Linux PC retailer ZaReason has released one of its first computers with an Intel Broadwell processor. The ZaReason Zini 1550 is a tiny desktop computer which sells for $549 and up.
It’s based on Intel’s NUC mini PC platform, but unlike some NUC systems, the Zini 1550 comes with memory, storage, and an operating system which means you should be able to start using the computer almost as soon as you plug it in.
The Zini 1550 measures 4.5″ x 4.3″ x 1.2″ and the entry-level model features 4GB of RAM, 120GB of storage, and an Intel Core i3-5010U Broadwell processor. It supports dual-band 802.11ac WiFi, Gigabit Ethernet, and Bluetooth.
There are four USB 3.0 ports, a mini HDMI port, and mini DisplayPort, as well as a headphone jack. Note that the computer isn’t fanless… but ZaReason says it has a “silent fan,” which should at least be fairly quiet.
You can opt for additional storage or memory, and ZaReason plans to offer an Intel Core i5-5250 processor option soon.
ZaReason offers a range of operating system options including Ubuntu, Linux Mint, OpenSUSE, Debian, and Fedora.
This isn’t the first Broadwell NUC-based mini PC to ship with Linux. The System76 Meerkat is a similar system that has a starting price of $499. But that’s the price for a model with 4GB of RAM and just 32GB of storage. The Meerkat is also a slightly larger device that measures 1.9 inches thick and which has room for a 2.5 inch hard drive or SSD. Like most System76 computers, it’s only available with Ubuntu (but there’s nothing stopping you from installing your own operating system).
Why do hardware vendors consistently charge too much for “Linux” hardware?
You can put together a real Intel NUC from Amazon with the same specs for less than $400 and install Linux on it yourself. And this would all be top notch hardware (Intel, Crucial, Samsung).
First, any OS they pre-install means they have to provide support and that in turn means it’s not free!
Everything from driver optimization to the customer support issues with the system have to be covered by the OEM… It’s actually cheaper for them to not provide a pre-installed OS because then they don’t have to provide software support to their customers!
It doesn’t help that most desktop Linux distros don’t have a centralized support system and the OEM’s invariably usually wind up installing a custom version of the distro that they then have to provide updates for… even more if they use parts that come from hardware companies that don’t provide much, or any, support for Linux and thus they have to develop their own drivers, etc…
Compare this versus a regular Windows system that gets free MS support and free MS updates, industry provided driver support, and other software companies that often pay the OEM to have their software included in the installation (what we call bloatware)… all helping to lower costs for the OEM…
Second, GNU/Linux user base still represents less than 2% of the PC market… There are more Chromebook users than desktop Linux users, nearly double! So cost per unit sold for the OEM tends to be higher, unless they have a identical model sold with Windows then it’s harder for the OEM to make up their investment costs for the R&D that goes into making the system and the production run that they can’t be sure they will actually make a profit on…
So prices tend to be higher… Not for all, there are ways to still provide a low cost system with GNU/Linux pre-installed, but choices are usually so limited that they often still go with the higher priced solution to better compete with the mainstream choices…
You seem to forget that both Microsoft and the OEM have to make a profit in the process.
Seriously, the OEM can set any price they want _for_Linux_support_. There is no reason the hardware itself needs to be more expensive.
More seriously, how many times have you found OEM/Microsoft “support” to be helpful?
(If you have found it helpful, I bet you were working for a large enterprise at the time.)
You’re either replying to the wrong person or you don’t understand what I’ve stated….
The OEMs adjust the cost of the hardware according to things like the production run, which for GNU/Linux means a usually much smaller production run and thus a higher unit cost…
While the cost of Windows is very small for the OEM, usually less than $50 and can be only $15 if they just default the search engine to Bing, but add bloatware and the cost can become nil or less…
Never mind the support cost differences… Which I also pointed out it’s cheaper for the OEM to offer no OS!
It’s really only cheaper for the end user to opt for desktop Linux but not the OEM…
Btw, it’s irrelevant whether you think MS support is good or not because the alternative is no support and putting all the costs of support on the OEM!
And we are talking about support that covers both the OEM and end user…
You are confused about several things. First of all, Most OEMs do provide Windows support, that is why they get Windows as cheaply as they do. Second, you talk about the cost of a production run, but on Windows machines there are usually many models per OEM… there are few Linux vendors, there is no reason to believe the production runs (for a single machine) are sized that much differently.
This never stopped Chromebooks from being relatively cheap, even when there were few people using them.
Chinese OEMs routinely put out inexpensive Android devices, sometimes in very odd form factors. There is no way that the production runs for these would exceed a production run of a quality Linux box at a good price.
All I want is good drivers that support full the machine they are delivering.
Chromebooks prove this is possible.
Sorry but no, I’m not confused… You’re just not understanding what I’m pointing out…
Yes, OEMs do provide support but only because they’re the ones who installed the OS but this support doesn’t exist in a vacuum… MS supports the OEM as well as the end user!
The problem is that isn’t the case with a desktop Linux installation and means the OEM has to provide all the support, as well as the R&D to optimize the distro for their system, providing the driver updates, etc.
So the difference is the OEM doesn’t have to provide all the support with Windows because there’s already a infrastructure of support for them to draw upon and they can refer any OS specific IT support questions to MS as they’re mainly only responsible for what they may have changed with the install…
Understand, most desktop Linux distros have little to no support system… Most support is from fellow users in community forums and most developers aren’t gong to be working with every single OEM like MS does… Most distro developers barely have the resources to put out a up to date distro, let alone provide support for it… So, unless it’s a common problem/fix then users invariably have to provide their own support…
But, under the condition of a pre-installed desktop Linux then the OEM bears the responsibility but can’t draw upon the developers to help with the support and run into more trouble if they customize the distro as then they become the defacto developer for their branch of the distro and become responsible for every aspect of its upkeep and updating…
Add that not all hardware vendors provide decent Linux support and that just adds to the cost for the OEM who then needs to develop their own drivers, if they can’t find a Open Source driver… The number of closed driver support is still a inhibiting factor for Linux usage and even with companies that provide Linux support many still lag behind their support for Windows…
All of this just adds to the cost for the OEM…
Btw, Chromebooks started expensive… The first Chromebooks were priced higher than equivalent Windows netbook devices with the exact same hardware!
It took a couple of years before they finally got cheap and that was mainly because the hardware had gotten cheaper! While, I already pointed out that Chromebooks now have about twice the market share as desktop Linux, giving companies that make Chromebooks a far better chance to make a profit on their product runs and they also get support from Google, which unlike most desktop Linux developers does provide support for their products… along with better name recognition, compared to the virtually non-existent marketing for most Desktop Linux distros…
Anyway, I was just explaining why these pre-installed Desktop Linux systems tend to be priced higher despite using a technically free OS…
And don’t fall into the trap of trying to compare products like Android with desktop Linux… Aside from both using the Linux Kernel they’re very different!
Most Android apps are hardware agnostic, which means most apps don’t rely on the OS being optimized for the hardware and can run basically on any platform… So most of the support that a desktop OS requires isn’t needed for Android… Never mind that it’s backed by an actual company other than just the OEM… Similarly, Chrome runs a browser on top of the basic OS and thus most of the Chrome Apps don’t require any support from the OEM to run well…
Again, you’re showing confusion. Chromebooks did not start out “more expensive”. I had the two earliest on the market and they sold slightly below the cheapest Windows laptops (that had the same hardware). That was remarkable because they have to have TPMs which were expensive at the time.
They quickly fell in price.
Linux has a market _NOW_, according stack overflow’s developer survey:
over 20% of developers develop under Linux. That greatly exceeds the Chromebook market prior to the last 12-15 months.
It’s true that OEMs have to do a small amount of integration work, but again, most of that these days is done by Intel. Intel had the necessary Linux drivers available from the start.
You keep going on about user “support” under Linux…. they do not have to offer that. The vast majority of Linux buyers would be satisfied if they simply made sure proper drivers were available and maintained.
Sorry but Chromebooks did start out more expensive! The first Samsung Chromebook started at $429 for the Wi-Fi only version, but equivalent Netbooks were $350 or less!
Only really cheap built quality Chromebooks, like the one Acer made back then, came close to Netbook pricing…
A year before the netbook market bottomed out they had already reached the $200 price point for their lowest model… Something that took years for Chromebooks to achieve… Even the first ARM based Chromebook, which automatically means it’s using cheaper hardware than any x86 system, started at over $249 for the WiFi only model and they always offered very little storage…
And who do you think you’re fooling with that 20% nonsense? We’re talking about desktop Linux not the whole Linux market!
The 20% includes Android, servers, and embedded devices! But none of that translates to the desktop market!
Even in your link it states the following…
Desktop Linux still has less than 2% of the market, even Chromebooks are just under 4% and it took them years to get that far!
And no, the vast majority of desktop users would absolutely not be satisfied with nothing but a installation!
There’s a list of reasons why desktop Linux has never managed to gain much market share in nearly two decades! Lack of support being one of the prime reasons!
Never mind the cost to the OEM due to that lack of support seem to be going completely over your head!
Every single product released by a OEM requires some level of R&D costs, unless they just copy an existing product… and if the OEM can’t get any support from the software developers then that means they have to cover that cost themselves and the added costs invariably get passed on to the final consumers!
Add the costs for supporting a installed OS that would fall fully under the OEM with no help whatsoever from the OS developer just adds even more costs to the OEM…
What you’re thinking of only applies to end users who don’t have to worry about any of that and can just install and run whatever they want…
But most users are the type that just want something that works, preferably as is out of the box, and while they may accept some setup hurdles they absolutely don’t want to make it a regular thing… Like every single time the distro gets updated and they either have to wait for the OEM to push the update or do it themselves or risk getting no support from the OEM after the minimum time period for warranty had passed…
This versus MS that supports each OS release for a minimum of 10 years… XP got supported for just over 14 years! So can easily outlast the system warranty…
Really, like it or not there are very real reasons why desktop Linux systems tend to cost more…
Never mind the desktop market decline wasn’t even limited to Windows as OSX also suffered losses and the market hasn’t exactly recovered yet… So products that have very low likelihood of making big sales numbers are going to be priced higher to help ensure the OEM makes a profit otherwise it simply isn’t worth their time!
Sure, it sucks but I answered the original question and what I stated is true!
Quite simply what you are calling “equivalent netbooks” were not equivalent they had much lesser processors (which were not available with TPMs).
Nonsense, a N550/N570 ATOM didn’t have any any lesser versions! It was the first widely used dual core ATOM that wasn’t limited to larger bulkier systems… And we’re talking old school ATOM which could barely run Windows!
The TPM was just provided by a separate optional chip on the motherboard and worked with the firmware!
Mind that netbooks came out a few years before Intel got serious about competing with ARM and up till Medfield and Clover Trail the ATOM was over 5 years behind the market curve and the early Chromebooks used those same ATOM parts!
The only real difference was the Chromebooks were usually larger, 11.6″ to 12.1″, as they didn’t go down to 10.1″ like Netbooks did, but still had less than HD resolution, and Chromebooks came with tiny SSD drives of 16GB, while most Netbooks came with 500GB HDDs…
Really, look up the Samsung Chromebook Series 5 or Acer AC700 Chromebook for specific examples to check their specs and you’ll see I’m correct!
So, if you’re done trying to revision history then I’d say this matter is settled!
One year after the first publically released Chromebooks, the Samsung 550 ships and has a Celeron 867 and 4Gb of memory. The N570 is faster than the N550 and netboooks at the price range you are claiming did not have the N550, nor did they have 2Gb of memory, nor did they have 500 Gb hard drives (320 at best), nor did they even come close to the battery life of a Chromebook.
As the the 16Gb SSD.. they were expensive at that point.
And they were much faster.
Face it, early Chromebooks always matched the specs of low-end laptops, not netbooks and were slightly cheaper.
People that don’t like Chromebooks like to compare them with netbooks, but the comparison was never really valid.
The N570 was only 1.66GHz and the N550 was 1.5GHz… But the performance was virtually identical… Again, this is in the old netbook days when the ATOM could barely provide enough performance to run Windows!
A mere 160MHz advantage accounted for little more than a tiny margin on benchmarks that users would never notice in actual usage! Especially, in an inefficient processor!
Early ATOM was chosen for its low power requirements, not it’s performance efficiency!
A single core ATOM N270 at 1.6GHz performed only as well as a Celeron M at less than 900Mhz but the ATOM ran cooler and used less power even at near double the clock speed… and the early Dual Core ATOMs were similarly inefficient!
So other than showing you don’t have a clue, I can name a list of netbooks with both the N550 and N570 that were cheaper than the Chromebooks! Many simply got updated to the N570 when it came out and kept the same price…
Acer, Asus, etc regularly released low priced netbooks that either started or quickly dropped to below $300… Especially, by the time Chromebooks started to come out…
At the time Chromebooks were coming out Netbooks were already starting to be highly discounted… Models that used to start at $429 went down to $350 or less and the lowest end model hit $200 long before any Chromebook ever got close to that price point!
And no, Chromebooks didn’t have great battery life when they were first shipped… There were netbooks with battery life exceeding 7 hours, some with extra large batteries even claimed over 11 hours!
While early Chromebooks often shipped with smaller batteries and those with even more powerful processors like the Celeron 867 had even worse battery life!
So face it, Chromebooks never matched the netbooks for price!
The only reason they now excel is because there aren’t any netbooks anymore and yet they still haven’t exceeded the numbers that Netbooks had at their peak!
The industry specifically conspired to kill off netbooks because their profit margins were so small you could only profit if you sold a significant number of them!
Even now you can’t find a Chromebook for less than $200, unless it’s a old and discontinued model… While just before they got dropped from the market netbooks could easily be found on sale for less than $200…
Even a near top range option like the Eee PC 1025CE had a price range of $279 to $369… as it supported up to 4GB of RAM… While even the 12.1″ Asus netbooks had comparably better specs for the money… as the Chromebooks that used ATOM also had below HD resolution screens but the Asus 12.1″ Netbooks, like the Eee PC 1215P, etc. had 1366×768 HD screens… Those with Nvidia Ion GPU of course also had much better graphical performance as well and still could be had for less than $500…
And Netbooks did have 500GB HDDs!
They started with small SSDs (Just using Asus as an example, Eee PC 70x models to early 90x models with 2-8GB primary drives and 8-16 secondary)… Then moved on to 80GB HDD (mostly as an optional extra for the early SSD netbooks, except for a few other early adopters like Dell), then moved on to 160GB HDD (900HD, and most of 1000x series), and then moved on to 320GB HDD (1001x, 1015x series) and a year before they started to die out and just around when Chromebooks started to show up they hit 500GB HDDs!
Besides, none of your objections even change my points! 320GB HDD are still a heck of a lot more storage than a 16GB SSD! Early Chromebooks were still priced higher than most Netbooks and even where they were close the netbooks were still considered the better deal at the time… because netbooks could be more easily upgraded, were more flexible, could more easily run GNU/Linux without having to work around the system firmware like you had to with Chromebooks with the developers mode requirement, able to do more due to how early Chromebooks were very limited in what they could do and relied on always having a Internet connection, etc…
While all the factors that account for why OEMs tend to charge higher prices for systems with desktop Linux pre-installed are all true!
The only thing you got right is that people do over emphasize the comparisons between Chromebooks and Netbooks… but you were wrong to apply it to this conversation because I was never making a direct comparison other than pointing out the cost of the systems and why the price was different, which applied to my original points!
Because Chromebooks should have had a advantage from the start but didn’t!
Any product with lack of support and no guarantee of getting significant sales numbers is more than likely to be priced higher! Even having part of the equation filled with support covered but still small market and no guarantee of sales still leaves OEMs tending to raise prices to help ensure profits…
Business are in it for profit but if profit is a gamble then they will usually hedge their bets and opt for the best chance of getting a profit, which usually means charging more… as that then lowers the number of units you have to sell to break even… It’s even justifiable if the options are rare and hard to find in the market…
It also costs them more when they limit the size of production and can’t ensure sales, it costs them more if they can’t off load any of the support costs, it cost them more if they need to invest more into the R&D than they would other more established products, etc.
So, like it or not pre-installed desktop Linux systems are usually not going to be as cheap as some think they should be…
I guess you missed all those $149 Chromebook announcements last week then?
I guess you missed all the Windows 8 tablets that can be had for less than $100 for several months already!
Like I pointed out before to you the only reason Chromebooks are cheap now is because the technology has gotten to the point that they’re a lot cheaper to make now!
Tablets are naturally more expensive to make than laptops to boot… Back in the Netbook days they usually were well over a thousand for even a basic Windows tablet… Even the Netbook based tablets were priced at over $500…
But now you can get a Windows 8 tablet with over twice the performance of a N570 ATOM and over 5 times the power efficiency for less than a hundred!
Never mind, as I already pointed out, Netbooks were already really affordable before they died out. So, if they had continued then they would have just gotten even cheaper now and would continue to be cheaper than Chromebooks!
Really, the Rockchip RK3288 in that $149 Chromebook is one of the dirt cheap China made SoCs!
So of course they can offer it for less but they didn’t do it because Chromebooks are somehow cheap to make but because they’re using dirt cheap hardware to make it!
Really, they have Rockchip RK3288 mobile devices you can easily get for well below $100… Meaning they’re still charging a fair bit for their profit margins… and that $149 Chromebook isn’t even being made by a big name company that is known well outside of China…
So, if you’re through wasting our time, I consider this matter settled!
Ive got a quad core tablet with parts made by Rockchip. It positively flies. Not remotely slow.
And as for low end Windows crap, no thanks. I’ve had to use others low end i3 win 8 machines (to show them how to do something) and compared to my 1.1ghz dual core haswell Celeron Acer Chromebook, they are laughably slow.
My chrome book starts in seconds and is on the web a few seconds later.
4mins later and those Windoze machines, have just finished booting and feel like wading through treacle.
If you think Rockchip flies then you have no idea where the upper range is for mobile SoCs… But, if you’re happy with it then that’s what matters to you…
Btw, a modern Windows 8, and later, device boots fast too and is a full desktop and not just a browser… And there’s a difference from hybrid boot or waking from sleep from doing a cold start…
Even Android devices can take awhile to do a cold start… Which is why most of the time that’s avoided…
A lot of the boot speed is simply because of a SSD, which Chromebooks come default with… Albeit very small 16GB drives that force you to rely on cloud storage…
So your comparison between a Core i3 and a Haswell Celeron is laughable… The i3 is better, the Celeron is specifically a limited version of the Core processor with lower clocks and fewer features enabled…
Regular laptops just usually use slow HDD and you’re probably used to slower versions of Windows but if you wiped the drive and installed Chrome OS you won’t find the boot time improved much because of the HDD and firmware setup…
But you will find it a lot easier to run the OS of your choice on the regular configured system that a highly optimized one…
Chromebooks and ARM devices don’t give a lot of user control options over the firmware and ARM especially makes it hard to just run the desktop Linux distro of your choice and expect everything to just work, nevermind other options…
While running a full desktop isn’t as easy to run as a browser or mobile OS but you can usually do a lot more with a desktop OS…
Anyway, comparing apples and oranges differences isn’t valid unless you consider them in context… Otherwise I could say something similar to what you stated but say something you liked sucked and it would equally be a pointless statement just simply trying to justify a like and dislike of certain products… Especially, obvious when such opinions do not reflect the actual market!
I had a windows laptop with an ssd and in no way does Windows 8 boot quick or run as fast as either my Chromebook or Any of my Linux distros I use (which are full OS’s). And my CURRENT Chromebook is one of the rare 320gb non ssd models, It boots in seconds, browsers in seconds and run everything in seconds.
And chrome store is already full of applications that are designed to run from the web and Linux ones like Libre can been run via Rollapp or are being made into cloud based versions (LibreOffice has already announced they developing a cloud version).
If you compare better even i3 spec PCs based on Windows 8 with either my Chromebook or Linux installs, you would be left in the dust. And as I have said I have used others cheap Win 8 machines, they are CRAP. The interface is a dogs breakfast and most people have chosen to stay with Windows 7 and XP, in a lot of cases chose Win 7 over Win 8.
People use what they are given, Windows comes pre-installed on most machines. Its inertia and laziness to explore that keeps people on old systems like Windoze and software lock in. Something Microsoft relies on to trap people on their Office products.
I have had enough time to boil the kettle and take a shit in the time its takes my friends Win 8 machine to boot. AND IT RUNS EVERYTHING SO SLOW ITS LIKE WADING THROUGH TREACLE. It cant even run a browser quick.
For most laptop tasks which Chromebooks are designed for you simply dont need a powerful chip. And when I say a Rockchip is enough, it really is enough when used with Chrome OS. MORE THAN ENOUGH.
Those cheap Win 8 Machines you seem to think are better are simply a pile of shit. They cant compete even with an i3 CPU backing them.
Sorry but you seem to be biased… Windows 8 hybrid boots lets it start in less than 10 seconds with a SSD… In some cases you can start within a few seconds!
Only from a cold start would it take longer but with a SSD you can still start Windows in less than 30 seconds with a modern fast SSD, unless you have a badly set up installation…
While what runs faster in Windows or GNU/Linux depends, as they have different advantages and different disadvantages… And GNU/Linux doesn’t have a comparable alternative to Modern/Metro apps that do run faster than the desktop apps and require less resources to run…
And no, Chrome doesn’t have anywhere near the capabilities of a full desktop OS… And cloud based services are hardly that reliable yet and you can only use them while connected, which can’t always be guaranteed… Especially, with more and more users being mobile most of the time…
It’s really laughable that you think a Core i3 spec PC would be left in the dust when your Chromebook is so massively under powered and less capable…
You can’t run the OS of your choice on a Chromebook, you can’t run as many productivity apps or games or apps in general as you can with a desktop system… You’re tied to the Internet with Chromebook with only very limited off line functionality… Native apps are few and far between in Chrome and that means you aren’t even using the full performance of the hardware of your device!
Even choices of desktop Linux is limited on Chromebooks as most solutions just enable to use the underlining Ubuntu based part that actually runs the hardware but the firmware doesn’t allow you to just install any version of desktop Linux without issue… and the options are even less on a ARM based Chromebook that doesn’t even give you the full functionality of Chrome…
And no, people don’t use Windows simply because of laziness… It’s laziness to not realize a lot more is involved! People like choices and they simply get a lot more choices on a typical Windows system! People also like to get support and they’re more likely to get it with a Windows system… People like flexibility and despite its issues Windows does allow a lot of flexibility…
With as much effort as it takes to customize a desktop Linux installation, like switching between KDE to Gnome, etc. the average user can completely customize their Windows installation, using 3rd party apps or simply knowing what to change…
And Open Source software isn’t limited to just Linux… Many popular desktop Linux apps are also available on Windows along with all the decades of Windows apps that also draw users…
So don’t confuse not liking Windows with there being no good reasons why other people use it!
And let’s not pretend a low end SoC is better than a higher end processor… Otherwise you might as well call the Pixel Chromebook junk as well by that logic!
So let’s not pretend you aren’t just biased and spouting your personal opinion despite the mountain of facts that prove you wrong!
Wow a a mere 30secs!!! XD. My Chromebook boots from cold start in 6. And of all the Win 8 machines I’ve tried NON have come close to booting in 60 secs let alone 30. And thats without the waiting for firewalls, anti virus and all that crap to load as well as on any Windows install.
And im saying as you are perfectly aware, despite your desperate attempts to spread FUD, That Chrome OS can out perform a Win 8 machine using a MERE ARM cpu because it is ultra light and efficient. A windows machine cant keep up and runs even its browser slower than a Chromebook.
Chromebooks act like thin clients, they don’t run the stuff on a Chromebook. They rely on the server that hosts the software to do the hard work. The web browser acts like a GUI to access the software. That’s why they run so fast.
It doesn’t matter too much whether its a Rockchip or and I3. The Hardwork isnt being done on the Laptop. ITS BEING DONE BY THE SERVER.
Look up what CLOUD computing means before talking BS.
Sorry, the only one trying to spread FUD is you!
You’ll have to go back to Vista to find a Windows machine that needs 60 seconds to boot with a SSD!
And that’s with the full desktop loading!
It only really takes a long time on a HDD… Besides, like most mobile devices W8 and later devices uses Hybrid Boot and that only takes seconds!
The Chrome OS is never outperforming a Windows machine, it simply isn’t running anywhere near as much as a Windows machine can!
Web apps are very simple apps, some even more simple than mobile apps! A lot of the cloud isn’t running on your device but in the cloud as well! Like streaming a game that is actually running on a desktop, it’s laughable to say that’s performance when you’re not even comparing the actual performance!
Besides, you can run Chrome on Windows too and have access to pretty much all the same web apps and cloud services but still have access to everything else Windows offers as well… Never mind OSX has the same advantages as far as offering a full desktop… and Chromebooks don’t give default access to a desktop and the full GNU/Linux without altering it first, which most users would never do!
But playing something that actually requires performance from your device shows where a Chromebook usually fails… any advance productivity, gaming, etc app that actually runs on your device is going to require both hardware performance and the ability of the OS to allow the app to take full advantage of the hardware…
This is why even Chromebooks have the option for Native apps through the Native App client but few to none yet take advantage of that feature and thus limits what options are available to end users!
Streaming has its limitations as well, with lag, ensuring a stable broadband connection, etc. You also have to worry about online hacking more because cloud services are never offline and thus can be attacked 24/7…
Sure, keeping everything on your system has its disadvantages too but it still gives end users a lot more flexibility and more redundancy options for backup, etc. than Chromebooks…
It’s one of the reasons why Chromebooks have only gotten close to 4% of the market despite virtually no competition since the fall of netbooks that left a gap in the market… at their peak netbooks accounted for over 18% of the market in comparison!
So let’s not pretend you aren’t talking BS and trying to play off your bias as facts!
See why the other guy got bored of you. Everything you just said was utter rubbish. Im on a Chromebook right now and experiencing no lag and as for hacking. Chromebooks cant install software its cloud based. And they not on for 24/7 durrr. They only on for as long as you use them. I never experience viruses, all protection is built in and it auto updates in the background.
This cold boots in 6 secs WITH all its protection thats built in and in a second in sleep mode if I lift my Laptop lid. Its near instant as is the software browser, click and its up, in a second.
And as for 60secs I experienced that on the weekend reconnecting a friends Windows 8 PC, as yes yet again something was breaking its internet connection. And I had to restart their PC to try and get some software to start to repair it. It took 3mins to boot everything and get the PC into a state where all its desktop loading was done.
Anyway im bored of this circle jerk, as my old mother used to say “You cant cure stupid”. Go away and troll elsewhere.
Sorry but you’re just delusional now, the other guy lost the argument! And so have you!
You can dispute opinions but you can’t dispute the facts… Like you’re opinion is you experience no lag but compare the performance of Chrome on a more power system and you’ll see your system is performing more slowly…
Google’s own benchmarks show this to be true! You’re just making the fanboy arguments and expecting no one to think twice about what you’re stating!
Like it or not Chromebooks are little more than what most people used to use Netbooks for and the reasons most people use Chromebooks are not for their performance!
You don’t like Windows, fine… It’s a free market and you can use whatever you like but when you spout biased nonsense then you’re going to be called on it!
So take your own advice and troll someone else… Fair minded people who pay attention to facts know not to listen to your nonsense!
Keep lying to yourself. As I said im bored of this. I am experiencing what I say not plucking BS from my arse to act all intelligent. Anyone can prattle on till people get bored, no skill in that and no victory. Discus really hide the block settings.
The only one lying to themselves is you, you tried to portray a Core i3 as being inferior to a Haswell Celeron… Right off the bat you showed you were nothing but biased and talking nonsense based on that bias…
You don’t even seem to understand what the original conversation was about but that’s to be expected from someone who really is just trolling like you!
But whatever helps you sleep at night…
Actually I was comparing chrome OS running on haswell versus Windows 8 running on an i3. But hey lets not let facts get in the way of a good lie eh? Anyway as said..yawn. Ive got better things to do like scratch an itchy bum hole than waste time arguing with you. Bye.
PS: Bill gates probably not gonna be giving you a gold star this month, at the Microsoft Troll Propaganda Center. And upvoting your own awswers is so sad its funny.
I know what you were comparing, but you were ignoring that you were basically comparing running a browser to running a full desktop OS… Which makes your comparison specifically dishonest and misleading!
Using your logic I could just as easily load Windows 3.11 on a modern Core i3 and show it lightning fast compared to Chrome! But it would in reality be equally invalid comparison because you aren’t comparing two systems doing equivalent work!
And no, I didn’t up vote my own answers… that’s just your denial speaking volumes! Pointing out the truth isn’t about popularity, it’s about countering misinformation!
You’re also mistaken about associating me with MS… I point out when people post misleading information regardless what it is about… I only care about the truth and clarifying facts from misinformation!
But trying to discredit someone you disagree with is a classic troll tactic… So let’s not pretend you’re fooling anyone here!
That price is insanely high. Good luck to the manufacturer in selling them.
Acer Revo One RL85 is available in the U.S. now and has three HD bays. Not perfect, but makes far more sense to me than these micro pizza box machines for most purposes. I see them for around $500 with a 1TB HD included.
I’d like the Revo One if it had a more server-appropriate CPU. I know most people won’t agree, but I would prefer an Intel Avoton C2750. Although it wouldn’t fit their purpose of making it a HTPC, the Avoton has the worst GPU on the planet 😛
Another $100 takes you up to a Core i5 and 8GB of RAM though.
Here was expecting 299 but alas.
nice specs, wrong price…cant compete with mac mini, or even zotacs with that price….total failure
Yeah, Linux will overtake windows and mac os in desktops and laptops!!!
Not with a name like Zareason, they won’t.
Lovin everything about it, except the price 🙁
Still prefer the fan-less fitlet Mintbox Mini, better value if they ever have them in stock.
Comments are closed.