Chrome OS Has Stalled Out 112
Speaking of Chromebooks, David Ruddock, opines at AndroidPolice: Chrome OS' problems really became apparent to me when Android app compatibility was introduced, around five years ago. Getting Android apps to run on Chrome OS was simultaneously one of the Chrome team's greatest achievements and one of its worst mistakes. In 2019, two things are more obvious than ever about the Android app situation on Chrome. The first is that the "build it and they will come" mantra never panned out. Developers never created an appreciable number of Android app experiences designed for Chrome (just as they never did for Android tablets). The second is that, quite frankly, Android apps are very bad on Chrome OS. Performance is highly variable, and interface bugs are basically unending because most of those apps were never designed for a point-and-click operating system. Sure, they crash less often than they did in the early days, but anyone saying that Android apps on Chrome OS are a good experience is delusional.
Those apps are also a crutch that Chrome leans on to this day. Chrome OS doesn't have a robust photo editor? Don't worry, you can download an app! Chrome doesn't have native integration with cloud file services like Box, Dropbox, or OneDrive? Just download the app! Chrome doesn't have Microsoft Office? App! But this "solution" has basically become an insult to Chrome's users, forcing them to live inside a half-baked Android environment using apps that were almost exclusively designed for 6" touchscreens, and which exist in a containerized state that effectively firewalls them from much of the Chrome operating system. As a result, file handling is a nightmare, with only a very limited number of folders accessible to those applications, and the task of finding them from inside those apps a labyrinthine exercise no one should have to endure in 2019. This isn't a tenable state of affairs -- it's computing barbarism as far as I'm concerned. And yet, I've seen zero evidence that the Chrome team intends to fix it. It's just how it is. But Android apps, so far as I can tell, are basically the plan for Chrome. Certainly, Linux environment support is great for enthusiasts and developers, but there are very few commonly-used commercial applications available on Linux, with no sign that will change in the near future. It's another dead end. And if you want an even more depressing picture of Chrome's content ecosystem, just look at the pitiable situation with web apps.
Those apps are also a crutch that Chrome leans on to this day. Chrome OS doesn't have a robust photo editor? Don't worry, you can download an app! Chrome doesn't have native integration with cloud file services like Box, Dropbox, or OneDrive? Just download the app! Chrome doesn't have Microsoft Office? App! But this "solution" has basically become an insult to Chrome's users, forcing them to live inside a half-baked Android environment using apps that were almost exclusively designed for 6" touchscreens, and which exist in a containerized state that effectively firewalls them from much of the Chrome operating system. As a result, file handling is a nightmare, with only a very limited number of folders accessible to those applications, and the task of finding them from inside those apps a labyrinthine exercise no one should have to endure in 2019. This isn't a tenable state of affairs -- it's computing barbarism as far as I'm concerned. And yet, I've seen zero evidence that the Chrome team intends to fix it. It's just how it is. But Android apps, so far as I can tell, are basically the plan for Chrome. Certainly, Linux environment support is great for enthusiasts and developers, but there are very few commonly-used commercial applications available on Linux, with no sign that will change in the near future. It's another dead end. And if you want an even more depressing picture of Chrome's content ecosystem, just look at the pitiable situation with web apps.
It's click bait (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is click bait. The author clearly hasn't seriously uses ChromeOS in a long time. All the comments on the article disagree with the author
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses ChromeOS seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
Who uses ChromeOS seriously?
People who only plan on using the internet or minor document editing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's click bait (nope) (Score:4, Interesting)
I do, daily, as a front end for a remote dev server, accessed via VNC.
I can get at my project from anywhere, don't have to cart around an external hard drive, and if I run over the Chromebook with the car, a few hundred bucks buys a new one, and bingo: it all loads back up (except for my ssh keys, but I can deal).
I can also wipe it back to bare metal before crossing international borders, and put it back together with no muss, no fuss.
2FA machine login keeps it nice and private between wipes.
The Chromebook is disposable, and unlike my way expensive MacBook Pro, has a great backlit keyboard, folds flat, becomes a tablet, and is very light.
If you don't wanna risk crying over your lost data or wrecked machine, it's very handy for that.
TFA (summary) is right about a number of ecosystem problems.
To my mind the worst of those is the awful native ChromeOS support for openVPN. Google's solution is to use a Play store openVPN app, but that only protects the other Play store apps.
Exceedingly lame, guys.
Downasaur (Score:2)
I do, daily, as a front end for a remote dev server, accessed via VNC.
How do you get to VNC when there's no open Wi-Fi around you? Or do you pay the price of a new laptop every year for a cellular data plan for your Chromebook?
Re: Downasaur (Score:2)
Hotspot on the smartphone. Have a 12 gig shared data plan for the family and seldom go over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses ChromeOS seriously?
At work we all use it for pretty much everything. We're already using Google Docs and Meet all the time, so ChromeOS is perfect for what we need at meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
But look at what Google has done with ChromeOS in the last five years: Pretty much nothing. I'm just waiting for the inevitable announcement from Google that they're pulling the plug "due to low usage and challenges involved in maintaining a successful product that meets consumersâ(TM) expectations" as they have for so many other Google products. These guys do more "you're fired!"s than Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
But look at what Google has done with ChromeOS in the last five years: Pretty much nothing.
and then if they did do something, people would complain it's change for the sake of change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's click bait (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure as fuck wouldn't click on it. In the summary he confuses "if you build it they will come" with "well there is an API, why didn't they come and build it already?"
Once I've suffered that sort of stupidity there isn't much hope I'd want to read the rest their story.
The problem with ChromeOS isn't that it can run Android apps, the problem is it can only run apps. If you didn't even buy a real computer, you bought a cheapo "like a computer but you can't use software" that means you have no money to buy stuff. Commercial programmers don't care about you. Open source programmers don't care about you. You don't have money, and you don't have a computer you control, so why would expect a lot of software?
Re: (Score:2)
I bought one for my mum. It just works, keeps itself to to date and doesn't get p0wned. Most of what she does is internet and email and Hangouts anyway.
Re:It's click bait (Score:5, Informative)
I use ChromeOS Daily and it fucking SUCKS.
Apps? Half useless. If I'm using my videochat app, and I switch to Chrome, the fucking camera stops, mimicking how Androiid works. No REAL LAPTOP does that.
Don't try using any apps which are heavily gesture-focused. You're going to have a bad time.
Instagram, as an app, does not work on my Chromebook. Well, as you'd expect it to work, anyways. It won't let me use my onboard camera, but it will slowly yet surely allow me to DM people.
Literally, the only thing it can seem to do right is play Youtube videos.
Chrome OS BLOWS GOATS, and the goats aren't even happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why you using it then ?
Because the powerwash begging feature [slashdot.org] of Chromebook developer mode makes it a pain to install anything but Chrome OS on the Chromebook that you own.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't be using the Instagram app. Just go to the website.
When I first tried the Instagram website, it said "Download the app to sign up. [App Store] [Google Play]"
When did this change?
No one wanted it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome OS is the OS no one wanted
Every OS is an OS no one wanted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Chrome OS is the OS no one wanted
Every OS is an OS no one wanted.
So glib, clever you. Where does Linux fit in that picture? Bearing in mind that Linux runs the internet and much of your consumer electronics. Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does Linux fit in that picture?
They actually wanted Unix when they got Linux. Or they at least wanted Minix. But I doubt they really wanted Minix.
Re: (Score:2)
So "they" wanted two or three different operating systems. My point.
Re: (Score:1)
Fortunately, we have 3 *BSD's. we don't need the rest of the dross.
However, the British government was of the opinion that the UK only needed 3 computers (in 1952, I think), and Bill Gates thought "640k should be enough for anyone", although, in all fairness, even he could only afford 64k at the time.
So: there could be a good case for more operating systems. Just not Windows or ChromeOS - or Satanos ^M^M^M^M^M^M^M Solaris.
Re: (Score:2)
Every OS is an OS no one wanted.
So glib, clever you. Where does Linux fit in that picture? Bearing in mind that Linux runs the internet and much of your consumer electronics. Etc.
From the Linux history wiki article, Linus...
stated that if either the GNU Hurd or 386BSD kernels had been available at the time, he likely would not have written his own.
This ties in with my memory - Linus wrote Linux as there were no cheap UNIX OS available to him.
So, yes, that statement is true in this specific context.
When it comes to other users of Linux, you've probably chosen the tool that does the job. Pat yourself on the back that you've chosen wisely.
Re: (Score:2)
While an OS may come preinstalled with software that people want, or it supports software that people want. People rarely ever just want an Operating Systems, as them without any extra software is rather useless.
You're wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Chrome OS does one thing very well. Allow you to use google's services. The OS itself doesn't break and has won the hacking competitions many times. For most people having a browser and YouTube is all you need on a cheap laptop. Nobody is doing photo editing on a chrome book, they weren't meant or designed for that. My parents are on the second chrome book after their old ARM one became too sluggish recently. You know how many times they have called me because something wasn't working? Exactly zero.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck did that happen?! I thought only Windows does that, and you fix it by reinstalling Windows. You mean to say in the ChromeOS world, when it becomes slow, you buy a new one?!
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't sold ARM models in ages and this was like 8 years old. Can't complain for $200.
Re: (Score:2)
My parents are on the second chrome book after their old ARM one became too sluggish recently.
How the fuck did that happen?!
I'd imagine it got old. It isn't like Google's software isn't getting more complex.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't like Google's software isn't getting more complex.
It's that adtech has become much more complex over the past decade, as has the functionality that end users expect out of web applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the first OS that "just works", and that doesn't have problems with viruses, etc
That's because Google pretty much controls the ecosystem, and the absence of viruses is because it's such a pointless target that no-one has bothered. In other words it's not because of any inherent magic in ChromeOS, it's just the way it's applied. You could say the same thing about AmigaDOS/AmgaOne and similar closed ecosystems.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe the nice Google, it's all a lie, Chrome main purpose, to push propriertary into educational software and to keep a Linux distritbution out. Just a greed play, hence it works so badly, it's purpose was not to work well, a Linux distribution would have done that, is was to keep out a Linux distribution in the education market. All about data mining students, pretty sick stuff out of Google, yet again.
Re: (Score:2)
it's purpose was not to work well, a Linux distribution would have done that, is was to keep out a Linux distribution in the education market
Well, it is a linux distribution, just one pinned to Chrome.
So, all the hardware is guaranteed to work out of the box, a fleet of them are easily manageable with a web-based control panel, and all the apps they're used for are web-based. And they're cheap.
Edubuntu, UBNR, LTSP - none of them delivered on their visions. As described above is what Educational Tech admin
Re: (Score:2)
It needs a native environment, not a VM (Score:4, Interesting)
ChromeOS needs a native environment. I tried using the Linux VM on a relatively-new Chromebook; it took a long time to boot and never worked well. It also eats a lot of RAM.
My suggestion had been to use the cgroups stuff ChromeOS uses anyway to wall off native apps, particularly with a CLR. Google translates Java IL to a different IL for Android; and there are JREs that run on CLR like .NET Core. CPython or a CLR implementation of Python are also possible.
To build this, ChromeOS would use cgroups exposing volumes providing e.g. .NET Core, PAM, and a PAM module that communicated to ChromeOS via a socket for authentication. Calls to Web browsers, e-mail, and the like would call shim programs that forward the call back to ChromeOS. That provides integration without access to the underlying file system. The $HOME location would expose the Google Drive location, or a subset if the user wanted.
That immediately allows running .NET Core apps. Apps built for CLR 2 would need other CLRs, e.g. Mono compatible with .NET 2 or .NET 4.
The same kind of environment could provide Python, JRE, and so forth. It's possible to provide a Linux environment that way as well for straight native applications--thin virtualization rather than a real VM. You won't get Docker running this way.
Re: (Score:3)
ChromeOS needs a native environment. I tried using the Linux VM on a relatively-new Chromebook; it took a long time to boot and never worked well. It also eats a lot of RAM.
My suggestion had been to use the cgroups stuff ChromeOS uses anyway to wall off native apps, particularly with a CLR. Google translates Java IL to a different IL for Android; and there are JREs that run on CLR like .NET Core. CPython or a CLR implementation of Python are also possible.
To build this, ChromeOS would use cgroups exposing volumes providing e.g. .NET Core, PAM, and a PAM module that communicated to ChromeOS via a socket for authentication. Calls to Web browsers, e-mail, and the like would call shim programs that forward the call back to ChromeOS. That provides integration without access to the underlying file system. The $HOME location would expose the Google Drive location, or a subset if the user wanted.
That immediately allows running .NET Core apps. Apps built for CLR 2 would need other CLRs, e.g. Mono compatible with .NET 2 or .NET 4.
The same kind of environment could provide Python, JRE, and so forth. It's possible to provide a Linux environment that way as well for straight native applications--thin virtualization rather than a real VM. You won't get Docker running this way.
It sounds like all of you proposed "fixes" go directly against the core purpose of the device. I was under the impression the existing structure was a feature (security) and not a flaw.
Re: (Score:2)
The existing structure only institutes security by providing sandboxed execution environments around apps. It's basically the same model as Snap packages on Ubuntu.
The proposed approach uses the same, isolating applications from the base system with the same controls Google uses already.
Re: (Score:3)
ChromeOS needs a native environment.
That's a gigantic duh, but the self-appointed smart people at Google are too stupid and too self absorbed to admit it. And even if they could, the smart developers don't work for Google any more, they left for less toxic opportunities years ago, leaving behind only the political hacks, back biters and incompetents to slowly wind Google down. Much like Microsoft, actually.
Re: (Score:1)
ChromeOS needs a native environment.
That's a gigantic duh, but the self-appointed smart people at Google are too stupid and too self absorbed to admit it. And even if they could, the smart developers don't work for Google any more, they left for less toxic opportunities years ago, leaving behind only the political hacks, back biters and incompetents to slowly wind Google down. Much like Microsoft, actually.
Oh, did I mention that Googles are heavily into denial? Particularly when they have mod points. Those smart people brains just seem more able to click a downmod button than composing a cogent rebuttal. Remember when Google was a technical thought leader? Sigh.
Re: (Score:1)
Might help if you could actually make an argument without ad hominem attacks
Re: It needs a native environment, not a VM (Score:1)
Might help if you could actually make an argument without ad hominem attacks
He didn't need any help as his observations weren't wrong and I submit your pathetic attempt at a rebuttal as proof.
Seriously, though: fuck Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you should just install Linux on it instead. Again the OS wasn't meant for what you are trying.
Space Enter = lose everything (Score:2)
Sounds like you should just install Linux on it instead.
In order to install Linux on a Chromebook, you first have to put the Chromebook into developer mode. This causes the firmware to beg the user to powerwash it on every startup. If the person who turns it on follows the on-screen instructions ("Press Space" then "Press Enter"), you lose any changes that you haven't yet pushed as well as the use of the device until you can return home to your Linux reinstallation media.
I've read that there were firmware modifications to keep some models from begging to be powe
Re: It needs a native environment, not a VM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"You are also trying to emulate an x86 processor on an ARM processor"
My Chromebook has an x86 processor (thinkpad 11e model.) Linux VM is dogshit slow and eats up a fuckton of RAM. PERIOD.
Actual Linux runs faster on a Pentium 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power cycle, Space as prompted, Enter as prompted, where's your Crouton now?
Re: (Score:2)
Firmware screen does not list Ctrl+D (Score:2)
ctrl+d keeps you in dev mode.
Because the "OS verification is OFF" screen does not list Ctrl+D,[1] someone who picks up your Chromebook won't know to press Ctrl+D and will instead follow the prompts, causing the loss of your use of Crouton until you can return home to your reinstallation media.
[1] See the screenshot in "Kali Linux on Acer Chromebook 14" [techanarchy.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, both of them???!!!
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of applications (mostly open-source stuff) compiled to use gtk#, which in turn can be built to target .NET Core. The applications have to be built for the CLR targeted, though (i.e. CLR2, CLR4, CoreCLR). So CLR2 applications will run on .NET 2, CLR4 will run on .NET 4.whatever, and CoreCLR applications should run on any version of .NET Core--all later than the version they originally targeted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want to do real work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Systems programmer here, for a semiconductor company. I've used a Chromebook Pixel for 5 years now, at work. I used the browser for our intranet sites (including Outlook web access) and an NaCl-based SSH client to access bigger iron for development (tmux/vim/gcc). Chrome OS worked amazingly well for me as a thin client, where I could work in the office or on the road, and never store company IP on it. Spreadsheets and presentations were done with Google Docs. I did not feel in anyway like I was using a
Re: Want to do real work? (Score:2)
Spend $400 and buy a used Pixelbook i7 on EBay. Your mind will be blown. Native support for Linux containers is amazing. This device is literally better for my productivity than any other computer that I have ever owned. If you have a Linux-focused workflow, as most developers do these days, it's really hard to beat
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the recommend, I'll look into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In theory ChromeOS has native software, but that native software is essentially just a web page. There are a small number of cases where Android software doesn't function as intended, but I can't think of a case where I haven't been able to make it work at all.
I have a high end Samsung Chromebook and a low end Acer. Most of the time there's little subjective difference between the two. It's all just fine. I'd call the experience of using either one just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
ChromeOS is just Linux with a browser based desktop. It's almost Trivial for ChromeOS to support Linux applications directly (they just need a bunch of Libs and an x-window/wayland support) which google has already added.
The problem with Chromebooks is the CPU is always massively underpowered for anything computational. The original Idea was to do all that stuff in the cloud but by supporting the full linux software stack they've exposed this chromebook weakness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 3.1 software didn't run well under the version of OS/2 that didn't come bundled with Win16 (you had to have an existing copy of Windows 3.1). For the more expensive version, IBM had custom compiled Win16 and it actually was faster than native Windows 3.1. That being said, some more intensive graphics software was a bit glitchy in WPS mode, but if you did a full screen Windows VDM, I don't know of any software that had any significant issues.
That being said, you're not wrong in that IBM not doing mor
Re: (Score:3)
I was sad to see OS/2 decline back then. I remember how unzipping a huge file in a CMD even in mighty Windows NT would cause the mouse cursor to stutter when moving across the screen. However in OS/2 the mouse would still move smoothly while the file unzipped.
I participated enthusiastically in the great OS/2 vs Windows flame wars on USENET. That was some of my last flame wars, I grew up a bit and learned that it doesn't matter what people use; OS/2 vs Windows, Seagate vs WD, iOS vs. Android, etc. as long as
Re: (Score:2)
Actually OS/2 ran Win16 apps much better then under DOS. It had a superior file system and could compartmentalize Win16 apps into their own sessions so each program had their own Win environment and didn't run out of resources as quick and when one crashed, didn't take out any others that were running.
The problems came with Win32's, where weekly MS released updates designed to break WinOS2, IBM fixed them, and MS rebroke them. Eventually with Win32s 1.30 MS moved some of the DLLs into high memory that OS/2,
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
OS/2 effect (Score:1)
Win-OS/2 ran better then windows 3.1 as well then (Score:2)
Win-OS/2 ran better then windows 3.1 as well then win32s / 95 came and OS/2 died.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Up until this year, the NY subway payments system was still running it. Going away now with the contact less payment system.
Arca Noae seems to be doing fine mostly selling to institutions that still have OS/2 running somewhere, often forgotten until the hardware gives out.
Article is Right on Wrong Use Case (Score:5, Interesting)
As somebody who really likes Chromebooks (and ChromeOS) and I understand where the article's author is coming from but I think he's not looking at it from the appropriate perspective for the product. Chromebooks are excellent browser based thin clients. They're great in schools and I think they have a very bright future in the work environment, including point of sales. Along with that, I think you'll see them making inroads as home computers - minimal support and are fairly easy to secure although setting up a home network printer can be difficult.
They really do not scale well beyond the thin client model - which is what the article is really saying. Most Android apps perform terribly on a Chromebook as they aren't designed for the Chromebook's IO (bigger screen, keyboard and no touch). Many Linux apps run very well on a Chromebook, but you really need a minimum of 8GB DDR for them to run properly. Doing Audio/Video editing on a Chromebook? I think that's simply a bridge too far and really breaks the operating paradigm
Re: (Score:3)
Amen.
I love the concept and early implementation of Chromebooks. I want an OS stripped down to just the hardware it runs on, secured, and optimized to run the browser really fast. Most of what I do it browser-based, so this is exactly what I was looking for.
What I'm not interested in is yet-another-minimal-Linux-distro. Nor do I want an Android device -- mostly because the abomination that is Chrome, the browser, on Android.
I have an ASUS Chrome Tablet CT100 with a Logitech Bluetooth keyboard and it is fant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as much as I like the PI, it wont do the same functionality and not at a fraction of the price
$35 for the board
$5 Case
$10-20 for the SD card
$5 for the power supply
$100 for screen
$10-20 keyboard
$10-20 speakers
$10-20 mouse
And we are at $185-@225, and this will be under powered as it only has 1GB ram. There are lots of chromebooks in the $125-$250 with only 4G ram.
It also doesn't include a webcam/mic, any special connectors(like mini HDMI), or a battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine most people who would consider using a PI this way would already have everything you listed just lying around with the possible exception of the PI and the case.
For the use case described, I don't see why it wouldn't be a good fit.
As a bonus, you're not stuck with Chrome.
Re: Article is Right on Wrong Use Case (Score:2)
I didn't mention that my use case for the tablet is in backpack and I use it on the commuter train. I also take it on vacation, in the event I need to log in. Can't do that with a Pi and don't want a full laptop.
Re: (Score:1)
This. It's a browser-heavy device for browser-heavy users/usecases. Thin client, yes. Everything cloud.
If you're trying to do media editing on a chromebook, in the first place, then you must not have qualms with options of a web-based caliber. Same for office. And I'll be polite enough not to make snark about hard drive syncing.
[x] Chrome OS has stalled out for power users
[_] Chrome OS has stalled out for people who youtube and facetweet
Oh wait, the first was never a thing to begin with.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
(Then we can read /. in peace)
I love ChromeOS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it works fine for you, but it really sucks for nerds.
Msmash hates Samsung? (Score:3)
I can't help but wonder if it is more than a coincidence that a clickbait piece on ChromeOS was posted immediately following the story about how great the ChromeOS based Samsung Galaxy Chromebook is. Couldn't let Samsung have some limelight could ya msmash.
Follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
Chromebooks were essentially designed to sell to a marketing segment that was interested in having a "laptop" for cheap. As long as they could get online and do browser-based tasks such as email, they were happy. However, the architects of Chrome weren't interested in much more than that because the money wasn't there. The same folks who got their Chromebook for cheap weren't going to fork over many more dollars for OS and system upgrades, so why bother to spend the money to provide those options or develop apps specifically for the OS that might never recover the development costs?
ChromeOS fills a niche. (Score:3)
When I had an Android tablet (Nexus 7,) it wasn't useful for desktop tasks.
When I had a Windows 10 tablet (ASUS T100HA,) it lived in its keyboard dock because it wasn't useful for tablet tasks.
ChromeOS has proven itself to be "good enough" at both in a device in the same price bracket as either.
If I need to do something it can't handle, I go hunt down the appropriate device for the task. (Phone, laptop, desktop.)
Hmm... (Score:2)
Chrome OS Has Stalled Out
Maybe there's an app for this, let me read TF[SA] ...
Android Tablets (Score:2)
As a long time Android user, I've often heard claims about how the Apple app ecosystem was just better for tablets, however after buying a base ipad in mid-2019 that hasn't been my experience at all.
From the early days of Android the UI framework was designed to be scalable to support a wide variety of screen shapes & sizes so all applications I've encountered scale well to utilize the available space; Apple is the complete opposite, their framework seems to support a tablet view and a phone view. Many
If only... (Score:1)
It's a glorified browser/dummy terminal (Score:2)
We have a few of them at work for our support staff to work tickets and use our web based control panel.
Occasionally the wifi and ethernet (via USB-C) will cut out and nothing to do but restart the box. You can't access anything under the hood so good luck debugging any issues.
But they are economical for the reasons we use it.
The revolution begins! (Score:2)
Evidence? Amazon is sold out of Baby Yoda book covers in 2020.
Ease of Use (Score:1)
/. are techie with possible needs for more robust OSs. How many support 'older' folks? The ease of use makes them a great option instead of constant WinUpdates. You can log in a set bookmarks in the bar for relatively easy access. Bigger screen at 1/2 the cost of an iPad...althought the newer 10.2" iPad is a great value and works 'kinda' like phone they already know.
Google's first mistake... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again now. The only reason chrome os is even a thing is that chrome for Android sucked hard when it was created. It's not too bad now. At the point when chrome for Android is as good as desktop chrome there will be absolutely zero reason for chrome OS to exist. Literally none. You think Google likes maintaining both?
Chrome OS is a limited time project. And its time is limited by the improvement of chrome for Android.
Annoyingly Useful (Score:2)
I use one regularly, and it's good for about 80 percent of what I want to do - watching the news and videos, reading email, editing small documents. Good for travel - lightweight and lets you access websites and maps, great battery life.
The best part is, it's so terrible, nobody wants to steal it!
Re: (Score:2)