backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by mitchells365.. on Jul 26 at 3:39 AM

Microsoft says that $199 notebooks running Windows 8.1 will be here this holiday season

Chromebooks are increasingly becoming a popular option for both regular consumers and educational institutions. Both Acer and HP offers Chromebooks that are priced at the $200 price point, which is enough low enough to get price conscious-buyers to take notice.
 
To combat this insurgence, Microsoft and its partners will put further pressure on Chromebooks this holiday season. Just in time for the holiday shopping rush, Microsoft COO Kevin Turner said that Hewlett-Packard will release a $199 “Stream” notebook that will offer the best of both worlds: 1) the low pricing of Chromebooks and 2) the vast software ecosystem of that only Windows can provide.
 
In fact, Microsoft provided the following slide deck to point out its competitive advantages over Chromebooks:
 
As some have already pointed out, Microsoft attempted to go down this route with Windows XP and netbooks a few years back, but that didn’t turn out to well for consumers that were stuck with underpowered, cheaply-built machines.
 
Microsoft’s most recent efforts to make a further push down-market came with the announcement of Windows 8.1 with Bing. Microsoft offers this version of Windows for a “low-cost” in exchange for making Bing the default search engine in Internet Explorer when a customer takes delivery of a new computer.
 
We’ve already seen Toshiba’s Encore 2 tablet come to market sporting Windows 8.1 with Bing and a $199 price tag to match. And it will likely only be a matter of time before we start seeing $99 Windows 8.1 tablets as well.

Source: The Verge



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By name99 on 7/14/2014 4:01:54 PM , Rating: 3
I know Brandon and others want to paint this as a good sign - "look, Windows is competing aggressively against ChromeOS" - but I see this a sign of desperation.
The fact that MS is willing to endorse ads that, implicitly set the value of the Windows ecosystem at zero tells me that they believe that's already how consumers (as opposed to enterprise) see Windows.

Compare with Apple (or any other confident brand), which basically goes with the "because I'm worth it" message - yes our stuff costs a lot, and that's because it's worth a lot.
Note that's the same message MS basically delivers in the arena where it does feel confident, eg Windows Server or SQL Server. You don't see MS advertising fire sales of WinServer against Linux or extra SQL Server CALs if you bring in a copy of MySQL.

MS will put a brave face on it but, from Win Phone to XBox to, now, low-end PCs, I think they see the whole consumer space drifting out of their reach, and they appear to have no real clue how to get it back.




RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 4:07:01 PM , Rating: 5
You say this as if cheap Windows laptops were a new thing. The whole netbook craze, although started with a Linux eeePC, never really took off until there were Windows Netbooks. The crap that was Atom at the time pretty much guaranteed that people would be ultimately unsatisfied with them, but there mere existence shows that a cheap laptop is not merely a knee-jerk reaction to Chromebooks.

Hopefully, the new generation of bargain notebooks will be better received in the long term than the older Netbooks were.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 4:24:07 PM , Rating: 5
Windows RT runs extremely smoothly on ARM tablets. (source: personal experience), and Windows Phone 8 is also running a full Windows 8 core (just doesn't have a desktop).


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 4:43:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Windows RT appears to be an all but dead OS. Do they even make devices with that anymore that anyone is even buying? Microsoft is clearly moving away from RT.

Even if they don't make them, why is it not relevant. It's literally the same OS, desktop and all, compiled for ARM. they just don't allow you to run unsigned applications

quote:
And Windows Phone? Dude I'm talking about x86 Windows!! Why are you bringing all this other stuff up?

Because, as I just said, Windows Phone is the SAME codebase as full blown Windows. It just uses a different shell. It's essentially a metro-only version of Windows 8. So again, why is that not relevant? Just because the CPU isn't specifically executing *x86* instructions?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 4:55:51 PM , Rating: 3
What are you talking about? Of course the hardware is radically different, that's the entire point! Just as a low end x86 ATOM is also significantly different than a top end i7. The only thing they have in common is their input is x86 machine code.

My entire point was to debunk the fact that "Windows needs relatively TONS of horsepower to run smoothly. Always has, always will." - It doesn't. The counter example was hardware that is way worse than any x86 counterpart running just fine.

quote:
But according to you, they're "basically" the same OS.

They are not *basically the same OS*, they *ARE* the same OS. They all run the same exact kernel, same exact code, just compiled for two different CPUs.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 6:03:05 PM , Rating: 5
So first off all, this is a direct 1:1 comparison. Windows RT on ARM has all the same shipping applications as x86. Notepad, Paint, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, even the full desktop version of Office which functions identically to the one installed on your x86 machine. They all run very smoothly.

On top of that, I'm SO confused about your point. On the one hand, I'm not allowed to use things like metro and mobile apps as a comparison because they have lower requirements, yet you turn around and use the argument that ChromeOS apps have lower requirements and therefore provide a better experience.

This really is a super simple concept. Windows RT on ARM is less performant than even the slowest x86 ATOM CPU out there, and it not only runs the OS smoothly, but all of the inbox desktop applications as well. So why would a low end x86 device provide a horrible experience compared to a chromebook? If you want to go out there and claim I'm making an "Apples vs Oranges" comparison, then you absolutely can't sit there and make such a comparison between two wildly different OSs which don't even share any common apps.


By domboy on 7/15/2014 8:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So first off all, this is a direct 1:1 comparison. Windows RT on ARM has all the same shipping applications as x86. Notepad, Paint, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, even the full desktop version of Office which functions identically to the one installed on your x86 machine. They all run very smoothly.


On top of that, if you remove the desktop application signing restriction ("jailbreak"), there is a decent list of opensource windows desktop applications re-compiled for ARM.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=365...

I use a bunch of these with no issues with slowness. Granted there isn't a photoshop or Crysis for Windows RT, but these devices are definitely a lot better than the original netbooks. I never had one of those myself, but IT people I've talked to said you could really only open one program at a time or it would slow to a crawl. My Surface RT doesn't have that problem, and I usually have several things running at the same time (talking about desktop applications).

It's funny as I've ended up using my Surface RT as a touch-screen "netbook" a lot more often than as a tablet, and it works really well as such. Sure it's not nearly as powerful as a desktop or more expensive laptop, but it does what I want it to do. It was of course more expensive than these $199 devices, but I guess you get what you pay for.


By StevoLincolnite on 7/14/2014 6:07:09 PM , Rating: 4
Intel's Atom today is vastly different to what it was 6 years ago with the Atom 330 and it's later derivatives such as Pineview. (Which were mostly die-shrinks of the original Atom and as such performance hardly changed.)

For starters, single threaded performance... Which was one of the major issues of the original chip is vastly improved, multi-threading has increased too as Intel dropped hyper threading and added two extra real cores.

For the average person who just want's to watch 1080P Youtube video, play some flash games and do some Facebook and Email, it's easily more than enough and will provide a smooth experience, which is exactly what a $199 device is targeting at, content consumption not creation.
Want to do high-end Photoshop stuff? Only a full blown Desktop will handle that I'm afraid with high quality 2560x1600 panels to match.

As for Chrome OS, well, Windows Phone has proven to be lighter than Android on equivalent hardware, Windows RT shares the same codebase.
However one of the big issues compared to Android is one of App availability, but that's also nary of an issue when compared to ChromeOS.

In the end, I hope Android, ChromeOS, Windows, Windows RT/Phone all have large chunks of the market for competition reasons, competition keeps companies humble, brings lower prices and more innovation.


By atechfan on 7/14/2014 5:51:25 PM , Rating: 3
Not really dead, just merging with Windows Phone, which is what it should have been all along.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By nafhan on 7/14/14, Rating: 0
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 5:55:04 PM , Rating: 5
How is it less useful than ChromeOS? While Windows RT is missing the vast majority of PC software because of the lack of WIN32 programs, it still has an order of magnitude more software that will run on it than ChromeOS, plus it will run WebApps just fine too.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By corduroygt on 7/15/2014 8:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
What a load of BS. I got a original Surface RT for my mother in law with keyboard for $225 the other day, and it's better and faster than ANY 10" tablet you can get for that price. It has all the apps a casual like my mother in law needs.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By nafhan on 7/15/2014 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Apps" like a web browser? My wife's grandmother has a Chromebook (which also has a keyboard), and couldn't be happier.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By corduroygt on 7/15/2014 1:47:13 PM , Rating: 3
facebook, skype, flash, im+ (with true background support unlike iOS), mail, office (when people share funny ppt's). She also loves the MS Health/Food apps.


By nafhan on 7/16/2014 3:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not certain about Skype, but the rest of that works pretty well on a Chromebook, or at least well enough that someone who uses Office primarily for viewing "funny PPT's" would be more than happy with the Office functionality.

Honestly, I'd be willing to bet my grandmother-in-law would have been fine with Windows RT laptop as well, but they weren't even available at the time she received her Chromebook - which is still going strong.


By Sonicmerlin on 7/15/2014 10:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
Uh no it's because it prioritizes the UI thread, so heavy activity won't slow down your interaction with the device.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Samus on 7/14/2014 6:08:55 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Reclaimer, you need to realize that every version of Windows since Vista has been designed to run on weaker and weaker hardware. Windows 7 ran on a Pantium M (Centrino platform) quite well, and Windows 8 can actually run on a Pentium II! If you have 1.25GB of RAM and an SSD, it's usable. The kernel is multimode and will use whatever amount of memory is available as efficiently as possible.

Microsoft has been taking the ultra-efficiency on legacy hardware approach since Windows 7, especially with the introduction of RPK (refurbisher production kit) in order to refurbish old PC's with Windows 7/8 licenses.

So yes, Windows 8 will run on Atom better than Windows XP did.

Chrome OS runs well because it has about 15 background tasks and 20 or so drivers.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By NellyFromMA on 7/15/2014 9:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
A P2 can have over a GB of RAM? And can run an SSD?

Not doubting, just never thought to even consider that.

PCI controllers presumably?

Still, I'm surprised.


By Argon18 on 7/17/2014 5:38:11 PM , Rating: 1
"A P2 can have over a GB of RAM? And can run an SSD?"

Nope. Most P2's max out at 384 MB or 512 MB. And forget about SSD's, P2's are all PATA and PATA SSD's are trash. Unless you spend the money on a PCI SATA controller and even then you're bottle-necked by the feeble 32 bit PCI bus. Do not attempt unless you want a painful and unpleasant experience. Then again, the same could be said for Windows OS in general, regardless of hardware. Lol


By atechfan on 7/14/2014 4:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
So if you mention a competing product, you have a me-too device? Samsung's phones and tablets are definitely me-too devices by your own definition, since they love to mention Apple in their ads. Who is trying to have it both ways now?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By themaster08 on 7/14/2014 4:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows needs relatively TONS of horsepower to run smoothly. Always has, always will.
Have you used Windows 8.1 on low-end hardware? I have a Windows 8.1 tablet running on a crappy Intel Atom CPU with 2GB RAM, and by no means does it run poorly, particularly when using the modern interface and built-in Windows apps. Sure, running 3rd party desktop apps such as Firefox with a number of add-ons runs pretty crappy, but running Internet Explorer is by no means a poor user experience. MS have done a great job in optimising the OS and built-in apps.

Let's face it. If you're in the market for a $200 netbook, you're hardly going to be running resource intensive tasks, are you?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By themaster08 on 7/14/2014 4:57:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They just quoted Office in their own add. Which would take something like 45 seconds just to LOAD on these things.
Nothing but a complete exaggeration. I also have Office 2013 installed on the tablet. All of the Office apps load within a reasonable amount of time. In fact, I've just timed it, and it took both Word and Excel 3 seconds to load.

quote:
How can you know what people will try to run? It's compatible with Microsoft's entire program library. Why shouldn't people expect a good experience?
Because you have to be realistic with your expectations. Would you try to run a high-end game on a $200 netbook? No, of course you wouldn't. That has nothing to do with the OS, but the OS itself runs absolutely fine on the hardware.

The most likely scenario is that people that purchase these devices will be using them for light tasks. You know that, you are just trying to find a negative angle to put on this.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By nikon133 on 7/14/2014 6:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
Windows task manager shows that Word 2013 takes around 30MB of RAM when up and running. It will open just fine from 5400rpm HDD, in a few seconds.

Unless you are out of RAM (forcing system to heavy swap), but 4GB is still perfectly fine for most users' everyday use.

It's just Word, mate.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Solandri on 7/14/2014 7:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
Word's footprint is not just 30 MB on disk that it reads and dumps straight into RAM. It (and Office) is about 300-800 MB of thousands of files scattered all over your hard drive.

On a SSD this isn't a problem since their random read/write speeds are about 50 MB/s, 250 MB/s if queued. But a 5400 RPM HDD will have trouble hitting even 1 MB/s at random read/writes. Every low-end laptop with a slow drive where I've tried to start up Word takes a good 10-20 seconds unless you've already opened it recently. If it's doing any other disk activity in the background (e.g. virus scan) forget about it. Go make some coffee or a sandwich, and maybe it'll be open when you get back.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: 0
By Spuke on 7/14/2014 8:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've used a Win8.1 tablet with an Atom CPU. It really is pretty good. Color me surprised actually. Even Office ran great. Of course, this was a tablet.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 9:12:14 PM , Rating: 3
10-20 seconds is a pretty worst case scenario. I've absolutely loaded large applications on 5400RPM laptop drives before and none ever took nearly that long unless the system was completely bogged down. I used to use photoshop, visual studio, and office (all simultaneously) on my 8 year old Acer laptop (Pentium M dual core, 5400rpm drive, 1GB ram, win7) and none would ever take more than 10 seconds to load.

Please don't be the guy who, in the midst of a bunch of people telling you you're wrong, finds the one post that somewhat agrees with you and yells "Se, I told you so!"

But again, let's go back to the original point. Implying that Windows fails because it takes long for an application to load due to a hardware limitation is anything but a point in favor of chromebooks.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By peterrushkin on 7/14/2014 9:48:35 PM , Rating: 1
Who are these people who keep on down voting these valid points?

Are you such a M$ zombie that you can't see good points?

If anyone needs to be down voted, its that tool atechfan. More like msbrownnoseboy!


By themaster08 on 7/15/2014 2:18:06 AM , Rating: 2
What valid points does he have? Yet another troll with absolutely no idea.


By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
You seem really upset at me. Calling on people to downvote me. Boohoo, did I hurt your feelings when I called you out for your racist bullshit?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 11:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please don't be the guy who, in the midst of a bunch of people telling you you're wrong, finds the one post that somewhat agrees with you and yells "Se, I told you so!"


So just stay with the crowd and eat up the group-think mentality, even if you have some insight or angle they don't agree with. Even if you have something to contribute. Or even in, in some cases, you KNOW they are wrong.

Wow...just..okay. Mankind's history would look a LOT different if we all thought like that.

Solandri was dead on. But nobody is going to address that, because it's easier to attack the easy target than facing the truth.

quote:
Implying that Windows fails


What the...is THAT what you people think I'm saying here? Wtf...no. That is not what I'm saying or even implying!


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/15/2014 11:12:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So just stay with the crowd and eat up the group-think mentality

No, just realize when you're wrong, and don't cling to the one person out of a hundred that agrees with you. At least a dozen people here have told you you're wrong and provided personal experience as the reason why. As I pointed out, I had an old laptop with a 5400 RPM drive and it loaded these applications just fine, yet Solandri is "dead on"? How so? I just proved him wrong! Do you think I'm just lying or something? Do you need me to go take a video of me using my laptop, then disassemble it to show you that it's really a 5400RPM drive?

And I even forgot, in my old gaming desktop, I had a 2TB 5400RPM drive, and guess what. It too loaded things just fine. We all know that a 5400RPM drive is going to be slower than an SSD. We are all aware of the huge difference in random read/write performance of the two. Yes I realize that SSDs are blazing fast and hard drives can have milliseconds of seek times. I am aware it is slower. No I am not claiming it is just as fast. But more importantly, no, it does not take even CLOSE to 45 seconds to load an application like Office. Not even close. As I said, 10 seconds was pretty much a worst case scenario for me on my laptop, and it rarely went above that without thrashing the system, which was mostly a result of memory being full and reading from the page file.

quote:
What the...is THAT what you people think I'm saying here? Wtf...no. That is not what I'm saying or even implying!

I meant fail as "loses compared to the chromebook in this scenario." Sorry, poor choice of words. I by no means was trying to imply that you thought Windows was a fail product in general.


By mondo1234 on 7/14/2014 9:44:43 PM , Rating: 4
Oh, Come on, dont stop swinging yet! You are on a roll!

You can still rack up a few more -1's or 0's on your posts, the night is young!

Show Tony how its really done.


By themaster08 on 7/15/2014 1:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong yet again. Notice how I never mentioned the disk or SSD? You simply jump to conclusions on a wild, hate-filled rant.

It runs a 500GB 5400RPM hard drive, so please, just shut up.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By nikon133 on 7/15/2014 12:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
I know there's more to Word than the size of .exe file, just saying it is not freaking AutoCAD with all the available plugins loading on startup.

My old laptop has 5400 HDD in it, and Word 2013 still opens in around 3-4 seconds, presuming that system is fully booted; if it's still crunching startup tasks in the background, it will take longer... but that is the case on my 7200rpm desktop HDD as well.

Still... while I'm OK with small storage on tablets, for a laptop I'd still rather have 500gb of slow spinning storage, than 64GB of flash. In my usual laptop usage, there will be tons of pictures, movies and TV shows for rainy days... I don't need laptop for light work/consumption, that is what I have tablet for; I need laptop to replace my desktop when I am away from home. Micro storage and web-apps will simply not do. Highly personal thing, your preference might differ.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have both. Even a budget laptop could manage 32GB of Flash for the OS and a couple critical programs, then toss everything else on a slow laptop HD.


By nikon133 on 7/16/2014 12:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
No complains here. I was pleasantly surprised with my wife's VAIO S storage performance (32GB SSD plus 500GB HDD)... 3 years later, still works very nice.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 4:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh good point, it's not like anyone actually uses Firefox...

His point is that IE runs smoothly, therefore the problem is not Windows, it is that Firefox is poorly optimized for Windows if it cannot run smoothly as well. But we also don't have Firefox on ChormeOS, so we don't know what the comparison there is between it and Chrome.

quote:
Which would take something like 45 seconds just to LOAD on these things.

Exaggeration much? Office takes only a couple seconds to load on my gen 1 Surface.

quote:
Why shouldn't people expect a good experience?

That's not what he said... at all...


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: 0
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 6:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, and if Office's bottleneck in loading was exclusive IO speed, then it might bump up a bit, but it's not. I'm loading Office on a 7200RPM hard drive right now and it starts up in like a quarter second.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 6:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
So first low end notebooks perform poorly because of Windows. Now they perform poorly because of lack of Flash. Which is it?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By themaster08 on 7/15/2014 2:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer is so blinded by hate and anger that he just makes it up as he goes along. Sure, the Surface has flash-based storage, however my tablet/convertible has a mechanical 5400RPM hard disk.

All of this anger just to try and prove that Office apps load in a reasonable amount of time on low-end devices. He needs to prove it to himself so he can continue with his hate tirade.

Reclaimer would much prefer to troll something he has never used rather than try it for himself before coming to a conclusion. There's something wrong in that kid's head.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 10:58:02 AM , Rating: 1
Office was just an EXAMPLE. Why do you guys always get so hung up on examples and end up ignoring the entire point? Are you THAT needing to troll me down?

The point is these laptops have horrible IO performance, memory, and CPU performance. You are going to notice that using Windows, where other light OS's, you wouldn't.

And I HAVE used Windows on low-end laptops, thank you very much. Which is why I never buy low-end....


By inighthawki on 7/15/2014 11:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why you think that other OSs won't hit this. Windows (the OS) is a very lightweight OS these days, and it's applications are not too demanding either. Unless you're talking about something like "Crysis or Photoshop," but then you can't make that comparison because ChromeOS doesn't even have those.


By corduroygt on 7/15/2014 11:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
Office runs splendidly fast on Gen1 Surface RT with its slow Tegra 3 processor.


By themaster08 on 7/15/2014 11:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I HAVE used Windows on low-end laptops, thank you very much. Which is why I never buy low-end....
We're not just talking about any Windows OS here, we're talking about Windows 8/8.1, which is well optimised for low-end hardware.

That was the point all along. You've tried to circumvent that by bringing in applications and 5400RPM hard disks.

Windows 8/8.1 generally performs well with low-end hardware. Why is that SO difficult for you to comprehend?


By TheDoc9 on 7/14/2014 4:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you're right, I really do.
-Ellen Ripley, Aliens


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By nikon133 on 7/14/2014 6:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Nah. My ThinkPad Tablet 2 runs Windows 8.1 Pro beautifully, and that's on dual-core Atom and 2GB of RAM. The Celeron in that Acer should be quite more capable than my Atom. There's also 2x amount of RAM and much more storage, albeit slower. Outside of gaming, heavy video editing... that machine will cover pretty much every other need an average user could have.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Spuke on 7/14/2014 8:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Rec is talking about spinning platter drives not SSD's or flash memory. I don't know about you guys but the difference in performance is dramatic.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/14/2014 9:15:26 PM , Rating: 3
Even a 5400RPM drive is not nearly as bad as he's trying to claim for loading applications. I used to use a really old laptop that had a 120GB 5400RPM drive which had a number of large applications on it (Office, Visual Studio, Photoshop, etc). And never once did I come anywhere close to his ridiculous "45 seconds" claim, and very rarely did it take anything more than 10.


By Spuke on 7/14/2014 10:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
I have an older laptop too with a 5400rpm drive (Win7) and it doesn't launch apps that bad either.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 8:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
What the...okay enough of this.

Anandtech did SSD comparisons years ago. The fastest hard drive on the planet at the time, the 10,000 RPM VelociRaptor, took a full 30 seconds to launch Photoshop (I think). I will try to find the link.

Because it's ridiculous that you people, in order to bash me, are trying to claim 5400 RPM HHD's give snappy performance. Or even acceptable performance!

And of course I didn't literally mean 45 seconds. I said LIKE 45 seconds. In other words, a LONG horribly slow time.

You can say what you want about my opinions of acceptable performance levels, but claiming 5400 HDD's are not "that bad" at loading apps and running Windows is just insulting to the readers intelligence.

You people are probably launching programs that are already cached and going "gee, that wasn't so bad" or something. Clearly. Because there's just NO WAY what you are saying is true.

You are a liar.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Sonicmerlin on 7/15/2014 10:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3734/seagates-moment...

Here's the link you were talking about. The velociraptor loads photoshop in 4.2 seconds, although the 5400 drive needs 24.6 sec. It's a good thing people aren't planning on running photoshop on a $200 laptop then.

Reclaimer, you are a liar.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 10:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
No that's not the one. It was a very early comparison of SSD's to HDD's, right when the first gen Intel's came out. And again, I'm not SURE Photoshop was what was being loaded.

And yes I'm working from memory here, the specifics might not be 100%. The POINT is, even the fastest HDD's are horribly slow today. FACT.

So claiming a cheap OEM 5400 RPM one can be snappy or even "good enough", is the worst kind of hyperbole. You're kidding yourselves.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By themaster08 on 7/15/2014 11:29:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So claiming a cheap OEM 5400 RPM one can be snappy or even "good enough", is the worst kind of hyperbole. You're kidding yourselves.
The whole point of this argument is that you erroneously claimed that Windows needed TONS of resources to run well.

People have come forward to debunk your statement based on their own personal experiences. You are unable to handle the truth, therefore your argument has gone off on some wild tangent, debating the performance of 5400RPM drives.

You just don't know when to quit, do you?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/15/2014 12:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he brought up 5400rpm drives because the Acer in the advertisement offered it, and so his claim was that this was a low end laptop whose experience would suffer as a result.

But again to clarify, I'm not saying that a 5400rpm drive would not be a worse experience than an SSD, just that it's not *nearly* as bad as he's making it out to be.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 1:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Amazing. You actually framed my argument in it's proper CONTEXT.

Please teach people here how to do the same.

quote:
just that it's not *nearly* as bad as he's making it out to be.


Isn't that a matter of opinion??

More people are using flash memory today than ever before. Phones and tablets respond instantly to your commands. Top end laptops, including the best sellers from Apple, come standard with SSD's. I'm sorry but people are not going to be as tolerant with disk thrashing and poor IO as they used to be.

I know I'm not. So yeah, in my opinion and backed by objective facts, slow hard drives ARE 'that bad'.


By inighthawki on 7/15/2014 3:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't that a matter of opinion??

No, even the worst case "benchmarks" that have been quoted here are < half of what you initially claimed (45 seconds).

What IS a matter of opinion is whether or not that is an acceptable amount of time for a person to wait; however, photoshop load speeds aren't even relevant to the discussion because ChromeOS does not have an equivalent that can be measured.

In fairness of the context fo the situation though, the 5400rpm drive is only in one model. The Toshiba directly below includes an SSD, so that no longer becomes a factor. Those who go for the Acer would be sacrificing the disk performance for other features, such as the ability to even load photoshop at all because it's running Windows and not ChromeOS, or the fact that they need the storage space over the performance. For some people, 500GB of slow storage is better than 32GB of fast storage + some cloud space (way slower than even a mechanical drive).


By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 1:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
I said relatively tons. As in relative to ChromeOS.

So in that context, you would have to be biased to argue with that statement.

quote:
You just don't know when to quit, do you?


Well let's put it this way...I'm not about to start now.


By inighthawki on 7/15/2014 11:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
Weird, my photoshop never took anywhere close to that long to launch. IDK if they have some super bloated newer version that they tested on, but that's ridiculous. I ran a 5400rpm drive in my main desktop for years without ever hitting anything that bad.


By nikon133 on 7/15/2014 5:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
What amuses me is that he is implying that it is better having uber-small SSD and no pro applications available, than slow spinner and abundance of pro applications, if one needs them.

"Office loads 20 seconds on 5400 HDD". Yes, BUT THERE IS OFFICE for that $200 machine with 5400rpm HDD. "Firefox performs poor on Atom based Windows machines". Yes, BUT THERE IS FIREFOX AVAILABLE FOR THOSE MACHINES.


By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
What does the load time of Photshop have to do with the efficiency of the Windows kernel vs the ChromeOS kernel?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
I just timed Photoshop launching on an Athlonx2 machine with 4GB of RAM and a 7200RPM drive. 21 seconds. Before calling people liars, get your own facts straight.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 1:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
Facts? Dude, 21 seconds might as well be an ETERNITY!!! Do you even comprehend how horrible that is?

And that's on a 7200 RPM drive!!! Can you just imagine what a piss-poor cheap OEM 5400 RPM drive would do it in?

Maybe you and I have vastly different expectations of PC hardware. But I would rather throw myself off a building than wait 20+ seconds for something to load. Inexcusable!


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it was fast. But I am also using an ancient machine here as a reference. A 7 year old computer, to be exact. It launches in half the time you quoted, and would be slow even by low-end laptop standards today.

But none of that is even relevant to your original claim that ChromeOS is faster than Windows. Since you cannot run Photoshop on any ChromeOS devices, and none come with mechanical drives, what the hell does quoting Photoshop launch times have to do with the speed of ChromeOS?


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 3:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But none of that is even relevant to your original claim that ChromeOS is faster than Windows.


Odd, because that's NOT my "claim". Faster on piss poor hardware, yes. And that's not a "claim", ChromeOS is a browser! OFC it runs "faster"....

quote:
what the hell does quoting Photoshop launch times have to do with the speed of ChromeOS?


Nothing. Because I never made that comparison. I used that to show how much the IO of this $200 device would suck, burdened with a 5400 RPM hard drive. You know, examples?? Those things!

Seems like you're taking two separate points I was making, and morphing them together.

Personally it would be more preferable to have a small amount of Flash memory on board rather than these junk drives. Hell 500 gig USB thumb drives these days are cheap, AND still faster than this horribly slow HDD.

HDD's are also less efficient, and are far less durable. You can brick this entire device just from dropping it and taking out the HDD.

But why should I be surprised that, especially when it comes to MS, you completely miss the context of the argument, set up straw men nobody claimed to knock them down, etc etc.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 5:39:14 PM , Rating: 3
I miss the context? Nobody here was claiming that harddrives are as fast as SSDs. You are the one fighting a strawman, because no one at all said what you are arguing against. You, however, did bring Photoshop into an argument about how Windows performs vs how ChromeOSperforms, and you are being called on that inane comparison, not just by me. This has nothing at all to do with anybody's feeling about either Google or Microsoft, but merely about making comparisons that are not slightly relevant to the discussion, which was, originally, whether of not a cheap laptop is able to run the Windows OS acceptably, which you have not provided any evidence that it could not.

These laptops will compete just fine against a ChromeBook doing the tasks that a ChromeBook can do, plus they have the added benefit of being able to run millions of programs that a ChromeBook cannot.

Funny how a limited app store is a negative for Windows RT and Windows Phone, but a much, much smaller set of apps is not a weakness for ChromeOS.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 6:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You, however, did bring Photoshop into an argument about how Windows performs vs how ChromeOSperforms


Again, WRONG. That was strictly comparing IO performance vs slow HDD vs flash.

It had NOTHING to do with ChromeOS.

Go fish, catch another Red Herring.


By atechfan on 7/16/2014 8:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
This is your opening statement is this whole debate:

quote:
There's no way a $199 Windows laptop is going to translate into a good experience for the user.

ChromeOS is light, designed to run on crap hardware. Windows needs relatively TONS of horsepower to run smoothly. Always has, always will.


You started out claiming Windows is inherently slow, then when proved wrong, YOU are the one who changed the argument to Flash vs. platter drives. Where is the Red Herring? Just admit when you are wrong rather than constantly moving the goalposts and maybe people wouldn't always be attacking you.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By inighthawki on 7/15/2014 3:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Less than half of the eternity that is 45 seconds.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 4:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you so hung up on the 45 seconds thing? It was just off the top of my head, not an exact figure. I even threw "like" in to cover myself. "Like" could mean anywhere from 30 to 45 seconds, you know, somewhere in the ballpark.

I'm covered. Find a new thing to bully mean over, let go of the 45 seconds!


By nikon133 on 7/15/2014 5:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Rec is a bit all over the place, it happens when he is on one of his anti-something crusades ;). I was replying to this part of what he said (quote): " ChromeOS is light, designed to run on crap hardware. Windows needs relatively TONS of horsepower to run smoothly. Always has, always will ".

My dual core Atom tablet with 2GB of RAM is hardly top-shelve hardware, and it works admirably well with Windows 8.1 Pro, including core apps, Office, media players... as long as you are not trying to run heavy-weight software.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By w8gaming on 7/14/2014 9:46:31 PM , Rating: 1
Don't be too sure about Apple I am worth it strategy. The low market share of mobile device means soon the installed base of Android will be so much bigger than iOS that the developers find they make more money on Android apps than iOS apps. Profit talks and history repeats.


RE: This is NOT a good sign for Windows
By tonyswash on 7/15/2014 5:50:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't be too sure about Apple I am worth it strategy. The low market share of mobile device means soon the installed base of Android will be so much bigger than iOS that the developers find they make more money on Android apps than iOS apps. Profit talks and history repeats.


The Android installed base is already larger than the iOS installed base. It seems to take about four Android users to generate the same amount of platform activity (and therefore also the money) as one iOS user. That ratio may even worsen in iOS's favor as Android sales grow by going down market (i.e as poorer people are brought into the Android ecosystem).

The Android installed base has to be at least four times the size of the iOS base just to get platform parity.

With iOS continuing to grow it's installed base (which it is doing) and with the global population as an upper limit Android will probably run out of human beings to sell to before it can generate enough of a platform utilisation difference based solely on market share of devices sold to generate the sort of differential that would adversely effect the iOS platform in some way.

Personally I don't think Android will ever be as successful a platform as iOS.


By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 5:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's already basically there... And this was 7 months ago.http://www.androidauthority.com/android-revenue-ga...

This is more recent. The growth rate is steady, not slowing down at all. Not even slightly.

http://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-store-...


By Jeffk464 on 7/15/2014 6:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that MS is willing to endorse ads that, implicitly set the value of the Windows ecosystem at zero tells me that they believe that's already how consumers (as opposed to enterprise) see Windows.


True, basically chromebooks are for people with simple computing needs that want a simple no headache system. Anybody with serious computer needs will need windows. ChromeOS is almost like a tablet, its kind of just for messing around on the web and basic office stuff through google docs.


By Argon18 on 7/17/2014 5:34:33 PM , Rating: 1
"I know Brandon and others want to paint this as a good sign - "look, Windows is competing aggressively against ChromeOS" - but I see this a sign of desperation."

It certainly is. Rather than competing on features and capabilities, Microsoft is caught in the death spiral of price in a race to the bottom.

Apple has Microsoft soundly beat in the high end, selling Macbook Pro's for $2k like hotcakes. So Microsoft is going after the bottom of the barrel instead, like a drunk trying to pickup the nasty old women after last-call at the pub.


I'm not a Microsoft basher
By amanojaku on 7/14/2014 4:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
But this ad campaign is misleading.

1) Run both native and web apps
3) Desktop applications
4) Work well offline and with limited bandwidth

I have to group these together, because they're really just variations of the same thing. Essentially, Chrome doesn't run bare-metal applications. Everything is interpreted by the web browser, which could lead to poor performance. Except, web applications are limited to begin with so they don't need a lot of performance. And considering the specs of these Stream notebooks... They're OK for web apps, but I wouldn't be running Photoshop on them. Not even sure I'd want to run Office on them.

As for bandwidth, well, it's not like web apps require bandwidth. They can cache and run locally, just like native. And native apps can be network heavy, too. I remember taking down a T3 while running Sun's remote desktop. That's a 44.736Mbit/sec pipe downed by a native remote terminal session. They have optimized network applications significantly since then.

2) Run full Office
That's MS's fault. No one else can legally write Office for ChromeOS, so MS needs to own up to this one.

5) Work with many peripherals, i.e. driver availability
It's not Google's responsibility to make peripheral drivers. MS has been helpful in providing standard drivers for Windows, but that has had various levels of success over the years. I remember blocking all MS-provided drivers from Windows Update in the first 2-3 years. I'd rather get my drivers directly from the vendor so I know who to blame when stuff breaks.

6) Print directly to your printer
This is a valid complaint. There's no reason I should have to send my documents to Google just to print to my local printer. Not only are there performance issues, there could be security issues, as well.

Criticism aside, I applaud MS' push to create a $200 portable device that runs full-blown Windows. I just hope it runs well.




RE: I'm not a Microsoft basher
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 1:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Criticism aside, I applaud MS' push to create a $200 portable device that runs full-blown Windows. I just hope it runs well.


Oh it will!! According to atechfan, inighthawk and others, it's going to be the best goddamn thing you've ever used in your life!!

Don't you DARE question the performance of these things. HOW DARE YOU!!!! It's going to be fine, no question. YOU GOT THAT!!!??!?!?


RE: I'm not a Microsoft basher
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
None of us made any claims that it would be the best at anything. Just that Windows runs acceptably on cheap devices if you don't run any heavy apps. Anything that can be done on a ChromeBook could be done easily on a cheap laptop. Why you are bringing Photoshop into the discussion is baffling. ChromeBooks cannot run it, so it cannot be used as a benchmark here, nor would anyone in the market for a cheap laptop likely to be running Photoshop anyway, as the software would cost more by itself than the machine in this case.


RE: I'm not a Microsoft basher
By themaster08 on 7/15/2014 4:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why are you so angry and such a drama queen all of the time?

Seek help.


RE: I'm not a Microsoft basher
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 5:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
It is odd, in any other subject, reclaimer can make very well reasoned arguments, if somewhat abrasive at times, but when it comes to Google or Samsung, he loses it whenever someone doesn't agree they are the best thing ever.

If anyone states that a cheap laptop will run Windows and light apps just fine, they must be a Microsoft shill. There could be no possible way that a laptop that would have been high end when Vista launched could possibly run Windows 8, which is far leaner than Vista, now. We are speaking crazy talk.


RE: I'm not a Microsoft basher
By themaster08 on 7/16/2014 2:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure. Just recently all of Reclaimer's arguments seem to be particularly hate-filled, completely biased, and have zero credibility.

The reason 5400RPM hard disks were even mentioned in this discussion is due to Reclaimer jumping to conclusions when I called him out on the performance of Office on my tablet. He jumped to the conclusion that my tablet had flash storage, when it doesn't.

Apparently, anecdotal evidence from personal experience holds zero credibility, yet he has provided ZERO evidence to counter any claims, or to back up his own.

His arguments are based on pure emotion. Logic and reasoning do not come into or because of his passionate hatred of all things competing against Google or Samsung.

Many people have come forward to counter his ridiculous claims with their own personal experiences. He's clearly arguing against something he has no personal experience of, and is purely relying on benchmarks and paper specs, as he always does.

The amount of hoops he has jumped though to avoid the whole point of this discussion is ridiculous. If it were an Olympic event, Reclaimer would win gold every time.


RE: I'm not a Microsoft basher
By nikon133 on 7/15/2014 5:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
Not the best thing in life, but much better than glorified hardware web browser.

You sound like you are having a fit. I hope you are OK.


RE: I'm not a Microsoft basher
By nikon133 on 7/15/2014 6:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
1), 3), 4). You are technically right but... It is marketing, after all. Arguably, many users will not know - or not think of - relation between web apps and bandwidth. Or even not be aware what web apps are. And then, on W8 you do have Metro apps and desktop apps, both locally installed. They didn't say anything wrong there, they just addressed same things from a bit different angles.

2) How does it help Cromebook users that it is MS fault if he/she needs full Office? Again, this is marketing. It is strong marketing point if defacto Office standard suite is - or is not available - on platform. Sure, MS did not release it. Not unlike Google did not release native Maps, YouTube... on Windows Phone or Windows Metro. At the end, if you need Office, CB is not for you.

5) Again - it is perfectly marketable fact that with CB, you are likely to have problems connecting to printers, scanners... C'mon. I don't hear people saying that it is not Microsoft's problem that choice of apps is not remotely as good as for Android and iOS. In fact, it is the biggest Microsoft's problem with WP. At the end of the day, if you want to successfully launch new platform, you must secure support from vendors, developers and such. Isn't that part of supporting your own product?


Performance vs. ChromeBooks
By atechfan on 7/16/2014 7:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
We had a certain poster loudly proclaim that the performance of cheap Windows laptops is going to suck, since Windows needs "tons of resources". So, I decided to put that to the test. Today, I went to Future Shop (kind of the Canadian version of Best Buy) and found an Acer laptop for $299 and an HP Chromebook for $339. Closest price match I could find there. Then I ran the latest Sunspider benchmark, as there isn't much else that I could easily run on both systems in a short period of time. Results? 406 for the Acer vs. 792 for the HP. Remember, lower is better in Sunspider. So in this one particular test, the Windows bargain machine completely smoked the Chromebook, and this is a browser based benchmark, which is basically what the Chromebook is all about.

If I had more time with the machines, I would have installed Chrome on the Acer to eliminate any differences caused by IE vs. Chrome, and I would have ran some other browser benchmarks too. But this at least partly debunks a certain poster's claim that cheap Windows laptops will be slow.




RE: Performance vs. ChromeBooks
By Argon18 on 7/17/2014 5:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
You ever owned an HP computer? The build quality is horrid. It'll fail 1 month out of warranty, and HP will tell you too bad buy a new one.


RE: Performance vs. ChromeBooks
By atechfan on 7/19/2014 8:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how this refutes the fact that in this test, the cheaper Windows computer beat the more expensive Chromebook, but, sure, I'll play your game. I do own an HP PC. It is 7 years old and still runs just fine. I've added RAM, upgraded the video card twice, and added a larger HD, but other than that, everything is original.


RE: Performance vs. ChromeBooks
By atechfan on 7/19/2014 8:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and went from Vista to 7, but that also has nothing to do with a supposedly build quality issue from HP.


By mitchells365 on 7/26/2014 3:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
I have an HP Computer and it has worked for almost a year now, still almost as good as new even after dropping it multiple times, and putting a ton of programs on it.

Plus, Your comments are terrible. They're always complaints, and a lot of them don't have any relation to the subject matter, or the facts are just plain wrong. For example you said quote "If you want to pick nits and be accurate about it, point out his erroneous use of x64. x86-64 is NOT the same thing as x64!

intel x64 = intel IA64 = intel Itanium

AMD x86-64 = AMD64
intel x86-64 = intel EM64t"

But, x86-64 is just an extension of Intel's x86 Instruction Set to allow for 64 bit data and operations while still maintaining compatibility with the original 8086 instructions.
Intel x64 is just Intel using AMD's extensions, but being forced to use a different name. The Itanium was a financial disaster and failed product attempt by Intel. This is because no one supported it. It is a completely different instruction set than x86-64. (The Itanium's Instruction set is known as IA-64)

So this: "intel x64 = intel IA64 = intel Itanium" is completely wrong.

Sincerely,

Mitchell, (Age 17)


What I don't understand
By tonyswash on 7/14/2014 8:25:31 PM , Rating: 1
Every place I have looked for stats on OS usage Chrome's usage level is so low that it is usually just lumped in with the tiny 'Other' category. It's real world use level seem very, very low and I can't find any indication that Chrome adoption is taking off or accelerating. So what is Microsoft so worried about to the point it makes attack ads?




RE: What I don't understand
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
To counter the bloggers who are breathlessly claiming that ChromeBooks sales are exploding, I guess?


RE: What I don't understand
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 4:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Low-end laptops are the one PC segment that's growing, while everything else is shrinking or stagnating. That's probably why.

Of course ChromeOS's marketshare compared to Windows is a joke. Come on Tony, be serious.

However there has been an OEM shift at the low end toward Chromebooks. During the holiday shopping season, four of the top five best selling notebooks on Amazon were Chromebooks.

I don't think Microsoft is "worried". But Google is a major competitor, and they basically own the low end tablet market. Now they're trying to own the low-end notebook market while Microsoft has mainly been focused on "Ultrabooks" and trying to compete with the iPad.


RE: What I don't understand
By Argon18 on 7/17/2014 5:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
"I don't think Microsoft is "worried". But Google is a major competitor, and they basically own the low end tablet market. Now they're trying to own the low-end notebook market while Microsoft has mainly been focused on "Ultrabooks" and trying to compete with the iPad."

Uh, so laying off 18,000 workers isn't "worried" in your book? Lol. ChromeOS owns the low end, and Apple owns the high end. Macbook Pro's are selling like hot cakes at $1k+ a pop. The "tablet" market is a joke too, it's iPad vs "everything else". Microsoft lost that market long ago with their too-little-too-late RT flop. Same same for cell phones. I don't know a single person who owns a Windows phone. The entire phone market is Android vs. Apple, with niche player has-beens like Microsoft and Blackberry fighting for single-digit market shares. Lol

Redmond is terrified right now.


price?
By Gunbuster on 7/14/2014 8:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
So a netbook is $200 but the tablet will be $100.

$100 for a hinge and keyboard?




RE: price?
By ET on 7/15/2014 3:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
If you ignore screen size, RAM size, HD size, battery size, then yes, it's $100 for the hinge and keyboard.

;)


RE: price?
By Gunbuster on 7/15/2014 8:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I forgot about the magic warehouse with an inexhaustible supply of 720p laptop screens. I bet they will fully utilize that.


no thanks
By Yofa on 7/14/2014 4:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
have you ever tried to update windows 8 to windows 8.1 update 1 on a low-powered pc? you'll have hours of vista flashback staring at those progress bars.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki