My cheap Windows laptops are laggy and are lousy to use. I’ve determined that I won’t buy a Windows laptop unless it has at least an i5 processor and 8GB of RAM. My $250 Acer Chromebook is snappy and works well even though it has a Celeron processor. I have a family and I would prefer not buy a $1000 laptop for everyone when I am the only one that currently programs.
I don’t like Google’s disregard for user’s privacy. Although I like the performance on my Chromebook, I cringe when I use it. I wish Microsoft created a REAL Chromebook knockoff that truly runs well on low level hardware and that respects user privacy. I don’t want Windows S mode on cheap hardware. Since Linux is no longer a dirty word at Microsoft, why not make a true simplified experience for cheap devices?
Bats
<blockquote><em><a href="#302896">In reply to ecumenical:</a></em></blockquote><p>Rubino is an IDIOT. The guy doesn't even know Notepad can be used for the erasure of text formatting. LOL…almost everybody in that Windows Central blog are moronic theorists. Every theory those guys lay out, thus giving "false hope" to their readers have been utterly WRONG. Not just that, but they irresponsible bloggers. Even though I disagree with Paul Thurrott a lot, those guys (especially Rubino) can't hold a candle to him.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#302902">In reply to john.boufford:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem with the system you've described is the value proposition. If you could buy such a system for 30-50% less than the cheapest Windows laptop, it would probably make sense. If you look at low-end Chromebooks vs low-end Windows laptops, the price is about the same, but the capabilities of the Chromebook are more limited. It's the hardware, not the OS that primarily sets the price.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#302904">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>IMO there'd be no business case for reengineering Windows to adopt a Unix approach even if they could achieve 100% compatibility (an unlikely scenario). The difference in "safety" between the two is much too subtle for the average customer to understand. </p><p><br></p><p>Likewise, a Microsoft-branded desktop Linux would suffer from the same issues that holds back all the other Linux distros. Linux development is too chaotic to support a general purpose consumer-based OS (beyond enthusiast use). A desktop vendor needs to own the OS in order to keep it stable. </p><p><br></p><p>IMO, it's less about worrying that Linux would show up Windows and the (apparently) highly influential commentators would point it out, but rather the realization that creating their own Linux would be a waste of time and money. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304102">In reply to Hypnotoad:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not really a fan of Windows 10, but the chaos I spoke with respect to Linux is deeper and more profound than what's happening with Windows 10. It's not because of any particular technical limitation of Linux but rather the direct result of its open source nature. With the possible exception of Linus and the kernel, there's really nobody in charge. That's great if you want to "roll your own" OS, but not if you want a stable system to be used by ordinary people.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304317">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Servers are the low-hanging fruit. Remember this discussion is about a "Chromebook alternative" and my comments are within that context.</p><p><br></p><p>Perhaps you're thinking of "stable" in a different way than I am. I don't mean "stable" is in "not crashing" I mean stable as in consistent capabilities, consistent program complement, backward compatibility etc.</p><p><br></p><p>I suspect you know the problems with desktop Linux, but for the benefit of others: itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304345">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Then again, Linux + wine runs more 20-year-old and older Windows software than Windows 10 does"</p><p><br></p><p>Not really relevant to the issue of Linux's own backward compatibility. I do note that wine isn't 100% compatible with any version of Windows. </p><p><br></p><p>Yes, there are still parts of the article that could be updated but there's a mountain of information there. </p><p><br></p><p>Since you mention Chrome, I had the experience of trying to install Chrome on a recent LTS version of Ubuntu and the process failed without any error message. Searching on the Internet I found out what the magic CLI incantation was that allowed the installation to proceed. Kind of crazy that an OS wouldn't be tested for the ability to install the most popular web browser.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304439">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>As someone who doesn't use Ubuntu, you really aren't in a position to give advice on what the best way is to install applications. Of course, the "best" way might vary depending on application. I used the same method to successfully install Chrome on Linux Mint without any issues. </p><p><br></p><p>If you're using dism.exe as your primary method to install Chrome that explains your dislike for Windows. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#305041">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not denying some commonality, but you were giving generic advice to work-around a specific problem you've never encountered.</p><p><br></p><p>As far as DISM concerned you just cherry-picked a random example that had nothing to do with the discussion. The fact is Windows users can go years without using a command line. From the start Unix developers preferred cute, clever names for commands over descriptive names – it's in their DNA. </p><p><br></p><p>As you should know by now, no behavior by software is "guaranteed". To the typical user or even those with some technical knowledge, an obscure error message resulting from a simple, frequently invoked operation is really not much more informative than a BSOD.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#309543">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>"It's the unbridled desire to run the latest versions ASAP which can cause problems, self-made problems."</p><p><br></p><p>The excuses are getting a little too thick in here for me. I'm done.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304442">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>"I'd add that Google has succeeded with Chrome OS in showing that it is possible to come up with a relatively trouble-free consumer OS based on Linux."</p><p><br></p><p>Perhaps someday Chrome OS will be a Linux OS in the same sense as Ubuntu, Mint etc. but not at this time. It avoids the all the problems of incompatible package managers because you can't install any applications on it. An effective but meaningless solution. And of course, I'm talking about "out-of-box" not special modes or third-party workarounds.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#305184">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p> In general whether something runs within the labeled browser or some other window really isn't the differentiating factor between a web-app or a non-web app. But If the application can fully run without a connection to the Internet, then it's not a web app and that might very well be the case for Evernote (I returned my 2 defective Chromebooks, so I couldn't test it).</p><p><br></p><p>But even if there are non-web apps, the installation process a user goes through on a Chromebook has little in common with how it is done on a typical Linux distro. No command lines, no surprise dependencies to derail the process. The apps, web or not, are delivered as an integrated unit, containing everything needed to run successfully (bugs, of course are always possible.) </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#302942">In reply to F4IL:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't expect PCs delivered in S-Mode to be all that successful, but due to the ability to upgrade to full Windows for free, I could easily imagine them outselling Chromebooks. I don't see much sense in Microsoft trying to compete in a market that hasn't yet proven itself to be viable.</p>
skane2600
<p>What are your family members doing for which an i5 processor and 8GB RAM is the minimum necessary for Windows? </p><p><br></p><p>Of course it's hard to compare the performance between two systems with different capabilities. Are third-party native (not Android) programs faster on the Chromebook than on a Windows laptop? It's an impossible benchmark to run because that's not a capability the Chromebook supports. </p><p><br></p><p>If all your family members need to do is use web apps (and Android apps for some reason), by all means get them a cheap Chromebook and consider the loss of privacy Google's "cut" to support an OS and web apps that nobody is paying them for directly. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#303164">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>The question whether one is talking about a minimal Windows or a minimal Linux, is at what point does it become the OS in name only. Ultimately it only matters what you can do with an OS, not what kernel it uses that gives it its name.</p><p><br></p><p>Once you can beyond tiny embedded systems with tiny power sources, trying to design a product with RAM less than 1GB is mostly just a time-waster. Like insisting that all code be written in assembly language. </p><p><br></p>
PeterC
<p>Microsoft doesn’t need a chromebook alternative – it needs a new software identity. It has to leave hardware competing to Apple, google, Samsung, Lenovo, hp, dell and Huawei etc etc.</p><p><br></p><p>It it needs to stop squeezing windows into “everything” and let it stand as a mature os in a couple of flavours with the surface line demonstrating its combi OS & productivity prowess.</p><p><br></p><p>And to survive – it needs to get down and dirty and produce new cutting edge software products/ services. It needs to reinvent being known as the windows company. It is attempting to do this in my opinion.</p><p><br></p><p>But to most people the visible part of MS business is new surface hardware or windows office productivity version. It looks pretty stagnant apart from the surface Go and a new office version. </p><p><br></p><p>Not many are aware of the latest azure xyz development etc or other technologically marvellous other work being done, and let’s face it its not exactly a riveting read.</p><p><br></p><p>So a chromebook competitor …..No. Something new and shiny and not windows based that we all need and not just the enterprise can use…. Yes. What is it? Hmmm probably ask google.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
nfeed2000t
<p>I wouldn't need Microsoft for what I am looking for. A Firefoxbook, Duckduckgobook, or Bravebook would be attractive. I suspect the government would also like an option that has better privacy options.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304120">In reply to jdmp10:</a></em></blockquote><p>I would say that the evidence suggests that Jobs' post-PC prediction was wrong given that tablet sales have declined in recent years. I also don't think Chromebooks really fit in to Jobs' vision which was about touch-based devices used for productivity without keyboard or mouse. Even the iPad Mini and the iPad Pro are somewhat outside of it, the former because it's too small for productivity and the latter because it leaning toward a laptop format. </p><p><br></p><p>Chromebooks are fine for some people but it's hard to make the case that is a "viable alternative computing device for a good majority of people" given the tiny minority of people who use one. Technical people and enthusiasts sometimes believe they know people's needs better than the people do themselves, but you can't sustain a product based on what people "should" buy.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304171">In reply to Illusive_Man:</a></em></blockquote><p>That would be like setting hundreds of billion of dollars on fire. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#304195">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I was thinking over its present and future lifetime although admittedly we don't know how long that will be. </p>