SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
$600 Chromebooks are a dangerous development for Microsoft
Among the new hardware launched this week at IFA in Berlin are a couple of premium Chromebooks. Lenovo's $600 Yoga Chromebook brings high-end styling and materials to the Chromebook space, along with well-specced internals and a high quality screen. Dell's $600 Inspiron Chromebook 14 has slightly lower specs but is similarly offering better styling, bigger, better quality screens, and superior specs to the Chromebook space. These systems join a few other premium Chromebooks already out there. HP's Chromebook x2 is a $600 convertible hybrid launched a few months ago, and Samsung has had its Chromebook Plus and Pro systems for more than a year now. And of course, Google's Pixelbook is an astronomically expensive Chrome OS machine. These systems should cause ripples in Redmond.
[...] Lenovo reps told us that its new Chromebook was developed because the company was seeing demand for Chromebooks from users with a bit more disposable income. For example, new college students that had used Chrome OS at high school and families who wanted the robustness Chrome OS offers are looking for machines that are more attractive, use better materials, and are a bit faster and more powerful. The $600 machines fit that role.
And that's why Microsoft should be concerned. This demand shows a few things. Perhaps most significantly of all, it shows that Chrome OS's mix of Web applications, possibly extended with Android applications, is good enough for a growing slice of home and education users. Windows still has the application advantage overall, but the relevance of these applications is diminishing as Web applications continue to improve. A browser and the Web are sufficient to handle the needs of a great many users. No Windows necessary, not even to run the browser. Second, this demand makes clear that exposure to Chrome OS in school is creating sustained interest in, and even commitment to, the platform. High school students are wanting to retain that familiar environment as they move on. The ecosystem they're a part of isn't the Windows ecosystem.
Finally, it also shows that Chrome OS's relatively clean-slate approach (sure, it's Linux underneath, but it's not really being pushed as a way of running traditional Linux software) has advantages that are appealing even to home users. The locked down, highly secure Chrome OS machines require negligible maintenance while being largely immune to most extant malware. And the platform's cloud syncing means that even chores like backups can be largely avoided. Microsoft may be trying to offer the same with Windows, in particular Windows 10 S-Mode, but it's going to take a rather more radical change to Windows to really rival Chrome OS in this regard.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @08:22PM (20 children)
As someone very new to Win10 I have to say its UI is a stinking smelling rotting festering pile of junk. Like did M$ devs, project managers, and execs think advertisements everywhere, a Siri-like virtual assistant that is 100x more annoying that Clippy ever was, forced upgrades, forced updates, and a chunky-blocky-confusing start menu were good ideas? Like what is the point of having A-B-C...Z headers in the start menu when the applications are sorted A-Z anyways? This is just a rant but also a reflection on poor design decisions M$ has made in the past decase.
The only reason it has finally surpassed Win7 is because of the forced upgrades.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Shire on Monday September 03 2018, @08:45PM (19 children)
That doesn't come across as a rant, more like a troll. Hundreds of millions of people use Win10 everyday. The interface is just fine, its virtually the same as it's always been since Win95. Windows isn't going away any time soon, it's not going to be replaced by Chromebooks, or OS X, and certainly not by Linux.
With such a massive user base there will always be a good supply of outlyers who have had some problem, and they are the only ones you hear about. But the vast majority of people use this OS at home and at work every day with no issues at all.
To answer your question about A-Z headers, its a touch screen convenience - you want to find Skype you hit any letter heading and then S and you're there. It wastes virtually no space and adds functionality.
And the "chunky blocky start menu" is actually quite sleek. If you want to use the traditional text menu, its right there, if you want an easy to hit pinned app, that's right there too. If you just wanted the current weather and to see if you have unread mail, simply clicking the start menu button shows all that stuff to you in the form of live tiles.
If you are easily overwhelmed by useful features then perhaps you should just get a flip phone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @08:52PM
I agree that it was a troll, i disagree that the interface is 'just fine'. From someone who has been around pre-cli days, The windows 10 interface is piss poor. it is too much 'techie' oriented ( even that is debatable ), and i dont think they involved 'regular people'.
And no, i'm not pushing OSX either, its also confusing to many 'regular' people. Neither are 'intuitive'
The company that comes out with a truly friendly interface will clean up the market. ( or get sued into oblivion )
(Score: 5, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Monday September 03 2018, @09:11PM (5 children)
Windows is widespread not due to quality but due to marketing and exclusive deals with OEMs. If MS managed to get its market position with DOS of all things then it's clearly obvious that quality of software itself is secondary. If MS decides to replace windows with its own linux distro and call it Windows 11 then absolutely nobody will be able to do anything about that beside welcoming their new windows 11 overlord with linux kernel. So it's pretty much question of power, not software quality.
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Shire on Monday September 03 2018, @11:32PM (3 children)
It's widespread becase 1) It's exceptionally business enterprise friendly in ways Linux and OS X are not, 2) It's a better gaming platform than Linux or OS X (though that is rapidly changing with Metal and Vulkan), and 3) It has incredibly broad hardware support which OS X definitely does NOT.
Primarily Windows is a business OS and that means commodity hardware gets created for it which in turn makes the cost of entry for the consumer lower. This as opposed to the costly and limited hardware you see available for OS X. I can load Windows on a very old machine, I can't load OS X anywhere but on Apple hardware and only recent Apple hardware. Linux, like Windows, has very broad hardware support as well, but it lacks in software and it's a massive pain to manage as a desktop OS in a business setting.
Basically, Windows is a general purpose OS which is why it is widespread. OS X is primarily used by those in the design world and people who like the smell of their own farts. Linux works best as a server OS and as a neckbeard workstation. If you want to talk about marketing and exclusivity you need to be poking at OS X with a stick, not Windows.
(Score: 5, Funny) by SpockLogic on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:39AM (1 child)
There was me thinking I was a smart feller but you have demoted me to a fart smeller. Oh the shame.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:50AM
Hey, I'm not judging you for your tastes. You be you!
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:29AM
Does the fact that I enjoy my farts and desire to freely share them with as many people as I can make me a good linux user?
I use linux on the desktop, but I have what is described more as a goatee than neckbeard.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:48AM
Windows has been widespread due to a lot of factors. Legacy compatibility was a huge deal, and there are a fair few programs made for Windows 95 that will work without issue on Windows 10 (admittedly, there's a bunch of others that should work, but can't be installed on a 64-bit version due to their 16-bit installer). If you're a (rather) large business, it's often cheaper to just call up MS and file a support issue to get them to keep your application working than to actually maintain it to match the changes in Windows over the years.
Legacy compatibility was why IE held such a high market share for ages (and it lasted even longer in some places where things like banking and government services required ActiveX plugins, as entirely awful as that sounded).
MS got its market position with DOS by virtue of hanging onto IBM, and then held it because Windows ran DOS applications very, very well (particularly Windows 95) It ran multiple DOS programs the same time, and then 95 did so quite a bit better than 1/2/3.x. If you did have issues, your new Windows 95 install had the latest DOS built right in and you could reboot into that. If you had older hardware, Windows went through an absurd amount of effort to hook the patches your drivers would have made to DOS (which wasn't in control of the machine) and allow your hardware to be usable within Windows (this was slow as shit, but your hardware did still work).
As for the competition... well, Linux hardware support sucks.
really, hardware support for not-Windows on IBM PC clone style hardware has always sucked, commercial or FOSS
like, back when IBM was promoting OS/2, good luck and have fun installing that shit on your machine and having high-res/color video, being able to print, and being able to connect to your network
even if you bought IBM during that period, you still had a chance of shit not working
It doesn't matter if the software is better if it doesn't work on your machine.
it's still pretty bad with Linux, if not quite as bad as most other competitors in the PC space (actually, I'd say that Linux has done a ton better than damn near everyone else ever)
Like, I can easily find a machine that you can't connect to wifi with (or worse, it only works intermittently/for a few minutes before puttering out), accelerated video doesn't work (or again, works but is much slower than under Windows or has occasional glitches and texture corruption), sound doesn't work (this one's pretty rare, last set of issues I remember having was when PulseAudio started being standard in many distros), power saving modes are broken, etc. All of these are issues I've actually encountered when installing various Linux distros (although thankfully not all on the same machine).
A lot of that issue isn't really the fault of Linux (well, the fact that there's no reasonable way for a manufacturer to provide their own drivers beyond building them for a specific kernel version/sending what they have upstream to go into the kernel IS Linux's fault, but there's also basically zero real reason for many hardware manufacturers to keep the docs for the hardware secret so someone else can't write a driver for the hardware).
Many of these issues would go away if manufacturers could bundle Linux with their machines and not fall afoul of MS's OEM licensing policies, much of this would stop being such a major issue, so MS's leveraging of their market position isn't something to discount entirely, but it's far from the only reason.
but again, there's also the issue of legacy compatibility with Linux
naturally, all your old programs like the custom VB6 thing your company did back in 2002 can't be brought over without great expense
but there's also the issue of running older binaries on a modern Linux machine, which is absurdly hit-or-miss (this is more on distros than on the kernel itself)
or compiling older sources (really, it's absurdly tricky getting anything non-trivial that hasn't been maintained in more than a decade to build cleanly)
tl;dr: MS succeeded by its legacy compatibility and hardware support more than anything, which is why it hasn't really had any strong competition able to dethrone it (not that it takes away MS abusing their power with OEMs, but that's far from the most important factor)
(Score: 5, Touché) by SomeGuy on Monday September 03 2018, @09:22PM (2 children)
And billions of flies eat shit every day.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @09:25PM (1 child)
And America was at its greatest when schools were still segregated.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 03 2018, @09:57PM
Wait, you mean you *don't* like being "mainstreamed" with all the non-learning-disabled kids, Timmeh? We're only trying to help you function in society...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @10:23PM (2 children)
You must be either very young and didn't experience Windows prior to Win8 or you're incredibly naive.
The Windows 10 UI is noticeably different from that of earlier versions.
UI elements used to be unambiguously distinguishable. Buttons used to be clearly distinct from plain text; scroll bars used to be visible and useful; checkboxes used to be clearly understandable; text used to be very clearly distinct from backgrounds, not all subtly different shades of the same color. The Start menu used to have fly-outs with some degree of organization to them, not just one long, scrollable list. And sure as hell, earlier versions of the Start menu weren't stuffed full of annoying animations and ads for other Microsoft products.
Earlier versions of Windows certainly had shortcomings, but in far too many ways, the Windows 10 UI has degraded usability considerably. Given a choice between Win10's UI and, say, Windows 2000's, I'll choose the latter any day.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Monday September 03 2018, @11:21PM
Gonna go with no on the very young thing - the first computer I worked on was an IBM 3033 mainframe. I've been in the IT field since before desktop computers even existed and I'm watching them die off now in the face of mobile systems and AI. From the days of Xenix, to DOS, to Win31, all the way to now, there have always been folks who hated current the UI for one reason or another. It's literally not possible to design a GUI that works easily and simply for everyone, but Win10 comes close. Even with modern releases of Linux like Ubuntu 1804 there is no comparison in terms of overall useability. A few weeks ago I setup a new linux workstation and everytime it went to sleep it would awaken with no network. I literally had to dig down and make low level changes by hand to get it to finally re-init the network. This was Ubuntu 1804, the latest and greatest of the various linux distros.
However, if you're seeing ads and animations you hate then you simply haven't gone through the settings and turned all that junk off. My Win10 systems never show me suggestions, or ads, or wiz-bang animations because I told them not to.
All that being said, despite the clunkyness of even modern linux distros, I do find myself moving off the Win10 platform and on to Linux. Not for useability reasons, but for privacy reasons. One of the upcoming version of Win10 that will be forced upon the masses is called "Microsoft Managed Desktop" - basically Windows as SaaS, and then it will no longer be your computer but Microsofts. They will have full control of your system, you will simply "rent" it from them. And that I cannot tolerate under any circumstances. I'll put up with the various headaches on Linux before I relinquish control of my own hardware to "the cloud".
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:39AM
The UI of chrome web browser is better than the UI of win10 and its cross platform and can be mobile, so everything is moving to that. Once people get used to the UI of chrome-on-win then you sell them that a chromeebook is the familiar chrome UI they know and love without windows getting in the way and BTW windows license is very expensive, one of the most expensive components of the typical machine, so either keep your money or get a nicer display or nicer keyboard or whatevs.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 03 2018, @10:25PM (3 children)
> The interface is just fine, its virtually the same as it's always been since Win95
Uh, no, it bloody well is not. From Win95 to Win7 it was more or less the same, but Win8 came by and flushed 15 years of UI muscle memory down the porcelain pedestal and Win10's start menu is the exact same thing except not fullscreen.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Shire on Monday September 03 2018, @11:41PM (2 children)
Wow, I guess you don't remember WinME, or Microsoft Bob, or WinNT. There have been plenty of misfires in Windows over the years, and Windows 8 is definitely one of them. Win10 however is not Win8. Metro is not forced on you anymore. Does having a text menu and a tile menu pop up really disorient you that much? Remove all the items from the tile section then, you're not required to use it. Windows 10 learned from the massive mistakes of Windows 8. Don't confuse the two.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:22AM
You are right, the Win10 UI may be less bad than Win8 or Bob. Very exciting. However Win10 definitely does not have less spyware, adware, or DRM than Microsoft Bob, so in the end it is still garbage.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:25PM
I remember WinMe. I remember Win 3.11, if it comes to that. I've *seen* MS Bob but thankfully never got lumbered with using it
I've also been a Linux user since mid-2004. The only Windows that's come near my machine recently is a Windows 2000 VM kept around to run my MIDI sequencer, Anvil Studio, which won't run in Wine. If I ever get stuck with Windows on the bare metal again, its interface is going to be more or less irrelevant since I'll be using it as a fancy loader for VBox and a Linux VM. And it's STILL gonna get Classic Shell installed first thing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:32PM
Ah, sure.
And think how much more productive they'd be with a real UI.
Let's review the complaints from the earlier post:
Doesn't look like it's virtually the same to me. In addition, there was virtually no monitoring of your computer in Win95. Who knows what they're monitoring now, but they have the tools for a very heavy-handed monitoring scheme in place.
It's crap. If I want weather, I open a browser and type in the link just like I would most other knowledge searches. If I want easy access to that, an icon on the desktop or even task bar would do that. I'm not going to open up a pile of icons for the rare cases when I want to look up something that MS decided to put there.
I think the most damning part of this mess is how many refuse to upgrade older versions of Windows until they really, really have to. For example, my employer refused to do it until they were in danger of losing the ability to process credit cards (my understanding is that compliance with payment card industry standards for our size company requires that software involved in the handling of credit cards be supported by a vendor).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:21PM
Maybe you have never heard of Windows 8.
Totally new interface.
People who knew how to use a desktop PC for decades suddenly had to re-learn very basic operations. How to log in. How to log out. How to power off. How to print. The interface has been anything but stable since then. Microsoft begrudgingly was forced to go back to a Start menu again. But not quite a start menu. Then using the new interface as a "start" menu. Then back to a real start menu again and real desktop again. And then the pointless marketing driven cosmetic changes to the UI. Switching to a flat appearance. Changing colors. Changing designs.
And: the ribbon interface. WTF? Where are my pull down menus? The whole point of pull down menus was that GUI applications, like CLI applications might have a hundred commands. But the pull down menus allowed you to hide them, but instantly access them.
I could go on.
I am old enough to remember hearing serious "grown up" people, who wore suits, saying these exact things:
Personal computers are toy computers. They'll never be taken seriously in business. They're just a fad. The microcomputer fad will pass. They're just expensive toys for nerds.
IBM is a powerful multinational corporation. Maybe the most powerful. Do you really think Radio Shake or Apple or Commodore will compete with IBM by selling their toy computers?
I remember Ken Olsen of Digital Equipment: why would anyone need a computer in their home?
Or Bill Gates: the internet is a fad.
Some people just don't see the future and have no vision.
Ten years ago Microsoft was still all powerful and could never stumble. But they fumbled the mobile phone opportunity. Completely missed it. They didn't believe it. At that time I was saying that even though, like IBM before it, Microsoft seemed invincible, that a day was coming soon when Microsoft's best days would be behind it. I think we've already passed that point. Microsoft no longer has the monopoly power it once did. The internet and the web have greatly undermined that. The only value left in Windows is the legacy applications.
As you say, millions of people use Windows every day . . . to do things that don't actually require Windows at all. They just get windows because it comes preinstalled on a PC.
A surprisingly large fraction of the population do little more than use a browser, email, and things they could do on a chromebook. Not all people. But more than you think.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.