6 Fixes to Make the Chromebook Pixel Worth Buying
Switch to a Tegra 4 Processsor for More Juice
I sort of get why Google opted for an Intel Core i5 processor. It gave the company the muscle needed for the Chromebook Pixels' 2560 x 1700-pixel screen. The MacBook Pro with Retina Display also uses a Core i5 CPU with Intel HD 4000 graphics to power its 2560 x 1600-pixel panel. The problem is that while the MacBook Pro has room for a heftier 74 watt-hour battery, the Pixel makes due with a 59 Wh battery. In our tests we saw a huge difference in endurance between the two machines: 7 hours and 38 minutes for the MacBook versus just 3:54 for the Pixel. A switch to Nvdia's more efficient Tegra 4 processor would allow Google to offer a lot more juice while upping the graphics performance—all without bloating the beautiful chassis.
     |
  |
Featured Sponsor
February 28th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
The Tegra 4 does not have faster GPU performance than the Intel HD 4000 GPU. -_-
March 1st, 2013 at 3:06 am
Enjoyed the article but what’s that music site with the piano pictured on the 4th slide??? Thx!
March 1st, 2013 at 5:09 am
here’s a crazy idea – maybe google know something about the plans for the future of this machine that you don’t know, and that they’re not yet ready to make public? wouldn’t that be WILD?
March 1st, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Haha, no one cares if you’re not one who’s going to buy it, many others will. Probably many more than Google actually expected, given that it’s meant to serve as an inspirational flagship for the next generation of Chromebooks, rather than a standalone do-everything.
Also, your very first suggestion of “adding Android app support” proves you have no idea what you’re talking about. They are completely different *architectures* — good luck finding anyone able to do a “quick fix” on that.
March 1st, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Yikes! So it’s a $1300 netbook that has trouble connecting to the net?
Glad I got a Surface Pro, which does support Android apps in addition to all the high end desktop programs out there.
March 2nd, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Just cannot believe all the tech review sites are publishing complete crap article like this. Use tegra 4? Make it a tablet? Add android support?
Then why just buy Nexus 10 instead? I think $1299 chrombook is a very bad idea, but you are just asking a complete different requirements.
March 3rd, 2013 at 10:36 am
how is a laptop no one wants or needs “inspirational” or a “flagship”?
March 16th, 2013 at 2:23 am
This article mises the whole point of chrome. Several large software and hardware companies are going to be forced to move in on googles turf. Certain companies are already trying to take business away from google by making there software with default search settings for there own engine, other companies are offering increasingly successful cloud options for their devices. Google is forced to move towards android and chrome to make sure that as the Internet advances google will not become outdated. the point of the pixel is to make sure that in say 5 years when the cloud is the norm and Internet access is a given google will have a competive product. Like they said this is the next generation of chromebooks, products like these are the future of computing. And wants to be sure when that future happens they have the most mature products.
March 28th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
I will speak on the developer and engineering side of things. Since Google’s Chome OS is based off of Ubuntu Linux for the Intel x86 series processors, and Ubuntu Linux is based off of the core of Debian Linux distribution. The emulation packages are available for the Google pixel, just need to grab them from Ubuntu and Debian.
With this being said, using the apps written specifically for another operating system and virtual machine, it’s going to take a serious hit in performance, mind you. It would just be better if the applications were ported to Debian and then imported into Ubuntu, then later into Google Chrome OS’s repositories after everything had been debugged and made as stable long term support packages or LTS-P for short.
Or better yet, figure out what these apps do and why people like them and then just mimic them in native code on Linux, which would be the best practice.
On a hardware perspective, the idea of using a huge desktop space in resolution is absolute genius however, since Linux has a problem with clunky interfaces and the occasional, “How in the hell do I get this to run” problem. Chrome
OS will still suffer from the same woes as the rest of the Linux community however foreseeable in the future it doesn’t have to go this way.
Yes, Chrome OS is a slimmed down version of the Linux kernel and they did a wonderful job but they’ve got a long road ahead of them if they want to be an Apple Mac killer and mangler of Microsoft. They need to make sure they have perfect support for their chipset and make sure they have all the packages and multimedia drivers already installed on their base OS installation. That would take out the major frustration for most users, in addition to getting some big
players in from the gaming industry to design games for Linux, more specifically their brand, then people are more likely to switch. Seeing it as a “fun platform” and that it could be a great one for “creatives” which is what Apple has done well at keeping these people.
A note to Saint Nick:
There will always be some of us that don’t trust the the Central Intelligence Cloud, and go with a full system and be not of the mainstream, let alone be proud of it.