Why are new Laotops so much worse yet more exoensive?
I picked up a Chromebook for $229 at Best Buy the other day and promptly returned it. It was running an Intel N100 chip 4 GB of ram but it was on sale so I decided to pick it up and try it.
Now, I can go on eBay and buy a three year old Lenovo X1 carbon and get way way way way way more usable experience putting linux on it then I can out of this Chromebook.
If anyone can explain that to me other than pure profit exploitation I’d like to hear it. But from what I understood processor speed was supposed to increase, so why does it seem like it’s decreasing?
I think the main issue here is that Chromebook =/= laptop. They may have the same form factor as a laptop, but a Chromebook is not intending to do the same general purpose computing job a laptop does, so the hardware doesn't matter as much.
> But from what I understood processor speed was supposed to increase, so why does it seem like it’s decreasing?
According to who? Of course a cheap chromebook isn't going to be better?
Huh. You are complaining that a $229 laptop is under powered? Maybe your expectations are a bit high :-)
I thought CPU clock speeds had plateaued for nearly two decades now?
You can't really compare used vs. new pricing. Also at the low end the cost is dominated by fixed costs (the screen, case, power supply, etc) so price/perf is going to be really poor.
I think you don't understand the target market for cheap Chromebooks. Do you really want someone to explain why a Lenovo X1 Carbon that costs 6-7 times more gives a better experience? What older laptop is the Chromebook "so much worse yet more expensive" than?