Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New HP Laptop Would Mean Windows at Chromebook Prices

timothy posted about a month and a half ago | from the is-that-a-bargain? dept.

Chrome 215

New submitter nrjperera (2669521) submits news of a new laptop from HP that's in Chromebook (or, a few years ago, "netbook") territory, price-wise, but loaded with Windows 8.1 instead. Microsoft has teamed up with HP to make an affordable Windows laptop to beat Google Chromebooks at their own game. German website Mobile Geeks have found some leaked information about this upcoming HP laptop dubbed Stream 14, including its specifications. According to the leaked data sheet the HP Stream 14 laptop will share similar specs to HP's cheap Chromebook. It will be shipped with an AMD A4 Micro processor, 2GB of RAM, 32GB of flash storage and a display with 1,366 x 768 screen resolution. Microsoft will likely offer 100GB of OneDrive cloud storage with the device to balance the limited storage option.

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Their own game (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704071)

And that game is Calvin Ball.

Their own game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704719)

Hehe! That has been their business plan pretty much from the beginning, hasn't it?

The obvious /. question... (5, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704073)

But will it run Linux??

Re:The obvious /. question... (1)

wed128 (722152) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704101)

of course it will...only a matter of time.

Re:The obvious /. question... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704431)

Has ARM Secure Boot been cracked yet?

Re:The obvious /. question... (3, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704503)

It doesn't matter in this case, since -- per the fucking summary -- the computer in question is using an AMD A4 (which is x86).

Re:The obvious /. question... (1, Interesting)

Minwee (522556) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704811)

It doesn't matter in this case, since -- per the fucking summary -- the computer in question is using an AMD A4 (which is x86).

The fucking summary said nothing about whether or not the system used "Secure Boot" or whether it would continue to allow the end user to add a custom bootloader or new trusted certificates. The CPU can understand whatever instruction set it wants, but that won't make any difference if the system firmware won't allow you to run code that isn't signed by Microsoft or HP.

Re:The obvious /. question... (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704965)

The SecureBoot spec on x86 requires it to allow custom bootloaders. In that way it differs from ARM, which (AFAIK) has no such requirement.

Re:The obvious /. question... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704363)

Well, give it time and poetterix won't be discernible from windows, in maintainability at least.

I'll still take linux over windows for now, but really I'd like something yet different. One of the *BSDs, haiku maybe, plan 9, something else again, why not. We really need more diversity here.

Re:The obvious /. question... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704731)

Hurd FTW

Re:The obvious /. question... (2)

mariox19 (632969) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704447)

You mean, but will it run Windows 7?

Re:The obvious /. question... (2)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705035)

Windows 8.1 + Classic Shell basically is Windows 7, so yes.

Re:The obvious /. question... (1)

tsqr (808554) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704453)

Why wouldn't it, with an AMD A4?

Re:The obvious /. question... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704797)

This reminds me that I hate when Chromebooks use different firmware. Using different firmware for different OSes defeats the purpose of firmware standards like UEFI or ACPI.

Re:The obvious /. question... (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705003)

Do you cut your hair with he lawn mower?

Here's the rub... (2, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704095)

loaded with Windows 8.1

Re:Here's the rub... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704259)

on arm. so what's the point?

Re:Here's the rub... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704313)

It's x86, not ARM.

2GB of RAM? (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704099)

Is that even enough for Windows 8.1? And I don't mean enough as in bare minimum to run the OS, I mean enough to actually run more than four applications and a browser with at least ten tabs opened.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704175)

Well, if they're competing with a Chromebook, it just has to handle the browser part of the equation.

Re:2GB of RAM? (5, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704209)

Well no, but I can see MS making. Chromebooks are sold as a browser-based solution, that's the expectation. An MS laptop will have a different set of expectations placed on it, right or wrong. If they aim to "just" provide a browser experience, they'll fail.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704579)

"Well no, but I can see MS making the same mistake "...never post before coffee.

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704249)

Is that even enough for Windows 8.1? And I don't mean enough as in bare minimum to run the OS, I mean enough to actually run more than four applications and a browser with at least ten tabs opened.

If you're working your system like that on the regular, chances are you're not shopping for the bare-bones basement model for any hardware you use on you desk. For the other 95% of consumers out there, it will work just fine as their glorified tablet.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704299)

With only 2G, the OS will still be getting in your ways. This is all a flashback to the 90s when RAM was too expensive and you usually didn't see adequately equipped PCs. Any PC OS beyond DOS ended up getting in it's own way and running like a snail.

2GB more than enough for Windows 8.1 (4, Informative)

HannethCom (585323) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704627)

One of the things Microsoft did right with Windows 8.x is reduce the memory it uses. So much so that it only actually needs up to 360mb of memory to run the OS while in desktop mode. That is up to, that is not at least. In this case the OS will definitely NOT be getting in your way. Actually, I've found Windows 8.1 is better to use on low end hardware as they have also reduced CPU use and optimized the start-up time.

2GB is enough for basic Windows use with running multiple programs. Of course depending on what programs you are using. I have a netbook that isn't officially supported by Windows 8. It went from 80 seconds start time in Windows 7 to 20 seconds in Windows 8. Programs launch and respond better now with the Windows 8. While there are many, many things wrong with Windows 8, it works extremely well on low end hardware.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Windows 8.1. Metro sucks, they messed up the configuration by having it spread all over the place. They broke multiple programs. On my last main machine it slowed down my boot time from 60 seconds to 90 seconds, though some of those problems were because I upgraded instead of fresh installed. The upgrade process is broken, it will upgrade you, but may forget to install critical OS files and will offer no way for you to fix it without reinstalling. Windows 8.1 feels like Windows Vista. They messed up the little things, which is what they got right in Windows 7 and is really important in your day to day usage. On my new main computer, old one the SATA controller failed, I upgraded to Windows 7, but my netbook, I wouldn't want to go back to Windows 7 on.

Re:2GB more than enough for Windows 8.1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704727)

The improvements in Win8 are massive compared to Win7, it's a pitty the modern interface that completely broke the system perception.

SSE2 and NX (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705087)

Actually, I've found Windows 8.1 is better to use on low end hardware

So long as the hardware is new enough to support Windows 8.1. AMD CPUs prior to Athlon 64 and Intel CPUs prior to Pentium 4 Prescott cannot run Windows 8.1 because they lack SSE2 [wikipedia.org] or lack the NX bit [wikipedia.org] .

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704251)

It's all that a 32 bit OS can address, it's more than enough for your sample test.

A typical IE-32 bit tab is around 100k. While you can easily find applications that will choke on having only 16GB of ram, most programs run by people the Chromebook and this laptop are marketed to will run on 2GB with ram to spare.

For comparison, a typical Chromebook [chromebookspecs.com] is built on 2GB of ram and 16gb of storage.

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704401)

It's all that a 32 bit OS can address

Why? Can't 32 bits address 4 GiB?

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704519)

Basically because 2^32 is 4,294,967,296, which is how many slots for memory addresses are available to the system.

Re:2GB of RAM? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704825)

There are two practical limits in Windows 32-bit.

2GB per process - closer to 1.75 in practice.
3.25GB total usable.

Re:2GB of RAM? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704451)

100k? 100k what? 100,000k maybe.

I have two IE tabs open, each is using roughly 130-140MB of private space. This is normal, as the Google home page takes 127.4 megs. The IE parent process is 32 megs as well - so it's nearly half a gig to run these three tabs.

I have only the "basic" necessary add-ons (Adobe, Silverlight, Java, Office), and no other third-party installed tools.

Chrome tabs, for whatever it's worth, are currently running me from 50-170, so it's not much different elsewhere.

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704943)

Well, none of those are "necessary add-ons". Java necessary? Since when? Who the hell even uses java applets anymore? Silverlight? Who ever used that? Office? Seriously? Flash, ok, there's a metric fuck load of flash out there.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705027)

Well, none of those are "necessary add-ons". Java necessary? Since when? Who the hell even uses java applets anymore?

...anyone who uses their Windows machine in a complex business environment.

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704611)

Wrong. 32-bit Linux (see hugemem kernel -- standard since RHEL v5) can leverage 64GB of physical RAM; hell _each_process_ can use up to 3GB on a 32-bit kernel.

If you meant "It's all that a 32 bit WINDOWS OS can address", then you are probably right.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704261)

I've got an Asus transformerbook T100. It's got that new baytrail 4 core atom, 2 gigs of ram, and 32 gigs of storage. It's honest-to-goodness tablet hardware too. No fans, runs cool. Long battery life. The storage and wifi are SDIO, and some other peripherals are i2c (Like audio and light sensor), which is interesting.

It's running the 32 bit version of windows 8.1 and, frankly, it runs great. If it were running the 64 bit version it would not be enough. Its been said that they went with 32bit because 4 gig single-chip LPDDR3 modules were not available at the time of build (All modern tablets use these). Wait a little while if you want 64 bit full-fat windows on your tablet :)

Windows runs great. No UI lag. It's quick and responsive. The storage is a little on the slow side and it shows during IO intensive things like the dozen windows updates that Microsoft publishes every month. It's literally an SD card as main storage (Well, EMMC, but it's pretty much the same thing) 32 gigs of storage is a little slim but that's solved with a 64 or 128 gig microSD card - Again not the fastest thing int the world but not bad considering you're literally running desktop windows on a real tablet. (Real tablet as in not a flattened 5lb laptop with it's keyboard cut off and hinges removed)

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704275)

Is that even enough for Windows 8.1? And I don't mean enough as in bare minimum to run the OS, I mean enough to actually run more than four applications and a browser with at least ten tabs opened.

My testing has shown that Windows 8.1 at bare minimum grabs about 600MB on startup (no services or other stuff disabled). So yeah, provided that you have some swap available (just in case), 2GB of RAM will allow you to do some browsing with a dozen of tabs open, and have a couple of other lightweight apps running at the same time.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

toejam13 (958243) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704561)

That could be further reduced if Microsoft were to release another thin client edition of Windows.

Windows XP Fundamentals [wikipedia.org] was great in this regard as it was based upon XP Embedded and not XP Workstation. It required about a third fewer resources, making it ideal for older PII and K6 machines.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704817)

Graphics drivers take a lot memory these days. Try replacing your normal GPU driver with basic one and you'll see. You can free a cool 100MB.

Re:2GB of RAM? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704421)

Yes, it's enough. Considering Win8 has better memory management than Win7. I've also seen it installed on netbooks. I thought Slashdot attracted geeks that had above average experience with computers. Sadly, it seems most of the crowd are all hat and no cattle. I'm sick of you f'n retards.

2GB RAM is plenty for Win8.1 x86... (1)

BUL2294 (1081735) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704583)

I can confirm that Windows 8.1 x86 on 2GB RAM runs great--even on a 5-year old netbook. I loaded Win 8.1 Pro on a 2009-era Dell Inspiron Mini 9 (it had a now-unsupported XP) with an x86-only hyperthreaded Atom processor & IDE SSD--and it flies. I even put a new Intel 802.11ac WiFi-Bluetooth miniPCI card in it. I can't use Metro apps (1024x600 screen doesn't meet Metro's 1024x768 requirement, darn it), but after loading Start8, I don't care. I have a very portable little desktop machine that flies with Office 2010, Firefox, etc.

My only complaints are that Chrome actually performs quite poorly on sites with heavy AJAX (specifically Yahoo Mail), and that Flash is better off left not installed (darn). But Firefox appears to be much better optimized for low-end hardware, so I just use Firefox with no Flash.

Re:2GB RAM is plenty for Win8.1 x86... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704793)

If it run on that Atom then it has to be good. They remember me the in-order UltraSPARC II an III processors from Sun Microsystems.

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704721)

No. 64Bit version of the OS has minimum requirement of 4GB.

But I guess they're ignoring that.

Re:2GB of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704785)

Can an ARM processor even access 2GB of RAM?

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704885)

Who cares for the puroses of this story, since an AMD A4 is a 64-bit (AMD64 / x86_64) processor from AMD?

Re:2GB of RAM? (2)

4wdloop (1031398) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704929)

yes, that's enough of ram to run browser and few apps fairly well.....(win8x improved somewhat in this respect over Win7)
32GB of flash is another matter,,. leaves _maybe_ 10GB free for apps and media...that will fill up quickly with updates and will wear through

My experience with T100TA made me understand why MS is loosing mobile/tablet...took half day to recover from botched auto-update (had to reimage...a normal user would throw this back at Asus&MS). And it's a clanky M-UI compared to androids...

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705059)

It has nothing to do with 8.1, and everything to do with the fact that browsers are incredible memory hogs. 8.1 is generally less resource intensive than Win7, so it will probably run-- just dont expect to load up the tabs.

Re:2GB of RAM? (1)

Narishma (822073) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705063)

Windows 8 ran fine with just 1GB on my old netbook.

2 GB of RAM (5, Interesting)

bit trollent (824666) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704135)

I think Microsoft gives manufacturers a discount if they limit their ram to 2 GB.

They are really shooting themselves in the foot, because a web browser can easily use 2 GB by itself, bringing the computer to a crawl.

Seriously.. my cell phone has 2 GB of ram.... This laptop will be nearly unusable without more memory.

This is as counterproductive as outlet stores. Sure, you pay a little less but the clothes shrink or fall apart.

And there on my ruined clothes it says Gap or Banana Republic - 2 brands I've bought lots of stuff from before, and will never ever buy again. But they made a little money, and I 'saved' a little money.

This laptop is the outlet mall version of an HP laptop - itself a brand that doesn't exactly exude quality these days..

Re:2 GB of RAM (1)

UnsignedInt32 (1118617) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704233)

Exactly the same thought when I heard the spec...

In addition to it, users have to worry about things like malware protection and that further drives usability down; not even sure if it will be usable...

Re:2 GB of RAM (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704239)

and of course the browser will be

INTERNET EXPLORER

Re:2 GB of RAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704347)

Have you seen how much ram Chrome and Firefox pull nowadays, without a single plugin? I don't know what to do when running Windows anymore. On OSX I use Safari.

Re:2 GB of RAM (1)

Kingkaid (2751527) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704489)

IE uses less RAM than Chrome... so given the freak out of 2GBs of RAM it makes sense.

Re:2 GB of RAM (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704863)

Sure, less, but not when you're talking about filling up 2GB.

My IE threads are each running about 130-150MB ea
My Chrome threads are running 70-170MB ea

Re:2 GB of RAM (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704433)

Seriously.. my cell phone has 2 GB of ram.

Your phone costs two or three times as much as this computer.

Re:2 GB of RAM (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705115)

The phone also has a cellular radio, which involves extra hardware, patent licenses, and stricter certification by FCC and foreign counterparts than a Wi-Fi-only device.

Re:2 GB of RAM (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704525)

Newer cellphones are running 3 GB ram, and I've seen specs for upcoming ones with 4 GB Ram. This is just Microsoft wanting to get people to Office365, where the apps are running in the cloud.

The magic is in the software assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704153)

Ah, but how well will applications designed for higher spec hardware run? It's not that it's too little hardware to run most of what people need -- it's that most of what's developed for Windows assumes PC-like hardware resources.

I expect the experience to be half-baked and frustrating. (e.g. I clicked this button, why isn't anything happening?)

Touchscreen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704155)

I scanned a number of articles and I kept seeing pictures with touchpads and no mention of a touch sensitive screen. Windows 8 is ok with touch but a bear to use with a traditional keyboard / mouse interface, if it doesn't have touch it's deader than the Surface

Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704167)

Are they including sysadmin costs in their pricing calculations?

Why bother? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704221)

At the same price point you can get last few years model of a real full featured laptop on ebay or newegg with much faster processors, more RAM and ... ah... usable amounts of storage. 32GB?

Re:Why bother? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704319)

At $199? I doubt it. You almost have to chuck a double amount of cash on the table.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704353)

Battery life and heat. TFA does not mention either but those are the prime advantages in a ChromeBook, other than price point.

Re:Why bother? (1)

DCstewieG (824956) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704505)

I got a Chromebook for my dad with the prime advantages being simplicity and no maintenance. I don't have to worry about keeping him updated, installing anti-virus, or even handing him Ubuntu. All he wants is a browser so why give him more? He loves it!

Needs grow (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705135)

All he wants is a browser so why give him more?

So that he doesn't have to re-buy hardware when he comes to want more.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704483)

The only thing I don't see too often in the $250-$400 range for Windows laptops is the 32 GB SSD.

If you give up the 32 GB SSD and pay $250-300, you can get:

AMD A6 APU, maybe an A8, or Intel Celeron/Pentium, maybe an i3.
Typically 4 GB RAM. Sometimes 2 or 6 GB instead.
320-750 GB HDD.
Same 1366x768 resolution that is hated these days.
Same OS - Windows 8.1

The SSD is what would make this $250 laptop snappier than the slow CPU and low RAM would suggest. Looks like you can get a 32 GB SSD for $30, 64 GB for $40.

What would I like to see? Bump up the specs to an A6 APU and 4 GB RAM, throw in an mSATA 32 GB with a 500 GB HDD, bump up the price to $300-350, and then get it on sale.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704499)

Nope.

The only laptop on Newegg under $250 is a refurbed Thinkpad with 2GB of RAM.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834317733

There are some solid selections in the $300-$325 range, but that's a decent price jump from where HP is talking about.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704737)

Nope.

The only laptop on Newegg under $250 is a refurbed Thinkpad with 2GB of RAM.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834317733

You might want to check [newegg.com] again [newegg.com] .

Re:Why bother? (4, Informative)

hendrips (2722525) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704931)

Um what? I count 328 laptops under $250, just including laptops running Windows 8 and Windows 7. There's a $229.00 ASUS laptop literally right there on the front page of Newegg right now.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704801)

The real problem is the 768. What lunatic thought of that brain-damaged number. It's even smaller than the 800 we had a few years before. Am I supposed to pay more for less? You know, pages scroll vertically, not horizontally. I doubt that will be changing anytime soon. Plus, one wonders whether the manufacturers think that notebook computers are intended only for watching movies. But then you scan the wares at the local store and you'll hardly find a quality affordable notebook computer with an integrated DVD player.

I tried the external USB player and it was a piece of junk. And doesn't that violate the concept of wanting something to be portable? How is portability enhanced by requiring me to carry a secondary gadget, the additional weight of which causes the entire system to weigh more than a single integrated product? Not to mention the fact that USB itself is nightmarish mess of inscrutable malware.

And just so we're all certain of the concept, portability also means I'm away from the office. Like somewhere where there's no wi-fi.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704809)

And with an ARM processor, you'd expect the price to be much lower.

Then add... (2)

qeraser (587974) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704255)

the cost of virus and malware scan software, monthly cost of Office whatever and the RAM the previous additions sucked up. Think I will pass.

Re:Then add... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704371)

Of course you will. But since you clearly don't base your decisions on rational facts you would have passed regardless of the specs, right?

Re:Then add... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704871)

Virus and Malware software is free, and your decision to use Office or not is up to you.

At least with this platform you get the option of using Office if you'd like.

Already had this with the Lenovo Miix... (4, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704325)

I bought my Lenovo Mix (8" tablet) with full Windows 8.1, 4GB RAM and Office 2013 Home for just $200. I added a nice bluetooth keyboard and case for another $60 and now it's my primary "walking around the company campus attending meetings" device (replacing a laptop). $260 was already in the ballpark of my son's Nexus 7 table.

I hope Microsoft (and HP and all the interchangeable PC providers) keep this up - if Apple's not going to drop price it helps consumers to have another company with deep pockets engaged in the tablet price war.

They need to match more than price (5, Informative)

technomom (444378) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704337)

Here's the thing. Part of the problem is that they're not really beating Chromebook on anything, just matching the price. I still am going to need to load an anti-virus program, still going to have to sit through a long startup, and still have to sit through Update Tuesday. Yeah, I know Chromebook isn't perfect, but for most of what I do, it's really good enough and with my Macbook covering the 10% of things I can't do with my Chromebook, I'm really not seeing the need for Windows at all. Office? Please. I've been using OpenOffice and/or Google Docs for the past 4 years and no one has even noticed a difference so long as I save to .doc format.

Re:They need to match more than price (1)

Kingkaid (2751527) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704479)

Try to be a bit impartial. You are comparing the two saying they are equivalent in terms of functionality. Let's say that is the case - why wouldn't a chromebook need antivirus? It is a computer system that has vulnerabilities, like any OS. Maybe nothing has been written for it (that we know of at least), but your comparison isn't reasonable. The boot time from shutdown on a Windows 8 machine has always been under 10 seconds. I have an old PC with a mechanical hdd and it boots up in 8 seconds. From sleep the boot is basically instant. So why did they come out with this? Well it does about the same thing, it is good enough for most people and most people still use a windows machine. Because of that most people will stick with it. This machine will meet most people's needs entirely.

Re:They need to match more than price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704891)

why wouldn't a chromebook need antivirus? It is a computer system that has vulnerabilities, like any OS. Maybe nothing has been written for it (that we know of at least), but your comparison isn't reasonable. The boot time from shutdown on a Windows 8 machine has always been under 10 seconds. I have an old PC with a mechanical hdd and it boots up in 8 seconds. From sleep the boot is basically instant.

There is no such thing as antivirus for Chromebooks. You don't install anything. It's not needed. And you couldn't add it if you wanted too. By it's very nature you can't get a virus.

Windows machines boot as fast as Chromebooks? Please. I have a Windows 7 work laptop and a Chromebook. I wake both up when I get in the office and then get to work on the Chromebook while the Windows machine boots and boots and boots. I suppose it might start faster if you had a clean install and nothing on it, but not in real life with all the corporate stuff and programs.

Re:They need to match more than price (1)

Windowser (191974) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705107)

why wouldn't a chromebook need antivirus? It is a computer system that has vulnerabilities, like any OS.

Not all OS are created equal. I've been running Linux on my laptop for years, without an anti-virus, and never got anything.
Windows is crap security wise, get over it

Re:They need to match more than price (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704487)

You obviously haven't used 8.1 yet. You don't need to load antivirus its built in now. Startup is much faster than old Win7 and this will have a SSD so I expect it to be pretty comparable to a chromebook, especially when most of the time you sleep not fully power down.

Seems some people just can't learn new things. You think you have it all 'figured out' with chromebook but they are very limited. You just said you need a macbook to do real things so that is the problem right there. With this you can do everything in one place and not need a 'real' laptop to supplement the things that Chromebooks refuse to let you do.

Re:They need to match more than price (1)

sinij (911942) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704567)

'Antivirus' signature-based solutions are largely ineffective at mitigating anything. You should just use hostfile-based blacklist and secure your java/flash.

Re:They need to match more than price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704587)

>I still am going to need to load an anti-virus program

Need? Want, perhaps.

>still going to have to sit through a long startup

It's your own fault if you can't figure out how to use sleep mode

>and still have to sit through Update Tuesday

It's also your own fault if you don't know how to set windows to do this in the background, especially considering that's the default.

>Yeah, I know Chromebook isn't perfect,

It doesn't run windows apps, for example.

>Google Docs

May as well send everything you do to the $local_government.

>OpenOffice

Available for windows.

>no one has even noticed a difference

You'll have to do far better than that if the chromebook is only on par with this new device.

Microsoft is so stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704355)

Yeah, put your OS on a computer with no power and who do you think the consumers will blame when the computer is IMMEDIATELY sluggish? Microsoft.

Okay.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704407)

"New HP Laptop Would Mean Poo at Chromebook Prices"
 
This just isn't making me very excited.

Yes they are called Netbooks (1)

goruka (1721094) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704435)

And are not trendy anymore. I don't think Chromebooks are only appealing because the hardware is cheap..

Re:Yes they are called Netbooks (3, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704645)

They're still incredibly useful... it's just that people stopped buying them because Intel stopped making Atom processors faster/more powerful to choke the life out of the 0% profit margin netbook segment... only to have them revived as "Chromebooks" and are again eating up Microsoft and Intel's bottom line. The only reason Netbooks aren't trendy is because Google wasn't a market disruptor when Wintel made the decision to stop updating Netbook hardware. Now Google is.

About a year late (2)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704445)

I picked up an Acer C720 about a year ago that was good enough that I don't even carry around the Mac Air that my company gave me. 2GB RAM, Celeron 2955U haswell processor, 8-9 hour battery life, hdmi/USB3, SD slot, 16GB storage, same video resolution as the HP above. All for US$199 and in a 2lb package.

I thought I'd need more storage, but it's a year later and I haven't used more than about 10GB of the internal storage. One of these days, I'll upgrade it to 32GB or 64GB, but I've just been storing my personal files on either a 64GB SD card or 64GB USB 3.0 fob.

Having something this thinly provisioned running the bloat that is Win 8.1 wouldn't be attractive for me at all, regardless of the price point. However, it's great for ChromeOS and Ubuntu Trusty.

Re:About a year late (2)

Scutter (18425) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704549)

I will sacrifice storage for RAM any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I cannot fathom why portables continue to be shafted with an anaemic 2GB (4 if you're very lucky) of RAM. Memory isn't that expensive these days, but holy crap does the OS run better with 6 or 8GB.

My last one was an 11.1" netbook with 8GB. I bought it because it was the only netbook with 8GB, which meant I could run Windows 7 and also one or more applications AT THE SAME TIME!. It has served me far better than any 15" laptop I ever had. It's going to suck trying to find an adequate replacement when this one croaks.

Re:About a year late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704559)

Also got an Acer, upgraded to 100GB storage for an extra hundred bucks and haven't looked back.

stupid! (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704531)

HP makes the dead last lowest quality laptops. There is no other brand, including Acer, that beats them at failure rates and defect rates. Their support is nearly the lowest rated in the industry. So now they're going to make a "cheap" laptop? OH HELL NO!

Re:stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704643)

[citation needed]

will it boot in 4 seconds or less? (4, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704571)

If they can make their 2015 machine cold boot in under four seconds, and come up from suspend in under one second, it'll be almost as good as a 2013-2014 Chromebook. Here's to hoping Microsoft can catch up.

Re:will it boot in 4 seconds or less? (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704919)

Don't see why not. My current Win8.1 machine boots in under 4 seconds.

Re:will it boot in 4 seconds or less? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704995)

I don't believe it.

Probably Cold Boot in 2 Seconds (4, Informative)

HannethCom (585323) | about a month and a half ago | (#47705023)

My 2012 Surface Pro "Cold Boots" in 2 seconds. Flash Drive. My 2010 netbook boots in 20 seconds. 5400rpm hard drive. A lot of the boot process is dependent on the hard drive, so a low end 2015, should probably boot as fast as a higher end 2012 machine. I put "Cold Boots" in parenthesis because Windows 8.1 almost never really cold boots. It uses a form of hibernate where it figures out what is exactly the same each boot time and stores an image of that on the hard drive, then just loads it into memory. That combined with UEFI makes Windows 8.1 boot really fast on new hardware, even if it is low end.

Despite its limits, this machine has some (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704653)

potential. Although it may not perform like a potent end notebook at its price point it can be very compelling in a number of scenarios:

1. As a standalone device to run a specialized program. I use several programs to trouble shot car problems and a $200 laptop means I would not have to risk busting my expensive laptop in the garage and still have portability vs a desktop.

2. Similar to 1, schools and other organizations would have a low cost machine that could be used in large scale implementations and would run currently available Windows software, unlike Chromebooks.

3. It offers a lower price point for a Windows machine for students or others for whom a more expensive machine is a stretch.

Of course, MS, if they follow past practices, will figure out a way to cripple the OS so the machine turns out to be an expensive paperweight.

Re:Despite its limits, this machine has some (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47705125)

2. Similar to 1, schools and other organizations would have a low cost machine that could be used in large scale implementations and would run currently available Windows software, unlike Chromebooks.

In schools doing one-to-one deployments, the fact that Chromebooks don't run currently available Windows software is considered an advantage.

Limited storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47704681)

"Microsoft will likely offer 100GB of OneDrive cloud storage with the device to balance the limited storage option."

So only 32gigs of storage on the device eh? Hmm. I dunno, seems kinda limited with no way to expand it without buying my own storage.

(Yes, I'm ignoring the OneDrive on purpose.)

Re:Limited storage (1)

Minwee (522556) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704901)

So only 32gigs of storage on the device eh? Hmm. I dunno, seems kinda limited with no way to expand it without buying my own storage.

I'm afraid that very few computers of any kind offer a way to expand the storage without buying storage.

You could try stealing three USB drives and a high capacity SDXC card and fitting them into the available ports on the Stream 14, easily expanding the storage by as much as you want, but speaking as your attorney I would have to advise you that that could cause you some legal difficulties in the future.

laptop case design (1)

Georules (655379) | about a month and a half ago | (#47704747)

HP laptops always feel so "Playschool kids playset" to me. The keys have a terrible tactile feedback, and the gloss is tacky. I'd like them to fix that first.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?