Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Feb 2013 20:48 UTC
Permalink for comment 553415
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-12
At least one thing about it is that it should be less resistant to infection than that other OS my inlaws use for banking and facebook.
Just because their needs /could/ be met by a $300 system doesn't mean they are attached to the idea of spending no more than $300.
Besides, for a huge amount of people I know the only thing they need a fast system for is gaming. Maybe their goal is to produce a niche product that will allow ChromeOS to expand to gaming.
In theory it's powerful enough to run a lot of stuff currently in my steam library.
Microsoft wants to charge $100/year to rent Office 365. Home and Business is $220 and if your PC dies the licence is lost with it. The Outlook client alone costs $110. Yes, $110 for an email client.
Pixel doesn't offer much value yet due to lack of software but if people start defecting from their PC's Google wants to be ready to support higher end needs as well as $300 budgets.
That and I doubt many people want to write software for ChromeOS using a $250 toy laptop.