Google's Pricey Pixel Gets USB-C and a Lower Price

The Register reports that Google's high-end Chromebook Pixel has gotten a few spec bumps, and a lower price. It's still a touchscreen with a resolution of 2,560 × 1,700, but now that screen is backed by 8GB RAM (rather than 4) as a base configuration, and the system is equipped with a Broadwell Core i5 chip, rather than the Ivy Bridge in the first rev. The price has dropped, too; it may still be the most expensive Chromebook, but now it's "only" $999 on the low end, which is $300 less than the first Pixels cost. ($1300, though, gets an i7, 64 gigs of SSD instead of 32, and 8GB of RAM. Perhaps most interesting is that it adds USB type C, and (topping Apple's latest entry) it's got two of them.

Comments

But it's still a Chromebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

...which rather negates the spec upgrades. Shame, I wouldn't buy it at half the price.

Re:But it's still a Chromebook...

[squiggleslash]

Right now on my work PC, Excel.exe, which I'm using to reformat the giant big-ass Excel sheets I keep being given by another department into a form I can easily load into our DB, is taking up 14M. Firefox is coming in at 567M (and, to be honest, that's the smallest I've seen it in a while, but OTOH I did restart it recently and it only has a few tabs open.)

So... actually... it makes sense that a device that requires you use the Google office apps rather than native apps, would require you use considerably more memory and power.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but think of it like this: how optimal do you think a Google spreadsheet, implemented over JavaScript, the DOM, and XML, in turn implemented over various abstraction layers that eventually get down to C++ and some kinda linkage to the native widgets of the underlying OS, is, compared to a Microsoft/GNOME Spreadsheet implemented directly in C++, with a little abstraction but not a lot between that C++ and the underlying OS?

TL;DR: A device that forces you to run desktop apps inside a web browser will always need more power than a device that allows optimized apps to run.

Which is probably why we shouldn't be heading in this direction.

...which we all know we're going to anyway, because we're tech, and tech always heads in the stupid direction. Wanna buy a watch to go with your 9.7" voiceless iPhone?

Open your mind

[Art3x]

If my work didn't give me a laptop for free, I would be tempted to snap up a new Chromebook Pixel.

The self-anointed tech pundits are all scratching their heads. "Why such a luxurious laptop to just browse the web?"

"Just browse the web." That's the first lie. Web browsers, especially Chrome, no longer just browse the Web. It is no less than a modern GUI toolkit and practically a whole operating system. HTML 5 specifies that web browsers can run background processes, run offline, open and save local files, stream video, support instant chat, draw raster and vector artwork (<canvas> and SVG), and put up a large variety of widgets from just a little bit of code.

Chromebooks don't just browse the Web, they aren't useless offline --- or actually, Windows and Macs offline are just as useless, the way we use them today. About the only thing I'm still waiting on in a Chromebook is an offline video editor. Everything else --- word processing, spreadsheets, drawing, photoshopping --- are now available and pretty good. In fact, I think they're better, maybe just because they're newer, made by programmers who are wiser.

And who wouldn't want all the nice things in a Google Pixel: a solid build, a nice screen, a good keyboard, long battery life. The only point I agree on is that the processor is a waste, for most people. I would rather Google had gone for an ARM processor while keeping everything else the same, resulting in 24-hour battery life. I would rather get away with forgetting to charge my laptop one night than have that much speed.