Chromebooks are awful. And here are some examples why.

[Aquila]

iPads and Chromebooks do well in educational systems precisely BECAUSE of their limited OS, which easily limits and controls what students can do, and are easy to maintain. For a consumer though, the limited OS would be a drawback. Oh, and what "Windows burden" are you talking about?

And yes, if you're subjectively happy using a Fred Flintstone powered car (Chromebook) to get around town, then be subjectively happy. But objectively, the internal combustion engine powered car (Windows) is better.

I mean absolutely no offense, so please do not take this wrong, but "objectively" and "subjectively" do not seem to mean what you think they mean, or at least not in this context. Given that the entire final statement would have been immensely more accurately stated as, "But, in my opinion, the internal combustion engine powered car (aka Windows), is better at the tasks which I value in a portable computer operating system." That's the extent to where I'm quoting you, the rest is to the thread in general because this theme has been recurring for 7 pages.

First, to define objectivity we would have to define at what task(s) Windows performs better. For example, if speed, price, security, software obsolescence, software update quality and frequency, user friendliness, etc are chosen... Windows is going to lose all of those categories. Conversely, if developer support ubiquity in the current market, relative universal app compatibility and the ability to install .exe files are chosen as the criteria, then ChromeOS doesn't stand a chance. As these operating systems are developed with two completely different design philosophies for two completely different use cases, the only way to have an objective "winner" would be random sampling of users for the most commonly used tasks by users on semi-mobile computing devices.

For example, we could take the top 50 or 100 most common tasks that people use laptops for: Updating twitter, checking email, checking Facebook, updating their calendar, video conferencing, instant messaging, playing angry birds, taking notes in class, writing a paper, creating a budget, managing an online bank account, editing photos, updating Google+, sharing content with friends, reading the news, blah, blah, blah. We rank those tasks by the frequency of use among a population of 100,000 or so people chosen at random at universities, places of business, libraries, etc across the country and weight the importance of performance in each task according to that population.

Many things, such as everything listed so far, they're going to come approximately even on. When we factor in price, size, aesthetics, brand (some people don't trust Google, some people hate Microsoft), privacy policies (MS sells and shares user data, Google keeps your data in house), etc it is easy to see a picture forming in which from a functionality standpoint many people are going to detect no difference in the quality of the approach, given that almost all of the above listed things are done in the browser by most of these people today. At that point, it becomes a value proposition of that equal for most people product versus the less tangible things mentioned last. Given the lower price point, generally equal or better design (for that price point) and the differentiation of brand.

I know a lot of people who don't want to be anywhere near the internet on a Windows machine because they don't know how to keep MS out of their data, and buying a Mac is immediately quadrupling the price. I also know that there are a lot of people afraid of Google and who trust MS more. Finally, there is a small population who needs their laptop to do Windows specific tasks and they will not utilize any solutions that allow them to work around being on a different OS at the time of that task being executed.

This got way longer than intended, pretty sure everyone gets the point... different strokes, different folks is the exact opposite of "objective". Neither of these things is objectively lesser than the other unless you define a specific task and test it given the context of the devices that you're using. For a specific user, they sure can be one inferior to the other, and by a huge margin. I'd personal despise paying for a Windows laptop given that I already have one machine with Windows on it, and that's one too many 6 days a week for my personal computing needs. I need Windows at work, rarely do I *need* it at home. Others will feel the opposite. That's the definition of subjective as it is use case specifically addressed.

 

[tr-1]

Oh, and what "Windows burden" are you talking about?

1. Gotta watch what you click on the internet (virus, malware, plugins, toolbars, etc.)
2. Admin stuff (account management, updates, system cleaup/defrag, etc.)
3. Registry pollution (over time, registry fills up with dead references, poorly uninstalled SW, etc.)
4. Almost everything you install adds crap to msconfig->Startup, which takes away resources and slows down Start time.
5. I've done my share of troubleshooting issues by enabling/disabling/restarting Services.
6. Application hangs that requires you to kill it from Task Manager.
7. System "protection" in general. If you really want to, it's pretty easy to mess up OS. It's definitely MUCH improved on Win7 but you don't have to know/do much to mess it up (there's a simple Registry setting to Take Ownership of ANY folder with a right-click).

PLEASE do not tell me these are not issues anymore in Windows 7 because it's simply not true. I've been using Win7 since the day it was released.

Now, please explain again WHY do you need something that you are not using or planning to use. Is it once again the "just because it's nice to have" argument? If yes, I have no response.

 

[A895]

1. Gotta watch what you click on the internet (virus, malware, plugins, toolbars, etc.)
2. Admin stuff (account management, updates, system cleaup/defrag, etc.)
3. Registry pollution (over time, registry fills up with dead references, poorly uninstalled SW, etc.)
4. Almost everything you install adds crap to msconfig->Startup, which takes away resources and slows down Start time.
5. I've done my share of troubleshooting issues by enabling/disabling/restarting Services.
6. Application hangs that requires you to kill it from Task Manager.
7. System "protection" in general. If you really want to, it's pretty easy to mess up OS. It's definitely MUCH improved on Win7 but you don't have to know/do much to mess it up (there's a simple Registry setting to Take Ownership of ANY folder with a right-click).

PLEASE do not tell me these are not issues anymore in Windows 7 because it's simply not true. I've been using Win7 since the day it was released.

Now, please explain again WHY do you need something that you are not using or planning to use. Is it once again the "just because it's nice to have" argument? If yes, I have no response.

Why are you talking about Windows 7? Don`t you mean 8?

 

[kinster02]

Yes. Chromebooks are awful, so awful that I just purchased my second one and I would buy another before getting a Winblows 8 laptop. After years of buying 1k+ laptops only to find myself in the browser anyway, I decided that this was for me and ever since, my Windows machine has become a dust collector. And yes, I could have got a Windows laptop with more features and capabilities for a similar price but I no longer need Windows or all that it offers. Had Chrome on my laptop and the experience is not the same for me.

I consider myself pretty tech savvy and I can work on my own computers, to the point that my friends use me as there personal IT tech. I got sick of that and recommended Chromebooks to them and since then...silence. I been using my current one for two years and it runs just like the day I brought with more features and capabilities of course, due to always being updated.

Whether it's Amazon, Walmart or BestBuy, the majority of the reviewers like them and they usually get 4 to 5 star rating. I love this this thing and I would recommend them to anyone. My son can't wait to get my old CB when my new one arrives...he likes them as well.

 

[thatotherdude24]

Something I have always wondered regarding Chromebooks.....they are primarily gateways to the cloud, so why the need for anything other than Celeron processors? I see Lenovo (I think that's who it was) is coming out with an i7 model....why? All the computing is cloud based, yes I know games can be played on Chromebooks but they are not as resource intensive as actual PC games, I don't even use an i5 for PC gaming.

I don't understand why the need for so many different hardware configurations if every Chromebook is used to access the cloud. 2GB RAM, 4GB RAM, storage sizes, ARM basec chips all the way up to i7's, why isn't there just a single hardware set that everybody uses and the manufactures make the designs.

Yes, this is a serious question. I'm not bashing Chromebooks, I understand there actually are uses for them but this is something I've been wondering.

 

[Aquila]

Something I have always wondered regarding Chromebooks.....they are primarily gateways to the cloud, so why the need for anything other than Celeron processors? I see Lenovo (I think that's who it was) is coming out with an i7 model....why? All the computing is cloud based, yes I know games can be played on Chromebooks but they are not as resource intensive as actual PC games, I don't even use an i5 for PC gaming.

I don't understand why the need for so many different hardware configurations if every Chromebook is used to access the cloud. 2GB RAM, 4GB RAM, storage sizes, ARM basec chips all the way up to i7's, why isn't there just a single hardware set that everybody uses and the manufactures make the designs.

Yes, this is a serious question. I'm not bashing Chromebooks, I understand there actually are uses for them but this is something I've been wondering.

The processor & RAM decisions have pretty significant impacts on battery life, the speed of page loading, the volume of multiple tabs that can be active and working without visible issues, etc. Price competition will essentially cause variability as OEMs are pressed to include more power, more ports, etc. without drastic increases in prices, for which several will ultimately use their PC approach, make a few varied models at staged prices and let the market dictate which ones get more focus and more variations the next season.

 

[thatotherdude24]

The processor & RAM decisions have pretty significant impacts on battery life, the speed of page loading, the volume of multiple tabs that can be active and working without visible issues, etc. Price competition will essentially cause variability as OEMs are pressed to include more power, more ports, etc. without drastic increases in prices, for which several will ultimately use their PC approach, make a few varied models at staged prices and let the market dictate which ones get more focus and more variations the next season.

I see the speed of pages loading more of an internet speed issue than internal power. I understand the multitasking as processing power, is ChromeOS that resource intensive it takes 4gb of RAM to multitask?

I would think the competitiveness would be more fueled by lower prices and more battery life. I don't see the average consumer caring if its an i7 or a celeron. From my experience they just want it to work, have good battery life and the number one question I get..... Can it do Facebook.

Sent From My Woven Black and Yellow Moto X

 

[Aquila]

I see the speed of pages loading more of an internet speed issue than internal power. I understand the multitasking as processing power, is ChromeOS that resource intensive it takes 4gb of RAM to multitask?

I would think the competitiveness would be more fueled by lower prices and more battery life. I don't see the average consumer caring if its an i7 or a celeron. From my experience they just want it to work, have good battery life and the number one question I get..... Can it do Facebook.

Sent From My Woven Black and Yellow Moto X

I haven't gotten to play with one with extra RAM, but the difference between two 2013 models is pretty stark:

AC's Andrew Martonik demonstrates tab loading:

Tab loading - HP Chromebook 11 vs. Acer C720 - YouTube

The HP one on the left is plenty fast for the majority of things, but it is a year old processor (same one as the Samsung Chromebook from 2012) and the Haswell clearly beats it. If you never saw the C720, the HP would be fine and you wouldn't think of it as slow at all, but side by side it's a pretty big difference.

 

[tr-1]

Why are you talking about Windows 7? Don`t you mean 8?

Why?
1. I hate the UI.
2. Everything I listed is still present in Windows 8

 

[Geodude074]

First, to define objectivity we would have to define at what task(s) Windows performs better. For example, if speed, price, security, software obsolescence, software update quality and frequency, user friendliness, etc are chosen... Windows is going to lose all of those categories.

No offense, but that's just your subjective opinion that Windows is going to lose all of those categories.

Do you have any objective evidence to prove that a Chromebook would be better than a Windows laptop in any of those categories?

1) Speed. This by itself is convoluted and can be measured by many means. Processor speeds, Windows is faster with their Core i processors. I/O speeds, Windows is faster with mSATA drives instead of eMMC. RAM, Windows is faster with more RAM and faster RAM. Etc.

2) Price. I personally have a $300 Windows 8 touchscreen laptop with a Core i3. It's right in the realm of Chromebook territory. Do Windows laptops generally cost more than Chromebooks? Yes. But don't forget that the Chromebook Pixel is a $1300 laptop which costs considerably more than an average i5 equipped Windows laptop, but nobody has even brought that into this discussion yet.

3) Security. Probably one of the few things Chrome OS is good at. But it's only secure because there's less functionality overall, and therefor less to go wrong. Y'know, kind of like a Fred Flintstone car.

4) Software obsolescence. This isn't anywhere as relevant as software compatibility. In the real world, companies need software that's compatible across all PCs - hence why IE is the standard when it comes to web browsers in the enterprise world.

I'll give you another example: at my old job for a national bank, their software was written in freaking COBOL, and they still have no plans to purchase new software anytime soon. Software compatibility is far more relevant than software obsolescence.

5) Software updates. This category by itself is subjective. Is it a good thing that an OS is getting constantly updated? Windows 7 updates about once a week, and I find it very annoying. Windows 8 updates less frequently and I'm happier about that. Chrome OS to me feels like it's constantly in a beta stage and is being constantly updated. So whether or not that's a good thing is subjective.

6) User friendliness. This once again is subjective. Just the fact that Chrome OS is so limited in functionality would be a good enough argument that it completely lacks in user friendliness. Can you plug any USB device you'd want into a Chromebook and expect it to work? I doubt it. How easy is it to connect a random printer to a Chromebook and print? Probably not very. Can I watch my library of Bluray movies with no WiFi connection on a Chromebook? Not a chance. Can I talk to all my friends on Skype on a Chromebook??!! Oh wait, Skype isn't available on Chrome OS.

Ironically the article in the beginning of this thread talks about exactly this - how unfriendly the Chromebook is to use when expected to perform like a regular PC.

 

[Ry]

No offense, but that's just your subjective opinion that Windows is going to lose all of those categories.

Do you have any objective evidence to prove that a Chromebook would be better than a Windows laptop in any of those categories?

1) Speed. This by itself is convoluted and can be measured by many means. Processor speeds, Windows is faster with their Core i processors. I/O speeds, Windows is faster with mSATA drives instead of eMMC. RAM, Windows is faster with more RAM and faster RAM. Etc.

2) Price. I personally have a $300 Windows 8 touchscreen laptop with a Core i3. It's right in the realm of Chromebook territory. Do Windows laptops generally cost more than Chromebooks? Yes. But don't forget that the Chromebook Pixel is a $1300 laptop which costs considerably more than an average i5 equipped Windows laptop, but nobody has even brought that into this discussion yet.

3) Security. Probably one of the few things Chrome OS is good at. But it's only secure because there's less functionality overall, and therefor less to go wrong. Y'know, kind of like a Fred Flintstone car.

4) Software obsolescence. This isn't anywhere as relevant as software compatibility. In the real world, companies need software that's compatible across all PCs - hence why IE is the standard when it comes to web browsers in the enterprise world.

I'll give you another example: at my old job for a national bank, their software was written in freaking COBOL, and they still have no plans to purchase new software anytime soon. Software compatibility is far more relevant than software obsolescence.

5) Software updates. This category by itself is subjective. Is it a good thing that an OS is getting constantly updated? Windows 7 updates about once a week, and I find it very annoying. Windows 8 updates less frequently and I'm happier about that. Chrome OS to me feels like it's constantly in a beta stage and is being constantly updated. So whether or not that's a good thing is subjective.

6) User friendliness. This once again is subjective. Just the fact that Chrome OS is so limited in functionality would be a good enough argument that it completely lacks in user friendliness. Can you plug any USB device you'd want into a Chromebook and expect it to work? I doubt it. How easy is it to connect a random printer to a Chromebook and print? Probably not very. Can I watch my library of Bluray movies with no WiFi connection on a Chromebook? Not a chance. Can I talk to all my friends on Skype on a Chromebook??!! Oh wait, Skype isn't available on Chrome OS.

Ironically the article in the beginning of this thread talks about exactly this - how unfriendly the Chromebook is to use when expected to perform like a regular PC.

Printing is a good example actually. I am under the impression that if your current printer isn't Google Cloud print ready, the only way to print is by connecting to the printer through another computer on your network. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here..

 

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

Here's the thing, I do movie and photo editing. I'm a media creator. So I use a MacBook Pro for example. While I'm not a fan of Google (yet he's posting this from a HTC One), the ChromeBook would be nice and simple. For example this lass from uni that I dated... She wants things simple. Can she access Facebook, write documents, etc. A CB would work for her. Me? Well I photo and video edit and I game quite heavily too, on things like Guild Wars 2 etc, that pretty much push even my desktop with its i5 and AMD Radeon 6770 too far.

Sent from my HTC One using Mobile Nations mobile app

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

What is it doing for you that a laptop of the same price can't?

Emphasis mine.

Answer: Everything. Go try a $200 Win laptop. I have been comparing for a month (article coming soon) and the experience on the laptop Microsoft recommends as a replacement is dreadful.

Spend twice as much or more, and yes ? you can do more on a laptop. Spend the same, and you have screwed yourself out of $200. Unless you like 480p video and not being able to run all those programs Microsoft says that Chromebooks can't run, or taking 5+ hours to upgrade to Win 8.1 ...

 

[JeffDenver]

Emphasis mine.

Answer: Everything. Go try a $200 Win laptop. I have been comparing for a month (article coming soon) and the experience on the laptop Microsoft recommends as a replacement is dreadful.

Spend twice as much or more, and yes — you can do more on a laptop. Spend the same, and you have screwed yourself out of $200. Unless you like 480p video and not being able to run all those programs Microsoft says that Chromebooks can't run, or taking 5+ hours to upgrade to Win 8.1 ...

Dell Inspiron 15 15.6" Laptop Computer - Black I15RV-1906BLK - Micro Center - $229.

Gateway NE56R41u 15.6" Laptop Computer Refurbished - Black L-NX.Y1UAA.030 - Micro Center - $260

Doesn't seem like it is worse than a Chromebook to me. And it is a "real" computer" able to run Photoshop or whatever else I throw at it. And while they are a little more expensive, they are far from twice as expensive.

 

[A895]

Dell Inspiron 15 15.6" Laptop Computer - Black I15RV-1906BLK - Micro Center - $229.

Gateway NE56R41u 15.6" Laptop Computer Refurbished - Black L-NX.Y1UAA.030 - Micro Center - $260

Doesn't seem like it is worse than a Chromebook to me. And it is a "real" computer" able to run Photoshop or whatever else I throw at it. And while they are a little more expensive, they are far from twice as expensive.

That processor and windows, don't mix at all. I wouldn't give that machine to my worst enemy least of all anyone in my family. I would give someone a chromebook before those any day.

Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

Windows vs. Chromebook: Compare laptops - Microsoft Windows

I took the company credit card and bought the one they picture here, on their comparison page. Figured that was fair, even though it was more than the $199 I paid for the Acer Chromebook.

If Microsoft really means I should compare against another, even more expensive laptop, they should have said so. I followed their advice so I didn't get scroggled ...

 

[Aquila]

So I won't consider refurbished (probably a personal failing of mine) and have been computer shopping for a few months now and the price range for solid windows laptops (latest gen i5 or i7, decent ram, reputable company) that I've been able to find at major retailers (best buy, staples, amazon, etc) have all been around $600-1200. I'm sure there are finds out there that are better priced, but I haven't come across any that don't have a major downside to them as well (materials, size, reviews about keyboard, etc).

With Windows, you HAVE to invest in specs because of how heavy it is and how easily it gets bogged down. My current PC (Asus) is one of the first released with Windows 8 and it's pretty much garbage compared to my Chromebook, despite having MUCH better specs. Obviously that's not going to be the case with every Windows machine, but a $600 PC should't be beaten so easily by tablets and laptops that are less than half that price.

Scott Kenyon's advice is to get a Windows tablet and a BT keyboard/mouse for much cheaper and a more functional and adaptable experience, but even then we're talking about $350ish total for something that, other than the ability to run the full version of office (I think?) is inferior to the Chromebook in just about every category that is important to me. As previously mentioned, I do need excel for work, but since I can remote in and use it and/or only use the PC for excel and use the Chromebook for everything else, I have a hard time swallowing the argument that I'm missing out on something. It's obvious that there are some tasks that require OSX or Windows or Linux and cannot run on the others without emulators, etc.... and people with those tasks should buy machines that support their needs, but the estimate behind the concept of ChromeOS is that 90%+ of everything done with personal computers can be done within a browser... so comments like, "it's missing a desktop" and "it can't run programs" are just stupid, given the context that the point is that they do not HAVE to do those things in order to get the same tasks accomplished.

 

[A895]

So I won't consider refurbished (probably a personal failing of mine) and have been computer shopping for a few months now and the price range for solid windows laptops (latest gen i5 or i7, decent ram, reputable company) that I've been able to find at major retailers (best buy, staples, amazon, etc) have all been around $600-1200. I'm sure there are finds out there that are better priced, but I haven't come across any that don't have a major downside to them as well (materials, size, reviews about keyboard, etc).

With Windows, you HAVE to invest in specs because of how heavy it is and how easily it gets bogged down. My current PC (Asus) is one of the first released with Windows 8 and it's pretty much garbage compared to my Chromebook, despite having MUCH better specs. Obviously that's not going to be the case with every Windows machine, but a $600 PC should't be beaten so easily by tablets and laptops that are less than half that price.

Scott Kenyon's advice is to get a Windows tablet and a BT keyboard/mouse for much cheaper and a more functional and adaptable experience, but even then we're talking about $350ish total for something that, other than the ability to run the full version of office (I think?) is inferior to the Chromebook in just about every category that is important to me. As previously mentioned, I do need excel for work, but since I can remote in and use it and/or only use the PC for excel and use the Chromebook for everything else, I have a hard time swallowing the argument that I'm missing out on something. It's obvious that there are some tasks that require OSX or Windows or Linux and cannot run on the others without emulators, etc.... and people with those tasks should buy machines that support their needs, but the estimate behind the concept of ChromeOS is that 90%+ of everything done with personal computers can be done within a browser... so comments like, "it's missing a desktop" and "it can't run programs" are just stupid, given the context that the point is that they do not HAVE to do those things in order to get the same tasks accomplished.

Chromebooks fit a consumer need for sure. I think people want to write them off without even trying one out first.

Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App

 

[turb0wned]

Every time I say this on the forums all the chromebook fans jump at me. Chromebooks are pointless. Like OP stated, you can get a decent laptop (obviously not a gaming one if that your thing) for about the same price as a chromebook. Newegg has a ton of pretty damn good laptops for just a little more with 500-750GB hard drives.

 

[A895]

Every time I say this on the forums all the chromebook fans jump at me. Chromebooks are pointless. Like OP stated, you can get a decent laptop (obviously not a gaming one if that your thing) for about the same price as a chromebook. Newegg has a ton of pretty damn good laptops for just a little more with 500-750GB hard drives.

For $199?

Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App