Scratch

Chromebooks aren't meant for playing games or anything like that. All they are meant to do is browse the net, write papers, and maybe a few Farmville-type games, in a very small package. At that, they are pretty good. They wouldn't be good for me, though. 

Actually, you can use Chromebooks offline. It will come with offline versions of basic productivity apps. http://www.pcworld.com/article/227728/c … _apps.html

"no hard drive, no processors (well, maybe a tiny one) - just the Google Chrome browser with a few addons"
No offense, but I'm not sure you even understand what those are. Processors and storage are hardware components, and necessary for every electronic device. Chrome OS notebooks have them just like everything else.

Now, I can see where a lot of people can't see the reason for this. I admit it's a bit confusing as well. For the $450 Samsung is charging for their Chromebook you could get a decent laptop. But for someone who wants something that, to use a worn expression, "just works", boots quickly, isn't prone to viruses and bloatware, and can access the internet from anywhere you can get a cellular signal, this could actually be rather useful. It's a gamble and it could end up being too limited to be of any use, but it could hit a nice medium between tablets and laptops.

dude they're meant for old people or people who only use the web
which, not so surprisingly, is quite a few people.

tomicool wrote:

Harakou wrote:

Actually, you can use Chromebooks offline. It will come with offline versions of basic productivity apps. http://www.pcworld.com/article/227728/c … _apps.html

"no hard drive, no processors (well, maybe a tiny one) - just the Google Chrome browser with a few addons"
No offense, but I'm not sure you even understand what those are. Processors and storage are hardware components, and necessary for every electronic device. Chrome OS notebooks have them just like everything else.

Now, I can see where a lot of people can't see the reason for this. I admit it's a bit confusing as well. For the $450 Samsung is charging for their Chromebook you could get a decent laptop. But for someone who wants something that, to use a worn expression, "just works", boots quickly, isn't prone to viruses and bloatware, and can access the internet from anywhere you can get a cellular signal, this could actually be rather useful. It's a gamble and it could end up being too limited to be of any use, but it could hit a nice medium between tablets and laptops.

Er, I do know what a processor is    A part of a computing device which, depending on the RAM it produces, powers the Operating System. More RAM, more power. The amount of memory you have consumes the RAM also.

I do understand that some people want a simple device. But seriously, it's way too much of a price to pay.

EDIT: Lol, got CPU and RAM mixed up for a second.

I'm pretty sure I heard something about Haro testing the Chromebook.

Oh, and I will add this: when tomicool said that the Chromebooks may have a tiny processor, he was right. The Chromebooks use the Intel Atom processors, the same as netbooks. One more reason you aren't going to play games on it. 

fire219 wrote:

Oh, and I will add this: when tomicool said that the Chromebooks may have a tiny processor, he was right. The Chromebooks use the Intel Atom processors, the same as netbooks. One more reason you aren't going to play games on it. 

I have always been playing games on my netbook 
I've even installed scratch and it was fast!

(BTW, my netbook HAS a intel atom processor.)

Harakou wrote:

tomicool wrote:

Harakou wrote:

Actually, you can use Chromebooks offline. It will come with offline versions of basic productivity apps. http://www.pcworld.com/article/227728/c … _apps.html

"no hard drive, no processors (well, maybe a tiny one) - just the Google Chrome browser with a few addons"
No offense, but I'm not sure you even understand what those are. Processors and storage are hardware components, and necessary for every electronic device. Chrome OS notebooks have them just like everything else.

Now, I can see where a lot of people can't see the reason for this. I admit it's a bit confusing as well. For the $450 Samsung is charging for their Chromebook you could get a decent laptop. But for someone who wants something that, to use a worn expression, "just works", boots quickly, isn't prone to viruses and bloatware, and can access the internet from anywhere you can get a cellular signal, this could actually be rather useful. It's a gamble and it could end up being too limited to be of any use, but it could hit a nice medium between tablets and laptops.

Er, I do know what a processor is    A part of a computing device which, depending on the RAM it produces, powers the Operating System. More RAM, more power. The amount of memory you have consumes the RAM also.

I do understand that some people want a simple device. But seriously, it's way too much of a price to pay.

EDIT: Lol, got CPU and RAM mixed up for a second.

The RAM it produces? Memory consuming RAM? RAM is memory - it stands for Random Access Memory, in fact, and all data being used for programs is stored in the RAM while it's running. That's why having more RAM is beneficial to performance - you can have more things open and running without having to use a swap file, which is much slower. A CPU (the Central Processing Unit) performs all the calculations and operations necessary to process what goes on in the computer.
http://www.techterms.com/definition/ram
http://www.techterms.com/definition/cpu

I do agree that these notebooks are a bit too pricey though. It feels like for what they're trying to charge, it's really hard to justify over a regular laptop or even a tablet.

Yeah, got my stuff mixed up back there XD

I do agree that the Chromebook is suitable for the older folk (what Jack said), but too much £$£$£!

fire219 wrote:

meew0 wrote:

fire219 wrote:

Oh, and I will add this: when tomicool said that the Chromebooks may have a tiny processor, he was right. The Chromebooks use the Intel Atom processors, the same as netbooks. One more reason you aren't going to play games on it. 

I have always been playing games on my netbook 
I've even installed scratch and it was fast!

(BTW, my netbook HAS a intel atom processor.)

Scratch is pretty light on the processor and GPU, as long as you aren't looking at a raycasting demo, or something like that.

And by games, which ones? (It can't be stuff like Crysis  )

My two-year old HP Pavilion dv7 was (and still is) pretty powerful for its time, but has problems with the Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit remake.

TrackMania.

And I looked at a raycasting demo and it was fast 
(But for some reason, my project Double'd was slow)

It's not right to blame this kind of things because they cannot run your applications or "games". It's like blaming a toaster that it doesn't have Internet access. Basically, Harakou covered everything else I wanted to say.

I find them to be somewhat cool. Not as cool as, say, the Asus Eee Transformer, but still some nice tech.

Speaking of games running on Netbooks, my Acer Aspire1, one of the few older models to have support for Win7, ran Spore, Star Wars: EaW, WoW, and NFS:HP2....just not at the same time. I also got them to run at an acceptable framerate, about 20fps. The only problem was finding No-Disk patches.

Harakou wrote:

blazerv82 wrote:

I find them to be somewhat cool. Not as cool as, say, the Asus Eee Transformer, but still some nice tech.

Speaking of games running on Netbooks, my Acer Aspire1, one of the few older models to have support for Win7, ran Spore, Star Wars: EaW, WoW, and NFS:HP2....just not at the same time. I also got them to run at an acceptable framerate, about 20fps. The only problem was finding No-Disk patches.

No disk patches? Why, does it not have a CD drive?

Netbooks don't have CD drives. At least, they didn't originally. Mine is a 2nd generation Netbook, the Acer AspireOne.

I bought an external, and just use it as my main CD drive for both my desktop and netbook. (I'm too cheap to buy an internal CD drive :P)

blazerv82 wrote:

Harakou wrote:

blazerv82 wrote:

I find them to be somewhat cool. Not as cool as, say, the Asus Eee Transformer, but still some nice tech.

Speaking of games running on Netbooks, my Acer Aspire1, one of the few older models to have support for Win7, ran Spore, Star Wars: EaW, WoW, and NFS:HP2....just not at the same time. I also got them to run at an acceptable framerate, about 20fps. The only problem was finding No-Disk patches.

No disk patches? Why, does it not have a CD drive?

Netbooks don't have CD drives. At least, they didn't originally. Mine is a 2nd generation Netbook, the Acer AspireOne.

I bought an external, and just use it as my main CD drive for both my desktop and netbook. (I'm too cheap to buy an internal CD drive  )

Ah, ok. Why not just image the disk and then mount it with Daemon Tools though, instead of going to the trouble of finding patches?