y ago
I'm interested to see when a MBP or similar comes out with touch - I'm finding there's a few things I do which naturally work well with touch (e.g. scrolling pages).
- fidotron 13y ago
  I actually disabled the touchscreen on my Pixel. The coating on it means it picks up dirt like no other laptop screen ever, and if it's touch enabled it goes crazy whenever you try to clean it. That and if touch is enabled things like Gmail like to add lots of padding around stuff regardless of if you're going to use the touch at all. Frankly, I found the touch utterly useless, especially since the touchpad is so good.
Lewisham 13y ago
For me, the Chromebook killer feature is that it's not got any state: if I borrow someone else's Chromebook, or demolish my own and get a new one, everything I have is back again. I am sick and tired of having to worry about backups! They're such a headache. I think for many users the Chromebook does fine, and I think for many others the Chromebook is too limiting. I would personally be very happy if, say, Chrome OS was built as a dual-boot solution for Microsoft Surface. Chrome for general case, and an escape hatch to Windows for games or whatever. A VM solution hosted in Windows would also work here. However, my last attempt at running Chrome OS in a VM indicated that the open-source version of Chrome OS (at least as downloaded by VMWare) was running at a significant lag behind what's being pushed to Chromebooks right now, so I stopped investigating it any further.
- fidotron 13y ago
  If you run Chrome for Windows 8 on an Intel based Windows tablet in full screen mode it's hilariously similar to Chrome OS. I agree with you on the state thing. The problems we have (hopefully temporary) are the number of choices of where to store our state are inadequate (i.e. too many hosted in the US) and we're living with the layers of crap that is the modern web. The idealist in me would prefer a clean slate completely, but the pragmatist knows they're approaching this in the only way the idea will get traction.

by ufmace 13y ago

lmm 13y ago

If you can find a Macbook with the same specs for anything close to the price of the Chromebook then please do link it.

arjie 13y ago
This guy has a down vote but I believe he is referencing the screen, which has a resolution unmatched by Macbooks at this price. The 'Retina' MacBook costs more.
danieldk 13y ago
The posts above you are talking about the Chromebook Pixel, which had a release price of $1299 (similar to MacBooks) but inferior specs.
- MAGZine 13y ago
  The pixel is very similar to a Macbook Air, (IIRC, thiner/lighter) except has a HD-touch screen. If they refreshed the processor, all that would be missing is a decent harddrive.

quanpod 13y ago

I'm interested to see when a MBP or similar comes out with touch - I'm finding there's a few things I do which naturally work well with touch (e.g. scrolling pages).

fidotron 13y ago
I actually disabled the touchscreen on my Pixel. The coating on it means it picks up dirt like no other laptop screen ever, and if it's touch enabled it goes crazy whenever you try to clean it. That and if touch is enabled things like Gmail like to add lots of padding around stuff regardless of if you're going to use the touch at all. Frankly, I found the touch utterly useless, especially since the touchpad is so good.

Lewisham 13y ago

For me, the Chromebook killer feature is that it's not got any state: if I borrow someone else's Chromebook, or demolish my own and get a new one, everything I have is back again. I am sick and tired of having to worry about backups! They're such a headache. I think for many users the Chromebook does fine, and I think for many others the Chromebook is too limiting. I would personally be very happy if, say, Chrome OS was built as a dual-boot solution for Microsoft Surface. Chrome for general case, and an escape hatch to Windows for games or whatever. A VM solution hosted in Windows would also work here. However, my last attempt at running Chrome OS in a VM indicated that the open-source version of Chrome OS (at least as downloaded by VMWare) was running at a significant lag behind what's being pushed to Chromebooks right now, so I stopped investigating it any further.

fidotron 13y ago
If you run Chrome for Windows 8 on an Intel based Windows tablet in full screen mode it's hilariously similar to Chrome OS. I agree with you on the state thing. The problems we have (hopefully temporary) are the number of choices of where to store our state are inadequate (i.e. too many hosted in the US) and we're living with the layers of crap that is the modern web. The idealist in me would prefer a clean slate completely, but the pragmatist knows they're approaching this in the only way the idea will get traction.