Looks like there's major spin on this on that page.
Whats a Intel Core(TM) processor? Dig deeper and it's an anemic Celeron, not a Core i3 or i5 or i7 as the name implies.
Why is there no mention of storage AT ALL? Because it's a 16GB(!) SSD.
The Amazon page says "No Blue Screens"? What happens to ChromeOS if RAM gets corrupt? It doesn't crash and magically keeps running? Most BSoDs nowadays are due to hardware issues.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Is it forbidden to criticize Google here? Or is it just Google employees? Care to reply instead?
Yes, there is a noticeable pro-Google bias on Hacker News. Links that show Google in a negative light are instantly backed up by Google employees. This comment will probably get down voted. I seriously don't care about votes and don't know how the system works and get annoyed when people complain about down votes (like it actually matters).
The top comment starts "This is a terrible page and the product manager of this thing should be ashamed" which doesn't seem to indicate an HN pro-Google bias.
I've noticed quite a few companies seem to be astroturfing hacker news recently, it wouldn't be so obvious if it wasn't the same people commenting on every single article that's critical of there company or trashing on their competitors products.
Even Mozilla isn't innocent of this but Google is taking this to the next level; I wouldn't be surprised if they have there own 50 Cent Party specifically targeting (social) news websites.
The Celeron they're using is basically a low-end Sandy Bridge processor, and Intel markets most Sandy Bridge processors under the Core brand. It's not really anemic, either.
That reference(even if Wikipedia) seems to imply that the first Sandy Bridge processors released were the Core processors, not that all Sandy Bridge silicon will be or is branded Core.
Are there any cases of laptops or PCs with Celeron processors being referred to as having Core processors?
My apologies, I meant to link to the list of processors in that article -- by pure count (and, anecdotally, most often), most Sandy Bridge processors are Core processors.
If it looks like a computer, people will think it's a computer at first glance. There's nothing on that page that makes for particularly compelling reading, so why would I read first, instead of going by the picture?
Celeron is more than enough for everything if the software beneath is good enough -- remember, it's orders of magnitude faster than what we had in the 80s, but most computer tasks are still similar. Perhaps Google is betting on that?
16GB SSD needs to hold the OS (.5GB perhaps?), the browser (.1GB), and some cache (all the rest). Everything else is in the cloud.
"No Blue Screen" -- I suppose it hangs in some other way then :)
>Edit: Why the downvotes? Is it forbidden to criticize Google here? Or is it just Google employees? Care to reply instead?
I think you have been downvoted _because_ you made a good point and the Google fanboys armed with downmods want to bury the comment. Unfortunate trend on HN here.
Whats a Intel Core(TM) processor? Dig deeper and it's an anemic Celeron, not a Core i3 or i5 or i7 as the name implies.
Why is there no mention of storage AT ALL? Because it's a 16GB(!) SSD.
The Amazon page says "No Blue Screens"? What happens to ChromeOS if RAM gets corrupt? It doesn't crash and magically keeps running? Most BSoDs nowadays are due to hardware issues.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Is it forbidden to criticize Google here? Or is it just Google employees? Care to reply instead?