Torvalds asks 'Why do PC manufacturers even bother any more?'
Linux Lord may adopt Chromebook Pixel as main machine ... after proper Linux install
Linux Lord Linus Torvalds is thinking about making Google's Chromebook Pixel his main computer – once he installs a proper Linux distribution on the machine, that is.
Posting on Google+, Torvalds lauded Google's newest creation, writing "... the screen really is that nice" [his emphasis] and that "I think I can lug around this 1.5kg monster despite feeling fairly strongly that a laptop should weigh 1kg or less."
He even thinks the 12.85-inch, 2560-by-1700, 239 pixels-per-inch display and its a 3:2 aspect ratio is so good that it puts the efforts of all other laptop-makers to shame, offering the following opinion on the current laptop computer market:
One thing that the Chromebook Pixel really brings home is how crap normal laptops have become. Why do PC manufacturers even bother any more? No wonder the PC business isn't doing well, when they stick to just churning out more crappy stuff and think that "full HD" (aka 1080p) is somehow the epitome of greatness.
Torvalds doesn't think Google's computer is perfect; he wants more than Chrome OS because "For a laptop to be useful to me, I need to not just read and write email, I need to be able to do compiles, have my own git repositories etc.."
A full Linux install is therefore on the horizon, although Torvalds hasn't said which distribution or desktop he favours on this occasion (although he has recently said he's using Gnome again). With the Pixel packing a Core i5, he's got lots of choices when he decides to make the jump. ®
I'm with you streaky, have an upvote. What the hell is with 6 downvotes on streaky's post? He's absolutely right: many of us use desktops for work and play, and while I do have a Sammy Slate and it's very useful, I also find my desktop PC just as useful. And there's obviously a market still there, otherwise they wouldn't still be making motherboards, graphics cards and hard drives.
I really don't get this "tablets are the ONLY thing now, PCs are so dead" craze. You'd think owning a desktop is like smoking in public, the way people are carrying on! Tablets are great, yes - as an adjunct to the desktop workstation. But they don't replace the workstation. Try using Photoshop or Cinema 4D on a tablet sometime. Or playing games. Sometimes you just need a keyboard, mouse and a big fat monitor in front of you, and that isn't going to change.
Re: Chromebook is doing what Surface was supposed to do...
I was reading your comment with an open mind and heart, just as I like to approach any new person I meet.
It began quite OK, quite inoffensive. I neither agreed nor disagreed but I was interested in seeing out the rest.
Then I couldn't quite see the point you were making and how it was relevant, but OK . . .
Then I noticed I was screwing up my nose and upper lip in "WTF?". My nose had gotten there before I did as I was trying to wrap my head around how your argument related to actual events.
Halfway through, when my head had caught up with my clearly more intelligent nose (or at least quicker on the uptake), I wondered who was writing the comment and looked up.
I cannot believe I wasted precious seconds bothering to read your comment! What a valuable lesson I have learnt today: Always look before you read.
Other than watching video (although I can ignore black bars), in what other respects are widescreen displays superior or more logical?
Gaming? Well, my old 20in Samsung running 1600x1200 is much better than my old 21in Samsung running 1650x1050 for gaming, although my preference was for 1920x1200. Display aspect matters for me when it comes to gaming, and the only reason I don't hate my new monitor is because 1440 vertical pixels is quite a lot.
Office tasks? Displays with proper depth are much preferable to widescreen for office tasks. The only advantage for widescreen is multiple windows open side-by-side, hard to do on 1366x768 wouldn't you say? One of my greatest joys when I was programming was to turn my Sammy into portrait 1200x1600 to review the code. Perfect.
16:9 was forced on us by the screen and device manufacturers because it was cheaper to produce and they were/are in a race to the bottom (both in price and in quality IMO), not because it was better or because customers liked it. Customers liked it because it was cheaper. Cheaper > Better when the masses are buying.
So why was 16:9 cheaper than 4:3? Apart from TV panels helping the process, I believe it was because panel manufacturers could fit more 16:9 ratio panels through the process than the other ratios. 16:9 panels fit better on the substrate and resulted in less waste around the edges. Therefore more 16:9 panels could be made and were cheaper than 16:10 and 4:3, and therefore more price-conscious consumers bought them.
To reiterate: they were cheaper and not better, it was economics and not technology.
Icon: Paris thinks size matters as well.
Morons like streaky are why screen resolutions haven't increased in 10 years.
The point of having so many pixels is so you do not see individual pixels. That's what Apple was advertising with the Retina branding, and what Google is now calling the Chromebook Pixel.
I don't want to see pixels. I've seen plenty of pixels. I want the pixels to be so small that I see smooth fonts and sharp pictures. That's the point of having such sharp screens.
Re: Chromebook is doing what Surface was supposed to do...
Eadon you need to grow up a bit.
Seriously, the whole "my computer's better than your computer" thing was boring the first time around 30 odd years ago!
We get it - you prefer Linux to Windows - now you need to move on and get a life, go outside, smell the fresh air, watch a puppy gambol in a park, take yourself off to an area of outstanding natural beauty and drink it in - ANYTHING in fact except continue to obsess about Microsoft.
THEY ARE JUST FUCKING COMPUTERS; THEY AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT!