Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Acer Officially Announces C720 Chromebook

timothy posted 1 year,9 days | from the don't-stray-outside-the-wireless-zone dept.

Google 115

adeelarshad82 writes "Acer officially announced its new Chromebook, C720. The C720 is 30% thinner (at 0.75 inches thick) and lighter (at 2.76 pounds) than Acer's previous Chromebook, C7. The C720 Chromebook has an 11.6-inch anti-glare widescreen, with a 1,366-by-768 resolution. Acer claims seven second boot times and up to 8.5 hours of battery life. The C720 comes with 4GB of DDR3L memory and uses an Intel Celeron 2955U processor based on Haswell technology. The system also has 16GB of local SSD storage along with 802.11 a/b/g/n Wi-Fi to get to Google's cloud-based storage. Like previous Chromebooks, the C720 Chromebook is constantly updated with the latest version of the Chrome OS and built around the Chrome browser." One thing this machine lacks is the most intriguing feature of the new ARM-based (and lower-power) Chromebook 11 from HP: charging via Micro-USB.

cancel ×

115 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Crappy screens (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094411)

Keep me from upgrading my current ancient netbook.
Get with the program guys!

Re:Crappy screens (5, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094473)

Yup. I lost interest at 1366 followed by 768.

Re:Crappy screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094729)

What's sad is that my netbook originally came with a 1024x600 screen. I got an aftermarket screen for it, but the best I could upgrade to was 1366x768... I don't understand why laptops/netbooks have such low res and dpi

Re:Crappy screens (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095881)

First is Cost per pixel per square inch. Second is the greater power requirements of greater pixel densities, other things being equal.

So greater pixel densities =... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096233)

Not just greater cost on the screen, but a requirement for a higher capacity / more expensive battery.

Netbooks aren't profitable (1)

rsborg (111459) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097543)

What's sad is that my netbook originally came with a 1024x600 screen. I got an aftermarket screen for it, but the best I could upgrade to was 1366x768... I don't understand why laptops/netbooks have such low res and dpi

There was no market for a high-end netbook, that's why (well, other than the small MB Air). That's a market that Microsoft wanted to create/crack for years - from their original "tablet PC" to "UMPC" to the more Intel-driven "Ultrabooks", the entire market has been a failure (some say, by design to preserve profit margins for the WinTel brothers).

Then the iPad came out and was the death knell (cheap Android tablets being the nails in the coffin to keep the analogy going). Why would a manufacturer create a $500 uber-netbook when they could sell a $500 tablet and not pay Microsoft $50-$200 for an OS (which, because Microsoft really never took it seriously, sucked at touch inputs for all of the 00 decade)?

Re:Crappy screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095005)

I lost interest at Chromebook.

Re:Crappy screens (1)

mythosaz (572040) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096429)

1920x1080 would be fine, as well as a number of higher numbers.

Re:Crappy screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096605)

Anything under 1600x900 is not acceptable at 11.6 inches.
A Nexus 7 (1st generation) is 1280x800, but 7 inches.
2048x1370 would be equivalent pixel density at 11.6 inches.

Having a SD card is good - how about a dual boot to Linux?

Re:Crappy screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45097959)

I love my $150 Nook HD+. 1920x1280 resolution on an 8.9" display. It looks great.

Re:Crappy screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096945)

May I ask what exactly you plan to do with a Chromebook that requires > 1366x768? I'm on the Samsung ARM one right now; it is perfectly adequate for web surfing, using Google Docs to create/edit documents, watching movies, etc. The screen isn't the problem; the thing I dislike most about it is the mousepad with no separate physical buttons.

Re:Crappy screens (1)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094483)

Funny thing is, when i saw this my first thought was "C720? Why would you pick a model designation that invokes numbers associated with crappy video resolutions?

Then I saw it..... "...by-768 resolution" rotfl so that is why they have no worries. Let me know when the C1200 comes out.

Units (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094417)

0.75 inches = 19 mm
2.76 punds = 1.25 kg

Re:Units (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094623)

So it takes approximately 300 bMpc of volume in my backpack? Sounds good.

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095957)

What's the Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation to do with this?

Announcement! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094453)

Anonymous Coward Announces his generic reply to this spamvertisment.

Go product! Yay!

want more pixels, ffs! (5, Insightful)

SMOKEING (1176111) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094493)

It has been told many times already. 768 dots may be OK for a phone. For a laptop, anything less than a 1000 is just sad news.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (1)

lipanitech (2620815) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094631)

I can't be leave were back in the OS wars again windows / mac / ChromeOS / Ubuntu whats old is new.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095313)

And I can't believe you don't use a spellchecker.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095487)

There were no spelling mistakes in the previous post.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095671)

care to explain the meaning of "whats"

Re: want more pixels, ffs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095717)

That's a punctuation error.

Re: want more pixels, ffs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096125)

Please walk to the stage for your award of pedantry of the year.

Re: want more pixels, ffs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096385)

If people are going to be incompetent grammar pricks it is only fair that there own inadequacies are pointed out.

Re: want more pixels, ffs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45097189)

_their_

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (1)

evilviper (135110) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095813)

768 dots may be OK for a phone. For a laptop, anything less than a 1000 is just sad news.

Meh. The resolution is on-par with my EeePC... For a CHEAP laptop, I'm reasonably happy with that resolution, and can wrangle my software into working pretty well with it.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095951)

I have a 1366x768 12.5" notebook and I do significant software development on it. The trick is that I use Ubuntu Unity where it puts the icons on the left side and then it hides the application menus in the top bar. Then I remove all of the toolbars in gedit so that there is only the top Unity bar and then the tab bar and the rest is text entry. It really is enough for me to look at and I don't like to have more than ten open files at once anyways. I've owned a Macbook Pro before with 1440x900 and I can't say that I was more productive. I'd say that the only time that I need more vertical space is when I am using Firebug. Probably developing with Visual Studio with all of the toolbars would be really difficult at this size. Also I feel that in 2013 that the downside to having higher resolutions is that the operating systems and programs are not always good at resizing UI elements and fonts in a useful way so that I would need to squint or manually resize all of the time. For this reason the Macbook Pro Retina is just too early for me but probably the Linux software will be ready in a few years to accomodate it.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (2)

Salgat (1098063) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096179)

It's 720p, which is just fine for an 11" monitor that is only doing basic web browsing, e-mail, and video playing. You have to remember, this is a bottom of the line $250 laptop/netbook, very minimal by design. Considering it's half the price of even new low end laptops, you have to delusional to expect it to be feature rich.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45097923)

How about a decent display and selling for $349?

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (2)

rtb61 (674572) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097693)

I can remember when (and your are begging for this) computer resellers went around making claims to business that they would need nothing beyond amber text based 14 inch screens as they were capable of reproducing all the information a business needed. With regard to this product it is all about cost efficiency, how much bang for how much buck. At $250.00 it seems pretty impressive and a worthwhile contender for reasonable loss with death by misadventure, as long as the SSD is readily removable and can be easily placed into another unit.

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (1)

donaldm (919619) | 1 year,9 days | (#45098787)

It has been told many times already. 768 dots may be OK for a phone. For a laptop, anything less than a 1000 is just sad news.

Actually the High Definition 16x9 aspect ratio standards are 720p (1280×720 pixels), 1080p ( 1920×1080 pixels) and the new 4k or 2160p (3840 × 2160 pixels).

Because the screen size of a laptop is normally small a 1280x720 pixels or better display is normally quite adequate and cost effective for most people. Of course you can get better resolutions but they normally cost more.

We don't like talking about the 1080i standard since it mainly sits in a corner and drools a lot. :)

Re:want more pixels, ffs! (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | 1 year,9 days | (#45098871)

On ChromeOS? Can you even use multiple windows at once on that? If not, 1366x768 is just fine for a single maximized browser window...

Warning: Ad pop-ups on mouse-over (5, Informative)

Misagon (1135) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094499)

The page linked to has annoying ad pop-ups that show when you hover the mouse pointer over keywords. The summary above is practically all the info in the article, so there is no reason to go there.

And by the way... How did this article get up-voted enough to get to the first page? There is nothing particularly interesting about yet another Chromebook with incremental updates over its predecessor ... or is there?

Re: Warning: Ad pop-ups on mouse-over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094709)

Ars seems to like it,
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/acers-c720-chromebook-launched-thinner-longer-lasting-and-haswell/

Re: Warning: Ad pop-ups on mouse-over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095073)

Ars likes what they are paid to like.

But the important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094517)

Will it run Linux?

Pretty darn useful little machines (5, Interesting)

Yold (473518) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094557)

I recently replaced my MacBook Air with a Acer Chromebook refurb I picked up for $150 on ebay. It is an awesome portable dev machine. Good battery life, and Crouton is incredible. You can run Linux and ChromeOS simultaneously (via a chroot); it makes switching between the a matter of two keystrokes. I never thought I'd actually like ChromeOS, but it's actually pretty slick.

Chromebook is a waste (3, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094601)

Why bother making Chromebooks, the market doesn't much seem to care for them. Instead they should be putting Android onto laptops since the market is already very familiar with Android and the marketplace is already well stocked with apps.

The transition from a phone or tablet that runs Android to a laptop that runs Android would be quite minimal. You would be able to continue using very cheap hardware and people wouldn't have to worry about adopting an entire additional OS in their lives. Office applications exist for Android as well as many common applications for any number of purposes.

Google's support for Chrome is puzzling when Android is incredibly entrenched in the market and public conscious. It would also allow Google to concentrate the resource on one Operating System instead of two. When you consider that people are already being forced to learn a new interface with Microsoft's Metro stunt, now is the time to step up to the plate and make Android that interface.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094721)

You mean Google should emulate YOUR successful Win8 strategy.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (5, Informative)

Misagon (1135) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094765)

I see Chromebooks as:
1) For those who want to serf the web casually but prefer mouse and keyboard over touchscreen interfaces.
2) A proper netbook, as it was supposed to be. The first netbooks were quite similar to the Chromebook concept, a legacy-free system with a small (often Linux-based) OS that wasn't too taxing on the machine. Then Windows hijacked the "netbook" concept and made them into underpowered Windows PCs instead.

That said, I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to also run touch-oriented Android apps on the ChromeOS desktop.
Google, go show Microsoft how it should be done!

Re:Chromebook is a waste (5, Funny)

lordofthechia (598872) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096221)

I see Chromebooks as:
1) For those who want to serf the web

Your page is ready m'lord.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096829)

Then Windows hijacked the "netbook" concept and made them into underpowered Windows PCs instead

You don't think it was the OEM's installing Windows on the machines due to customer demand, is what hijacked the concept?

Re:Chromebook is a waste (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094839)

Why bother making Chromebooks, the market doesn't much seem to care for them

Chromebooks are actually doing [pcmag.com] pretty [thestreet.com] well [omgchrome.com] .

I'm a huge Android fan, but there are some issues with apps on Android that don't translate too well to the laptop experience (yet):

  • * While multitasking apps works great, there's no support for multiple on-screen app windows. (though some people have tried to add them [youtube.com] .)
  • * though there is mouse support, there's still a heavy reliance on the touch-based interface compared with laptop point-and-click.

That said, Android is open source. You're free to do a port yourself [cyanogenmod.org] . Some have done so already [gigaom.com] .

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096321)

I think this has been pointed out before. But when articles have to resort to referring to only sub $300 notebooks to describe there market growth it should raise alarm bells. to only have a 20-30% market share in a segment of the market with almost zero competition is a sad sign for them, not one of success.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096921)

We live in a world where you can get a Windows laptop for under $300. Granted, a $300 Windows laptop would likely offers a painfully dreadful user experience, but qualifies as a "real computer" in the mind of a typical consumer. That Google is grabbing a significant chunk of this market with a product that is simultaneously less capable (less storage, at least) while not much cheaper, is worthy of note. Seems even price conscious shoppers will pay for decent design and user experience.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/HP-Winter-Blue-15.6-2000-2b19wm-Laptop-PC-with-AMD-E-300-Accelerated-Processor-and-Windows-8-Operating-System/22610824
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-15-6-34-laptop-4gb-memory-320gb-hard-drive-brown-black/9424061.p?id=1219016114601&skuId=9424061

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45097429)

There are very few "real" computers in the sub $300 market. The ones that are available are generally appalling, if chromebooks after nearly 3 years can't be dominating this low hanging fruit already it smells trouble for them as once they go beyond this section of the market chromebooks are non competitive.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45097475)

sub $300 is a very small niche part of the market. It won't be enough to sustain chrome longterm as there is simply not enough profit in it for manufacturers. It is extremely concerning for chromeOS that this is their only successful segment and even there it hasn't managed to dominate.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (3, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096755)

Is 500,000 in sales considered pretty [digitimes.com] good? To put this in comparison the Surface has been considered a disaster [digitaltrends.com] by many here (myself included) and that sold 1.7 million.

I won't argue your other points on mouse and multiple on-screen app windows as they are quite valid. My point is that I think Google could be much more successful in pushing Android on laptops than Chrome. Certainly there is work that would be needed, but that is absolutely paltry compared to the amount of work that it would take to bring Chrome up to par in terms of apps, developer familiarity and market acceptance.

They might do it (1)

mkdx (1314471) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094923)

Android does not have a proper multi-window management yet. The window manager on Google Linux distribution is better suited for laptops and netbooks.

Re:They might do it (1)

amorsen (7485) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096183)

Android does not have a proper multi-window management yet.

On the upside, neither does anything else anymore. Well KDE maybe. For the rest, the best you can do is make everything full screen with tabs and switch between them. You can put a full screen window on each monitor if you have more monitors though. There are even monitors with built in window managers to make up for OS deficiencies, where you can present a single monitor to the PC as multiple. That sort of highlights the sad state of modern GUIs.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (2)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094973)

Why bother making Chromebooks, the market doesn't much seem to care for them.

Because netbooks became uncool, but the market for them didn't go away.

There's still a substantial market for a small, cheap, light laptop that boots fast and lets you browse the web and type the occasional document. Aren't Chromebooks the best-selling 'laptops' on Amazon these days?

The real question is: will these run Linux, so I can eventually replace my old netbook with one when it dies?

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

onyxruby (118189) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095205)

Because netbooks became uncool, but the market for them didn't go away.

Agreed, and an Android based notebook can be made for netbook based prices. Chromebooks are certainly popular on Amazon, but overall they have only sold about 500,000 [digitimes.com] units so far. That's actually a pretty small fraction of the market and it doesn't change my argument.

There's still a substantial market for a small, cheap, light laptop that boots fast and lets you browse the web and type the occasional document

I couldn't agree with you more, and I think the market could be better served by letting people use Android and the legacy Market. Right now the market is too fragmented and people are reluctant to dive in as who knows what will be the next on the chopping block.

Think about it, both Palm and Blackberry just died in the market recently and now you have Firefox trying to make an OS as well. If your an average person, do you want to go with the small thing, or the big thing you know works because your phone runs on it?

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095215)

You already can using Crouton I believe. It uses CHRoot to move between the two on the fly.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095819)

Several Linux Kernel Devs have installed Fedora on the high end Pixel. I don't know if there are any efforts to support any other machines.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45097229)

I think Fedora intends to support the Samsung ARM Chromebook in the future.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095407)

If google were to put "go and c and c++ engine" like the javascript engine in google chrome it just might take off and might buy one!

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095589)

Most people who see my Acer Chromebook want one. A family friend bought one after I lent him mine while I fixed his laptop... as soon as his wife saw the one he bought, she has kept it as her own. Many people only need to do things via the web these days. I got mine for tech consulting, so I could have a keyboard if I needed to look something up, or kill time in the kitchen at home, but I have noticed that most people who try mine, end up buying one because the price is reasonable (except The Pixel) and great for traveling with.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

evilviper (135110) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095765)

Why bother making Chromebooks, the market doesn't much seem to care for them. Instead they should be putting Android onto laptops since the market is already very familiar with Android and the marketplace is already well stocked with apps.

If you've ever used a dirt-cheap tablet, you know the answer to that...

Android and its apps make numerous assumptions. Things like almost-always connected internet access... GPS hardware... Accelerometers... Touch screens. Small screen sizes that limit multitasking... etc. Running Android apps on devices that LACK any of those features VERY quickly becomes frustrating and utterly pointless.

Similarly, you would be DISGUSTED if you ever ran a "mobile" program on your desktop computer... For a simple example, change your browser's user-agent string to match some common mobile browser. After about 5 minutes of having a tiny phone-sized patch of text in the upper-left hand corner of your screen, you'll hate it and switch back. Here's a quick one... Try browsing Wikipedia's mobile site for an hour or so without throwing your computer out the window:

http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page [wikipedia.org]

The same is true for using mobile apps, where things like the title bar, scroll bars, etc., are all hidden to save screen space. It makes no sense, it's time consuming, and becomes incredibly frustrating when used on a large screen that doesn't strictly NEED those particular workarounds. That's why you'll find so many "HD" apps for Android/IOS in the market, because 10" tablets are near the cut-off point where you want something more similar to desktop apps.

The different form factors are so tremendously far apart that they're just not interchangeable at all. If Google came out with an Android desktop or laptop, you'd be laughing at their foolishness in short order, and swearing you *never* thought it would be a good idea...

Re:Chromebook is a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095927)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2421744,00.asp

I think the market says they want them. Chromebook now owns 25% of sub $300 market.

I spent 90% of my time on a laptop browsing the internet. A chromebook is my next upgrade.

WTF is the sub-$300 market? (1)

rsborg (111459) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097615)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2421744,00.asp

I think the market says they want them. Chromebook now owns 25% of sub $300 market.

I spent 90% of my time on a laptop browsing the internet. A chromebook is my next upgrade.

No where does it quantify this with actual numbers. Kind of like when Amazon says the Kindle is the top selling product on Amazon. Without actual unit numbers it's hard to find out what the $300 market even means.

I laugh every time I hear Amazon decide to trot out their "Kindle rulz!" comments without numbers. If you aren't willing to show how much you've sold you can't say your product is popular at all. SalesRank is not a quantity.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

Antonovich (1354565) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096457)

Why bother making Chromebooks, the market doesn't much seem to care for them. Instead they should be putting Android onto laptops since the market is already very familiar with Android and the marketplace is already well stocked with apps.

Because having to write fully functional webapps and *several* different smartdevice apps sucks. It costs money and takes energy away from developing kick-arse stuff because you have to simultaneously maintain and update several different, incompatible platforms. You should ideally also release all new features simultaneously - neither fun nor cheap. Or we could all just write responsive webapps when they can get the browser experience seamless across devices, and for that you need to keep some momentum up pushing web as a viable platform.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

mythosaz (572040) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096461)

I've never understood this either. Why don't I just want a tablet with keyboard at the same $300 price point new Chromebook devices are coming in at.

12" (class) screens? Seriously?

Where's my >14" (class) screen tablets? I'll get a keyboard, thanks.

Re:Chromebook is a waste (1)

odinjurkowski (879144) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097307)

The education market loves Chromebooks, and I think they will then take off with the general public and many industries before long. So look at why schools love them: - Almost instant boot and wake from sleep. Teachers don't have a lot of time. They hate having to wait and wait while students say a Windows machine is still booting. - Long battery life. You need to be able to get through the day (that may include time when the machine is asleep in between classes and activities). - Cloud storage. Kids break things, and they lose things. The ability to swap one out for another and the student is up and running in 10 seconds and no files have been lost is amazing. - Easy to manage. The management console means a school can deploy and oversee without hiring more staff. Literally, 10 times easier than managing iPads or Windows machines. - Keyboard. I really would not want to give students tablets without a keyboard, so why not just get them a laptop anyway. - Inexpensive. Yes, half the price of an iPad. With school budgets Chromebooks are the cheapest solution by far, not just hardware/software but then factor in the management too. - Safe. No worries about viruses or downloading and wrecking the device. Once again, saves money and saves time securing them. So while some of these features may be found with other solutions, and some of the features may show up in future solutions, right now Chromebooks just can't be beat. Sure, if you have a specific Windows/Mac program you absolutely have to have for a high level course then you need something else. But for typing, browsing, communicating, collaborating, watching, listening, emailing and chatting, and every day use, Chromebooks will handle school needs inexpensively and easily. I'm on a Chromebook right now while my Windows HP laptops collects dust in my office. My iPad is collecting dust. Though I do like my Nexus 7 for browsing Slashdot if I'm just reading.

Chromebooks are torpedoes for Apple/Microsoft (1)

rsborg (111459) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097579)

Why bother making Chromebooks, the market doesn't much seem to care for them.

The Chromebook is a dual-attack against Google's biggest competitors/threats - Microsoft and Apple.

By sucking all the profit margin out of the low end, Microsoft can't levy it's Windows tax on each machine sold. Neither does a Chromebook carry MS Office. Both wins if you're hoping Microsoft's top line sinks... the fact that Apple rules the roost at the top end puts Microsoft in the same vice-grip that effectively killed Nokia and Blackberry in the smartphone space.

By simplifying ChromeOS so not even updates are manually handled, they make them simpler than Macbooks (it does less, but with more and more stuff being done on the web/cloud, it might be a moot point in a few years for mainstream users). And the Pixel was defintely a shot against the bow against Apple, targeting the high-end Retina MB Pros.

The Chromebook is a disruptive product, designed to torpedo both Apple and Google, first. And while doing so, support Google's services second.

While all of this is enjoyable and worthy of a bowl of popcorn as a bystander, the fact remains that Google has decided that Chrome needs to be an OS and not a browser first, and I see it in Chrome's recent bloat. It's a pity.

What it doesn't have (2)

koan (80826) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094639)

An usable screen size for anyone over 40, a keyboard usable by anyone but a small handed former female Foxxcon employee (slave?), storage of any real kind, because *YOU* use the *Cloud* and the cloud is the continuation of turning the computer into a fixed media device... or for the slow minded out there, a TV.

Re:What it doesn't have (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094739)

Mr microsoft, we will root these devices and remove all the Spy-From-Above ("Cloud") stuff. Scrap UEFI so that we can do the same with your devices. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:What it doesn't have (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45097587)

The problem is, you do not know what is in any machine any more, it isn't as simple as putting a different OS on.

Re:What it doesn't have (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097771)

the cloud is the continuation of turning the computer into a fixed media device... or for the slow minded out there, a TV.

+1 Insightful

One word is all I needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094731)

"Celeron"

Every Celeron based machine I've ever used has SUCKED. Nothing worth while here, time to move on.

Re:One word is all I needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095955)

Celeron is a good bit better than atom though. It's a dual-core ULV machine under $300. For an ULV with i5 you'r looking at a $750 entry point. Suprisingly has Vt-X enabled. I'd never put windows on it, but for a linux backend doing little more than browsing, it should be more tha suffecient.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75608/

Mfg using Chrome to offload their stockpile (1)

vision33r (829872) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094761)

Mfg using Chrome to offload their stockpile of outdated early 2000 parts like 1366x768 netbook screens. These are $150 netbooks being repackaged as new Chromebooks. It's working, a lot of Google fans are buying these cheap internet terminals. They're also holding back high quality screens from being mass produced.

Re:Mfg using Chrome to offload their stockpile (3, Informative)

jandrese (485) | 1 year,9 days | (#45094789)

You know what's ridiculous? Literally 90% of the 15" laptops on Newegg use that crap resolution. And people wonder why Laptop sales have been flagging.

Re:Mfg using Chrome to offload their stockpile (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096151)

Insightful. Sorry no mod points, but having shopped for a laptop recently I was sorely disapointed. Luckily, Lenovo offers a 1080 thinkbook. In general, the configurability of laptops is way down from what it once was. I miss gateway...

Re:Mfg using Chrome to offload their stockpile (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45094927)

mfg?

My Former Girlfriend?
Manufacturing?
Madagascar Fauna Group?
mfg.com [wikipedia.org] ?

wha-?

Re:Mfg using Chrome to offload their stockpile (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096079)

Manufacturer's don't stockpile equipment like that. What happens is they have capital sitting around that can make 1366x768 netbook screens, but not 1440x900 or better. Since the capital is old and hopefully aready paid for they can afford to manufacture the screen at just above marginal costs. Higher quality screens can be made, but the premium isn't high enough to induce the phase out of lower quality screens. In addition the lower price point hardware is much more competative on the price point to you don't see a lot of variation in the materials used, and the mid range has a lot more differences on what qualities are emphasized.

Do Not Want (1)

ilikenwf (1139495) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095095)

I'm a power user and while I use google products, I certainly don't trust them. That said, I understand planned obsolescence, but I really just want to see some ARM systems put out that are comparable to modern x86 machines in terms of specs.

If anything this should have an HD display, 4-8 core processor, and 8GB ram for me to even care about it.

Likewise, on the non-mobile front, I wish Cubie and these other manufacturers would produce something that'd fit in a standard case, accept standard RAM modules up to 32 or 64gb, not have limitations on the gigabit ethernet controller, and have more than one SATA port. I want a real computer, only with the ARM architecture and power savings.

I nag the manufacturers and they just brush it off.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095251)

Then it wouldn't be $150. I think you are missing the point of cheap. It shouldn't need a 4-8 core processor or 8Gb of ram to run Chrome in browser apps. That would be overkill.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | 1 year,9 days | (#45098683)

but I really just want to see some ARM systems put out that are comparable to modern x86 machines in terms of specs.

Why do you care if it's ARM? There are plenty of actual x86 machines that would meet your requirements available today.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45098697)

Arm's reduced power usage coupled with it's relatively lower price for the same power is very, very attractive, especially for always on machines. I realize the atom machines are comparable, but many of those also need fans. Even the ones that don't will consume more wattage.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | 1 year,9 days | (#45098821)

No ARM CPU exists that provides performance that is comparable to an i3/i5/i7 x86 CPU. And if one did exist, it would have similar power characteristics. If the OP is willing to give up big-core CPU performance and would be willing to accept ARM-level performance, Intel's latest Atom, "Bay Trail", has as good or better performance and power characteristics to the low-power ARM stuff available today.

*sigh* (2)

sootman (158191) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095185)

> The C720 Chromebook has an 11.6-inch anti-glare
> widescreen, with a 1,366-by-768 resolution.

So it's like the 1024x768 Compaq laptop I had 15 years ago, but with 342 more pixels of width? Progress!

Dear laptop makers: moar pixels, please. Even my original 13" MacBook from 2006 ago had more vertical pixels. (1280x800)

Re:*sigh* (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095561)

1366*768 is more pixels than 1280*800, tens of thousands more pixels.

Re:*sigh* (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095711)

This machine is also about a fifth of the price. The resolution still sucks of course, but it certainly is cheap.

Re:*sigh* (1)

sootman (158191) | 1 year,9 days | (#45098061)

1) It's only about 25,000 more pixels. So 2.5 "tens of thousands" more.

2) I said the MacBook had more VERTICAL pixels. I.e., height. 800 > 768.

Give 100% of your life to Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095225)

What a wise idea!

Hmm, I may just get one.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45095265)

It's nice to see a bump up in the CPU, but is it really that hard to cram in a gigabit ethernet port and bluetooth radio? The wife would rather choose a Macbook Air, but it's getting difficult to compete with this pricepoint for something that is so soldered down that storage & ram are permanent....

Too bad about the Chrome. (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095345)

I had a Chromebook for about 3 days. Most of that time it was back in the box waiting for my next run to town to return it. I'd bought the Acer with a 320 gig hard drive expecting to either use it as a media player or torrent machine depending on which it did better. Neither. It can't access local network resources. And it couldn't handle any of my media files even tho they're h.264 and it's supposed to be able to play that format. So no media player. What about torrent clients? Nope. All I could find were remote control plugins to control clients running on other machines. When I complained about this on the official Chromebook forums I was told that it would be a lot of work to add local network support. Um...oooooookay. Oh, and, if I want to watch my local content, there are remote desktop solutions. I can just use those. Then W[hy]TF do I need the Chromebook?

I'm pretty Googleized with apps and drive and my android portables but the Chromebook was a real case of, "What the fuck is this shit???" I spent another $55 on a 'doze laptop and installed Chrome. Gives me all the Google integration I need without limiting what I can do with the platform.

Questions (3, Interesting)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095425)

How does Ubuntu run on it? Or any other decent linux distro? How is battery life under GNU/Linux? Does it also run Wine? (Need to run some windows apps on it)

I'm interested in getting one as a replacement for my EEE, especially since it has a non-glare screen, but this "Chrome OS" would be useless for me.

Re:Questions (4, Informative)

Yold (473518) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095837)

It runs OK (google Chrubuntu), but the WiFi and trackpad drivers were so finicky that it was a deal breaker. ChromeOS actually is a stripped down version of Linux, which means that you can actually run a full-blown linux desktop along side it via Crouton (using a chroot). If that sounds tedious, it is actually fool-proof to install.
Since the trackpad and WiFi drivers are still handled by ChromeOS (again, a linux kernel), it works great! If you are looking for a good linux laptop, I'd highly recommend it, especially if price and battery are your two main considerations.

 

12V charging is better than USB... (3, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095483)

One thing this machine lacks is the most intriguing feature of the new ARM-based (and lower-power) Chromebook 11 from HP: charging via Micro-USB.

To hell with your freaky mutually-incompatible and non-standard ways to get 3amps over USB! Give me a 12V DC, positive-center barrel plug any day... Vastly more durable than MicroUSB junk, and far cheaper.

Car adapters cost $3, since they're just a cord... Wall adapters are also dirt-cheap, and I can use any of the dozen I have lying around... Everything from my Netbook, to my GbE switch, to my computer speakers, to my NiMH battery charger, to my portable fan, to my UPSes, to my old video game consoles, ALL run on 12V DC. They can all swap adapters, because there's no crazy non-standard resistor levels on other pins that make half of them incompatible with the other half... And unlike MicroUSB jacks with the tiny reed in the center, barrel plugs are practically bullet-proof, can be inserted easily in any orientation, etc.

I tolerate MicroUSB as a middle-of-the-road standard, that is better than a complete mis-mash of incompatible charging connectors, and varying voltages (3? 7.5? 9? WTF?), but only for small devices. Tablets should NEVER have started using it, and larger phones that can't fully charge with 5V should be jumping to 12V DC barrel-plugs ASAP, and getting everyone on a compatible, higher-power standard.

Re:12V charging is better than USB... (2)

amorsen (7485) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096247)

To hell with your freaky mutually-incompatible and non-standard ways to get 3amps over USB!

USB3 provides completely standard 5A charging. It's great that you love 12V. I don't think I have a single 12V device, all my notebook-type devices are 19V with weird plugs, and everything else is a random value from 3V to 24V (but strangely not 12V), sometimes AC and sometimes DC, with no relation between plug type and voltage or current requirements. I have discarded otherwise-functioning devices because I lost the power cord and it was not worth it to get a new one.

I really look forward to getting it all onto USB3.

Re:12V charging is better than USB... (1)

evilviper (135110) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096579)

USB3 provides completely standard 5A charging.

Not really... USB3 ports are only 900mAh. High power is only possible for dedicated "charging" ports that can't really do any actual USB things.

And the USB3 charging-only scheme is technically "standard" only in that the company that writes the specs endorsed one of the incompatible methods... So if companies don't adopt it, then it may be an official/de-jury standard, but it will still be de-facto non-standard.

1366x768 (1)

ichthus (72442) | 1 year,9 days | (#45095591)

Yay, yet another notebook with a resolution lower than a... *blink* EFFING GALAXY S4 CELLPHONE! My first PC was a 386 back in 1991. It had a Viewsonic graphics card and 14" CRT with 1024x768. 22 years ago. Same vertical rez. Dammit, guys.

Re:1366x768 (1)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096129)

Far lower, the Galaxy S4 has an impressive 1080 x 1920 pixels on it's pocket sized screen.

But then Acer build things as cheaply as they possably can. The S4 will likely keep working years longer than anything from Acer and give you far fewer problems.

Acer quality (2)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,9 days | (#45096071)

Everything, and I mean everything, I ever brought from acer stopped working within 3 years. They make the lowest cost laptops because they use the cheapest parts. Saving $50 by buying acer is false economy.

Re:Acer quality (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097799)

My second PC was an Acer 486DX2 that I paid around $1600 for in 1994. I got three years of good service out of it, then gave it to my sister-in-law's kids and they used it a couple more. Mind you, this was two decades ago; maybe Acer's gotten worse.

Infinite battery life (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096289)

So... if it charges via micro USB and has a USB port then all I need a microUSB cable for INFINITE battery life? I'm sold.

Acer - Never again (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096473)

I bought an Acer A500 a few yrs ago. It is still a good tablet, but hasn't gotten any OS patches in about a year. Don't tell me that Android 4.02 is bug free.

Don't get me started on the 16inch long power adapter that was broke when it arrived or the replacement that broke 5 months later due to the really strange cable design. It broke mid-cable, not at the ends.

Acer lost me as a customer. HP, Compaq, SONY, and a few others have all lost me for similar reasons over the years. Compaq's desktop equipment was a joke - never should have been shipped. It crashed constantly and their support people had me downloading different drivers for every part every week. Before I knew it, the warranty was up and I couldn't return it.
HP wanted to charge for drivers for a digital camera that was complete crap. 4 AA batteries would be drained overnight without taking a single photo. Is $120 for drivers too much?

Acer has joined those groups. Vendors can't treat a networked computer like they treat a simple toaster.

what it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#45096737)

the chromebook is the net appliance done right.

Why I use my Samsung Chromebook all the time (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | 1 year,9 days | (#45097871)

I am using it way more than my windows notebook, my android tablet, my kindle, or my ipod touch.

- fast boot
- small and lightweight
- long battery life
- enough power to load websites in a reasonable time
- real keyboard
- no worries about malware
- screen, and keyboard, big enough to be useful
- screen is high enough resolution for everything I use it for - and I am well over 40 years old.

It is not perfect for everything. But for the $145 I paid, I'm very happy. I'd buy it again.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?