Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Google Does Coreboot For "Stout" Chromebook

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,787

    Default Google Does Coreboot For "Stout" Chromebook

    Phoronix: Google Does Coreboot For "Stout" Chromebook

    Google has published Coreboot support for the Stout Chromebook...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMzMDE

  2. #2

    Default

    Seriously what's with all these crippled Celeron Chromebooks that either have crappy battery life or cost twice as much as they should for their performance level? Just put a quad core Cortex A15 in there, a decent IPS screen, make it $250 and call it a day. It's not that hard, is it?!

    So far the best selling Chromebook by far has been Samsung's ARM based one. It's been the #1 best selling notebook on Amazon [1] for half a year now, and has never lost its rank so far, and for good reason. You'd think all these other companies like Lenovo, HP and Acer who keep releasing these crappy Celeron Chromebooks would want to emulate that. But obviously they do not. Oh well, their loss if they keep wanting to remain Intel's b*tches, and put them first instead of the customer.

    [1] - http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers...08/ref=sr_bs_1
    Last edited by Krysto; 03-18-2013 at 05:31 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    They need to make their OS platform agnostic, maybe pnacl could become more than a nice experiment someday. HTML5 is OK, but no enough.

    Linux itself need a platform independent binary standard (some kind of evolved ELF) too.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,048

    Default Screen resolution

    Worse screen resolution than a phone!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    Linux itself need a platform independent binary standard (some kind of evolved ELF) too.
    There was this guy who tried to develop something called "fatElf" which was basically like a container format where there was x86 and x64 binaries in the same file. You might want to look into what happened with that. (spoiler alert: it's not that good an idea really.)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    There was this guy who tried to develop something called "fatElf" which was basically like a container format where there was x86 and x64 binaries in the same file. You might want to look into what happened with that. (spoiler alert: it's not that good an idea really.)
    No, I mean about a very efficient JIT-like binary format in the style of pNaCl but for Linux.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    No, I mean about a very efficient JIT-like binary format in the style of pNaCl but for Linux.
    Oh you mean like :
    • LLVM Bytecode
    • JVM Bytecode
    • Mono's CIL implementation


    I don't think we need YetAnotherBytecode

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Forgot PyPy and Lua... although I'm not sure if Lua uses bytecode at all...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Worse screen resolution than a phone!
    Screen resolution is OVERBLOWN idea... To easy to sell crap notion to potential customers.

    Its:

    quality of your eyes VS pixel density * average distance from your eyes

    So if you have bad eyesight than even current (non-"retina") pixel density may be good for you.

    And you NEED LESS pixel density farther the device you use.

    You use phones very up close. They need most pixel density.
    You use tablets from some distance. They need a bit less pixel density.
    You use ibm pc's from far away. They need LEAST pixel density.


    And getting more on the right side of VS than on the left, DO NO GOOD. Just waste processing power (of GPU, CPU, memory, bus bandwith, etc.), and battery time that is used..

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by przemoli View Post
    Screen resolution is OVERBLOWN idea... To easy to sell crap notion to potential customers.

    Its:

    quality of your eyes VS pixel density * average distance from your eyes

    So if you have bad eyesight than even current (non-"retina") pixel density may be good for you.

    And you NEED LESS pixel density farther the device you use.

    You use phones very up close. They need most pixel density.
    You use tablets from some distance. They need a bit less pixel density.
    You use ibm pc's from far away. They need LEAST pixel density.


    And getting more on the right side of VS than on the left, DO NO GOOD. Just waste processing power (of GPU, CPU, memory, bus bandwith, etc.), and battery time that is used..
    Of course that's true, but the resolution is LOWER for a BIGGER screen. That means the pixel density is A LOT lower. Nobody asks for a laptop with the same pixel density as a phone (that would be what, a 4K screen?).
    If you are holding your laptop, tablet and phone screen each at such a distance that they take about the same space of you view they should all have the same resolution for the same quality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •