Comparing:

Processor: Atom n450 (single-core 1.6ghz vs Arm 15 (dual core 1.7ghz)

Fan: Yes vs No

HDD: Spinning rust vs. SSD

Weight: 2.75lbs vs 2.lbs

Screen 10.1" 1024x600 vs 11.6" 1366x786

Innovation continues apace from what I can see.

What sells me on the netbook is that I have 100GB of space for the life of computer, not for the 2 years after I buy my netbook.

At 250 bucks and the rate at which technology advances you'll probably be tempted to swap it out before 2 years is up.

For what it does, there is no reason to need to swap it out in the next two years.

Agreed, and nowadays for ~$250 it's an 11+" screen at 1366x786, with 250GB drive.

We really shouldn't be encouraging more garbage in our dumps...

Despite having a few other my portable devices my original single-core atom netbook (that came with XP!) is still one of the most remarkably useful devices I own.

I sort of lament how useless my Android tablet is in comparison. It's by far a better device for consumption but nothing beats a full desktop experience (even at a laughably low resolution).

This also probably runs a lot better with this chip and ChromeOS. I have one of those old netbooks myself with Windows 7, and the experience is very frustrating. You can't even switch to a different Chrome tab sometimes because the CPU is too busy loading another tab.

I have the 1st gen Chromebook with an atom and the experience is the same, laggy.

The last Chromebook (which I used as a Google Intern, so take with a pinch of salt) wasn't laggy at all. They're a lot better since Rev 1.

I've been using a i5 Windows 7 box for some office work and it has been, by far, the worst desktop experience I had in years. For other activities, I'm using a first gen Acer netbook running Ubuntu on an Atom processor and it's much smoother.

The Atom is not the problem here.

So they're lying when they say it can play 1080p videos - the screen is barely larger than 720.

1080p is via the HDMI port, I reckon.

Yeah, that was the first thing I looked at on the specs. I was amazed they were going to include a 1080p screen in this machine.

I think that's very misleading. The average consumer is just going to take that claim at face value and believe they are getting a 1080p screen.

agreed. Totally misleading

Is Dell lying when they say their desktops can play 1080p? They don't even have a screen at all! Playing 1080p is more a gpu/cpu performance thing. Chromeboxes can do 1080p on 2 monitors, which is quite a feat considering their hardware.

At least for me, it has a nice plus. The new Chromebook is not only Windows-free, it's Windows-proof.

Not that I would want to install Windows on it, but it certainly feels nice to have a machine like that.

Aren't these Chromebooks subsidized by Google to get into mainstream? I always felt there were big tie-ups. (See Asus Nexus tablet pricing)

Unlike Microsoft, here Google pays for every device. :)

I don't think they are. The only thing that they might've subsidized (as in you get it for free) is that 100 GB of Google Drive storage, that you only get for 2 years.

I think the more germane comparison is:

Microsoft Surface with Keyboard: $600. Chromebook: $249

And the Chromebook is more capable. With the current state of Microsoft's marketplace, there is literally zero compelling reason to buy into the WinRT ecosystem.

Chromebooks just run a browser. Windows runs a browser and other things. Even if there aren't that many other things, your comment is fundamentally wrong.

Except that browser also has apps:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/home

You can run Chrome (and all Chrome webapps) on Win8.

but can it on Surface/Windows RT? I haven't checked back in on that for a few months, but my understanding is that they still won't let you run JIT compiled code unless you're built into the system -- aka Internet Explorer 10 or the CLR.

Firefox and Chrome will have Metro versions on x86, but will have to interpret JavaScript under Windows RT, and V8 doesn't have an interpreted mode.

Too bad the Surface currently for pre-order is ARM and thus runs Windows RT. An x86 version with Windows 8 should come later, but will likely be more expensive. Chrome won't run on RT unless it is in the Microsoft store.

On WinRT you can't. Microsoft won't let the JavaScript interpreter do JIT on it.

So you can run them they'll just be slow? And could Chrome Frame be modified to run Chrome apps in IE at full speed?

Edit: just to be clear, without VirtualAlloc() and VirtualProtect(), you can't really run any JIT. No LuaJIT, no PyPy, no Java. No Scala, Clojure, or jRuby either.

It may be possible, Google may opt to release Chrome on it (or someone may port Chromium) but the lack of an optimizing runtime will probably make it suck when compared to IE.

Yeah, V8 doesn't do that. Meaning the effort to support Windows 8 RT will/would be large and possibly with little reward.

Chrome could use the IE10 JavaScript engine presumably (depending on how easy it is to hook native APIs back into the rendering engine from JavaScript).

I never said you couldn't? The point is that to call Chrome "just a browser" is misleading.

The comment you replied to said "Chromebooks just run a browser. Windows runs a browser and other things." The fact that Chrome (and Firefox) can run apps doesn't change that.

It doesn't change that distinction, but it does render it pretty meaningless.

I love how the most prominent app on the official store's homepage is a blatantly copyright-infringing Sonic the Hedgehog game.

http://grab.by/gRs8

$250 for a browser, with a metal/plastic shell.

Rubbish. Two concepts to consider: office and the fact that the surface device works entirely offline.

I've got a chromebook in the office as a test machine and its a fancy brick without a network connection.

There will be more offline capability with the new chromebook, and the updates to the old versions. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57467667-1/hands-on-offl...

That's a bit of an unfair comparison. The surface works entirely offline, if you're using it for offline tasks. The Chromebook also works offline if you're using it for offline tasks.

The number of offline apps available for chrome is pretty limited, but so is the total number of apps available for winRT. as far as i can tell, both of these devices are basically just a web browser plus potential.

Can I downloads a movie to watch later? Edit a document?

You know very well you won't be able to make the same claim in a couple months so I think this argument easily falls flat.

We don't know whether we will be able to make that claim or not. It's unclear how many vendors will port their software to the ARM version of Windows at this point. Even if they do, I suspect it will be more like 6-8 months, since a lot of people will be waiting to see how big the market is before supporting it.

And in case you are wondering, all my paychecks at the moment rely on Windows, and I have 0 involvement with anything related to the ARM version, nor do I hear about it. Anecdotal at one company, but I don't think it's unusual. Mobile support on the other hand, seems to be a big deal.

The software in Metro for Windows 8 and Windows RT is the same. You don't have to do any porting.

Sorry, right. We aren't sure how many people are porting to the Windows Runtime (Metro) environment from the Win32 APIs.

While it might have a high number of entries, I just don't think we know how well supported it will be 2 months from now.

The PC market is in decline but still huge. Windows 8/RT will have more total users than Android tablets within a few month. The idea that companies aren't going to build for the default interface is silly.

But how dedicated to the default interface are they really going to be? I imagine there is going to be a lot of developers who decide that if they have to re-write their app anyways, it makes more sense to port it to the web than to port it to metro.

Really doubt it (about Win8/RT having more users than Android, ever), Smartphones are already selling more than PCs. Windows 7 took 2 years to reach 500 millions, and Android is already on that many hands (counting only OHA devices, ignoring Amazon/Nook/China Androids), will be on 1 billion by middle next year.

OP said Android tablets, which excludes phones.

Did you just miss the words "Current state" or..?

Won't the Surface tablets be able to run Chrome just as well as a Chromebook, in addition to apps that aren't Chrome?

>Won't the Surface tablets be able to run Chrome just as well as a Chromebook, in addition to apps that aren't Chrome?

That depends entirely on the good graces of Microsoft.

On a less snarky note, the WinRT based tablets (the ones coming out in a week or so) can only run metro apps. Unless Chrome puts a version of the browser in Microsoft's marketplace, it won't be available for use.

If the Metro APIs include anything capable of running binary code, Chrome will probably be developed for it. Given Microsoft's recent history of being careful to display monopolistic behavior, I'm sure they'd allow Google to distribute Chrome through the Windows app marketplace.

And yet everyone goes on about an ipad being a 'cheap laptop alternative'. This isn't for everyone, but it definitely has a great niche. It has USB3, HDMI, 1366x768 screen, no moving parts and 6.5 hour battery life.

Putting the time difference aside, how many of those does your gateway have? The processor is probably a little faster, too.

That and with a better battery (sure they will come out or exist in some form) it becomes much nicer.

Though the 16GB storage, thought even with the Nexus 7 they are dropping the 16Gb and replacing with a 32GB as the new top end model. But this is the base model. Even adding a 4-cell battery and an a base of 40gb would of been a nice move and offered a longer lasting platform.

That all said I recently got me a netbook cheap on clearance, 2gb ram built in 3g modem...Even if I stuck a 80gb ssd in there it would still work out cheaper. Though this does look appealing as a grandparent/parent pressy given the time of year. Just show them how to email google and your covered; Very tempting.

This product looks very similar to Macbook Air.

Agreed. I think $150 is more appropriate. What makes me even MORE confused is the 550 model. $450 seems awfully expensive when compare to all your other computing options.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebooks.htm...

Edit - After a bit more consideration, I might be interested if the HDMI output is decent and the network TV websites won't block the browser. I would use the Chromebook as a replacement HTPC for my Google TV which is basically a brick now.

Blame Intel for the initial $450 Chromebooks and $300 Google TV. Now we're starting to see $250 Chromebooks and $99 Google TV's, thanks to ARM chips.

Why on earth would we blame Intel? How about blaming Google for designing a $250 quality laptop that retailed for $500?

Because Intel chips and boards are ovespecced and overpriced for the use hey were put to.

That's a spinning disk. There were 8/16 GB SSD netbooks for around the same price as that 160 GB HDD netbook. Plus, this seems higher quality than those typical netbooks. It's more like an ultrabook for $250, at least in terms of build quality and looks. The specs are obviously lower than a $1000 ultrabook.

Build quality? You can't assess that. You haven't used one.