Talk:Chromebook

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Video Talk:Chromebook

Merge with Chrome OS?

I think Chrome OS and Chromebooks, at least for any time soon, imo should have the same article.

Any suggestions?

The Tangmeister (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But not merge--there's nothing much here. Redirect. Barte (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This article will likely be expanded in the near future, as Google releases more information about the Chromebook. So, if the article is merged/redirected, it will just pop up again later. demize (t · c) 00:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Could be. It's already filled in since a couple of days ago. Barte (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Until further information can be gathered aboyt both the Chrome OS and The Chromebook they SHOULD be MENTIONED in this article until further references become available, after which they can be split. Some information has become available on the Chromebook website. For instance it has been confirmed that both Acer and Samsung wil be manufacturing the devices. So maybe begin to write the article and keep it as a work in progress? Kirsten Z Jacob 00:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by KirtZJ (talk o contribs)

I actually don't think Chrome OS and this article should be merged. There will soon be a lot more information on a whole range of Chromebooks, including reviews etc, that will easily sustain a separate article. If we did merge them we would have to split them again in the near future, just due to the volume of information available. I think the biggest challenge with this article will be avoiding editors starting articles on each model of Chromebook as more are announced and released. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that might be an interesting challenge here: see if this could be a definitive list of all Chromebook specs. That idea of completeness isn't unprecedented on Wikipedia. The game consoles, for example (if memory serves), have detailed listings of ever model ever made. And that info is both useful and really hard to find elsewhere. And it certainly goes beyond the scope of Chrome OS Barte (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, lol. This should be a separate article. The Tangmeister (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a table of models and their specs would be very useful. At least it could link to individual model articles if they get created. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that you found a good ref on the specs for the Samsung Series 5 I started the table. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice start. Barte (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad that you like it. We can add more as data becomes available. A photo would sure help this article a lot. Hopefully after someone buys one they will take a photo of it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of getting screen size into the chart? That may turn out to be one of the bigger variables. And is it worth putting in the Cr-48 specs for comparison? (Especially as a followup is in the works.) For example, the weight of that Samsung seems high--3.3 pounds. So how does it compare to the Cr-48--in weight and displays size? Barte (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can do. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Barte (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The hardware could be better used with an OS different then Chrome OS. Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 I think everyone agrees that this page can now stand on its own OtherKevin (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Chromebook

About the Chromebook models chart

I think we should make it similar to the Microsoft Office comparison charts on Wikipedia- put the model+Company at the top of the chart, and put each category heading on the left, and the data value at the intersections. (See the MS Office comparison charts to see what I mean :)

) --Preceding unsigned comment added by TangLab (talk o contribs) 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Which chart do you mean as the example? - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2010#Comparison The Tangmeister (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually that one has the categories at the top and the product names down the side, were you indicating it should be rotated 90°? - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I like it how it is, personally. Steven Walling 00:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the charts were solid in 2011 but are currently horrible in comparison to any other wiki on the topic. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by BotOrNot (talk o contribs) 07:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chromebook and Chromebox charts have been updated, but they still need more work and pictures. OtherKevin (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

src: www.androidheadlines.com

The Extreme Tech reference

Hey, it's not that I object to the fact about Windows netbooks being cheaper. It's pretty much obvious, and is stated before in the CNET quote. I'm just iffy about the reliability and prominence of "Extreme Tech" as a source. I worked in tech blogging for quite some time, and after poking around I can't really see them as a really good source. Steven Walling 17:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ExtremeTech has been around forever if you actually keep up with that sort of thing. They were purchase by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziff_Davis , owners of ZDNet and TechTV... what is the issue here? BotOrNot (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think that ref is short of WP:RS that is fine to remove it. My main concern in putting that back in is that the main criticism we are hearing about the Chromebooks is that they are too expensive for what you get and that other hardware is cheaper and with other OSs, is more flexible. I am sure there will be more on this in the near future, I'll keep an eye out for more mainstream sources. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done OtherKevin (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

src: i.pinimg.com

Second section reads like an advertisement?

The first sentence really sounds like advertising. Maybe it should read "Chromebooks are designed to quickly access the web", and the first clause (With fast boot times and no anti-virus or anti-malware software required) should be removed. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.58.37 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite true. Have a look and see what you think now. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edited Ahunt's edits--with same invitation to critique. Thanks for pointing this out, anon. Barte (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks even better to me - thanks for fixing it further! - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done OtherKevin (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

src: d0od.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

Sooo, these things are on sale now, 1 June 2011

This is clearly WP:OR in that I took these screenshots, but have a look-see for yourself:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1832211/chrome-email.png

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1832211/chrome-website.png

How should we go about updating the article? Earthpig (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Those two PNGs don't seem to want to load, but all we really need to do in theory is use the Acer and Samsung websites as refs. I just checked both and Acer has nothing at all on their website that I could find, while Samsung has this. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Clicked on the "buy" buttons on the Samsung site. Nobody's actually selling. Barte (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that - "out of stock" - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And then there's this blog post: http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/01/samsung-chromebook-sale-gilt-groupe/ claiming the official date is still 6/15, but a few Cr-48 testers would be able to purchase early. I think this is all way too tenuous to change the article from the official launch date. Barte (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would be one of those CR-48 people. There is also an article on endgadget: http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/samsung-chromebook-goes-on-sale-early-at-gilt/ Are the images loading now? I did a ctrl+f5 reload and they seem to be working fine for me... Earthpig (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are loading now, thanks! I think it was just a temporary server-end problem. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Chromebooks are now available OtherKevin (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

src: www.mounsey.blog

Lawsuit=delay?

This being June 15, I was going to change the wording to indicate Chromebooks are now available. Except that on Amazon, they still aren't available as of this morning. And then I noticed reports a lawsuit over the name. Is there a connection? I'm not sure. I've added a mention about the suit in the lead and am waiting for more info. If anyone spots anything further from notable sources, primary or secondary, they'd be useful. (BTW, I've used PCMag.com source as the cite. I couldn't find any mention on the website of the company's website. That would be ISYS Technologies. Barte (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They will need a court order to stop the sale, not just the threat of a lawsuit. It will be interesting to see how this develops. - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I now see a couple of models available for shipment. So whatever the lawsuit outcome, I think we have ignition. Barte (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Accordingly, I've moved the lawsuit mention to the bottom. Let's indeed see how, or if, it develops. Barte (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea moving it down. As you well know Americans mostly socially interact though lawsuits, so it is really a standard way of welcoming a new product to market and will likely not amount to anything. -- Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Deep corporate pockets are a Siren's call to the legal profession. Agreed: I'd also be surprised if this goes anywhere. Barte (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What should we do about the "Trademark dispute" section? I think the entire section would be more at home on the Chromium page, since that name was the source of the dispute. It never really had any effect on chromebook users. Discuss! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by OtherKevin (talk o contribs) 07:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Chromebook Guru Program

An editor added mention of this to the article today, although we are still sorting out appropriate refs for it. I am wondering if it is even worth mentioning or whether it shouldn't just be removed as marketing trivia. I really am not seeing the value of it as part of the story of these computers. We wouldn't, for instance, mention if Samsung had a sale on them and I am not convinced that this is any more notable, even if a real ref can be located. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question. On the face of it, this is marketing at the mundane level. On the other hand, Google has a marketing challenge on its hands--and its approach has been to hand out machines at a pace few other companies would match. Ideally, we'd have a secondary source citation that would make that sort of observation: summarizing Google's marketing effort. If none exists, maybe that's telling us something. But I do think there are enough refs out there to justify that this is real. Even though the main source is a forum. Barte (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The forum entry is very vague, not even indicating what these are - they could be old Cr-48s from the pilot program that Google couldn't give away and is now stuck with. I agree we need more information to keep this in the article and lacking a real ref that probably indicates a lack of notability right there. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I found a couple of media refs on the subject and added them along with some text supported by the refs. See if that adds up to something worth keeping (ie do you think it is non-trivial?) - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What about compressing it:

In marketing Chromebooks, Google has relied on hands-on experience: giving away Samsumg machines to some Cr-48 pilot program participants and loaning Chromebooks to passengers on some Virgin America flights.

The idea: get the basic idea across without devolving into trivial detail. Barte (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't think we have to go into every marketing initiative Google tries to move these devices, but a couple of examples would be useful. - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Barte (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks better! - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Goes to show that some improvements are better made by subtraction. Barte (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. That is a fundamental tenant of Zen! - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Special thanks to Barte and Ahunt -- OtherKevin (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

src: cdn1.vox-cdn.com

File:Acer Chromebook.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 Image was not deleted -- OtherKevin (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Series 5 550 consensus

Seems to me that the early consensus on the Series 5 550 is either positive or neutral. (Google it and you'll see what I mean.) The Engadget review (already cited in the spec section) is especially favorably, comparing the device to 13" Ultrabooks selling for nearly twice the price. None of which negates the negative OMG! Chrome! review, but that may turn out to be the minority report, and should perhaps come at the bottom. Thoughts? One other plus and a minus: The device is being/wlll be sold by Best Buy, giving it a strong brick and mortar sales channel. But Samsung appears to be the only Chrome OS hardware developer left standing. Out of a field of two. Barte (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps we should add some more to balance the OMG review then. Sneddon doesn't have a problem with the device, just the price. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the price/performance ratio is at the heart of the matter for reviewers, with mileages varying. Barte (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Very much so, which goes to our discussions here from a couple of years ago. The very limited capabilities of the Chromebook/box only make sense if it is cheaper, which it isn't. So it isn't selling very well, which was predictable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, the Engadget review also questions the pricing. I've added it in, along with a cite of the original Samsung press release.Barte (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Super! - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahunt -- I've noticed a *lot* of articles contributed to by you have obsessively many references to Joey Sneddon. It's getting extremely tiresome now. I'd appreciate it if you didn't impose you're trash-journalism addiction on Wikipedia. THANKS! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

src: www.conjugation.xyz

No updates

Does anyone comment on the fact that the computer will not interrupt your work to update itself. I am buying one (even though I need to ship it to a friend first as they will not ship it to Canada) for this sole reason. Windows frequently shuts it self off to spend 10 - 20 minutes updating. Per amazon "Every time you turn it on, the Chromebook upgrades itself to latest features and fixes, with no nagging updates!" http://www.amazon.com/Acer-AC700-1099-Chromebook-Wi-Fi/dp/B00507ALBG

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Windows users would find that a real accomplishment. I am using Debian and it never bugs me to do updates, so I am not sure it is that unique. Same goes for Puppy Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You can change Windows update settings so that auto-reboot is disabled, if an administrator has not disallowed you from doing so. But yeah, there is joy in using Chrome OS for not being Windows. --JBrown23 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Article title change?

Since now we are housing both chromebook and chromebox information (which I support), should the title be renamed from Chromebook to Chrome OS device? --JBrown23 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, but if more Chromeboxes crop up then they could be split into a separate article. Right now I am thinking that one Samsung model may just be an anomaly. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that Chromebox isn't yet notable enough, but maybe it should redirect here. Barte (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It already does! - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Great minds......Barte (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

src: www.androidheadlines.com

Someone please add a new (preferably free) image of the Samsung Series 5 550 (second generation) to replace the current title image

The image of the Samsung Series 5 Chromebook in the Infobox is outdated. Please update it with an image of the second-generation Samsung Series 5 550 Chromebook! Thanks. Kenny Strawn (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Marcus Qwertyus has uploaded a nice Series 3 title image --- OtherKevin (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

MS Office 2010

Can I load MS Office 2010 on the Chromebook? If yes, does it function well? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.6.91.240 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You can use Office365 if you must use a microsoft product on the machine. Additionally, you can run Office 2010 through Wine or PlayOnLinux. Don't listen to the luddites. BotOrNot (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chrome OS is Linux based, it won't run Windows applications. The office suite used on Chrome OS is Google Drive, formerly called Google Docs. I think this is adequately covered in the article about the software Google Chrome OS, but perhaps more needs to be said there? - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question indirectly raised here by anon. According to the article's 2nd sentence, "The devices are designed to be used while connected to the Internet and rely almost entirely on Web applications, rather than applications that reside on the machine itself." To a first-time reader, is that clear enough in terms of ramifications, i.e., ability to load MS Office (or for that matter, any other app)? If not, should we clarify? Barte (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it caused this person to question it, then, yes I think it should be more clearly spelled out. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given it a try. Barte (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

src: www.androidheadlines.com

Google branded Chromebook

This is probably too close to a rumour right now, but we should keep an eye out for an official announcement Google Reportedly Preparing To Sell Self-Branded Chromebooks - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. A touchscreen would raise eyebrows. Barte (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It will give us something to add to this article if it can be confirmed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

 Pixel has been added to the page -- OtherKevin (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Pogue & page stats

Just added the David Pogue commentary, which reverses his don't-buy recommendation from last year. Because of his notability, I think his blog post constitutes an endorsement of the Chromebook concept on a broader scale than we've seen before. Price being the deciding factor. But see also the hits the Wikipedia article itself has gotten: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Chromebook. On October 18th, the number went from the hundreds to the thousands. Is that when the new Samsung was announced? Barte (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't say our work here isn't noticed! - Ahunt (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've almost got stage fright. Barte (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Chromebook has been viewed 53388 times in the last 30 days! OtherKevin (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

src: img.talkandroid.com

Block quotes

No matter how many years I edit Wikipedia, there's also something new. So thank you David Woodward for pointing out that quotes >40 or so words should appear as a wp:blockquote. Personally, I'm not crazy about having so many of them in a single article--here and in Google Chrome OS, but I do think the criteria is usefully interesting in that it make one think about quoting vs. paraphrasing in an encyclopedia. I've converted one block quote back by paraphrasing part of it, thereby reducing its word count. No sure I want to do this throughout, but a question: do we really need the writer attribution at the end of each one--when each writer is already attributed ahead of the quote? Barte (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

40 characters seems very low for a blockquote. That's less than one and a half lines, and looks awful. But I guess we have to abide by what the overlords have decided. It wouldn't be as much of a problem if there weren't so many of them, and so many from the same person. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk o contribs) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree in terms of looks. According to Block quote, "The Chicago Manual of Style recommends using a block quotation when extracted text is 100 words or more, or at least eight lines." But the Wikipedia MOS trumps that, and looking through the archives, I see no discussion challenging it. But the redundant attribution is another matter, and I may remove those unless there's some objection. Barte (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Call me compulsive. I rewrote the block quotes with enough paraphrasing to eliminate any >40 word strings. Then unblocked them. Barte (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine to me - more concise! - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe that's the hidden virtue of the MOS rule. Will probably do the same on Chrome OS Barte (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Proposal: move the hardware topics from Chrome OS to Chromebook

Comments requested: please discuss on the Chrome OS talk page Barte (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- OtherKevin (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

"The Chrome OS"

This was posted by anon on my talk page. It should be discussed here:

Hi, I am the one who corrected the sentence "A Chromebook is a personal computer running the Google Chrome OS operating system." to A Chromebook is a personal computer running the Google Chrome OS." I don't see the reason for reverting it back to it's old version. The term "Operating System" in short is OS, so I deemed the redundancy of that sentence unnecessary.

The problem with this argument is that this is an encyclopedia--and we can't assume that every reader knows that OS stands for operating system. That's particularly true for the lead paragraph, which should be as accessible to as many people as possible. Take a look at the lead for iOS, whose name also includes the acronym OS. "iOS (previously iPhone OS) is a mobile operating system..." Or iPhone" "The iPhone (pron.: /'a?fo?n/ eye-fohn) is a line of smartphones designed and marketed by Apple Inc. It runs Apple's iOS mobile operating system..." Barte (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Even if the concern is that the reader won't know what OS stands for, it can be written in a way that provides information without being written so poorly: "A Chromebook is a personal computer running Google Chrome OS, an operating system..." However, we have wikilinks for that very purpose; the item is already wikilinked, which provides additional information about what Google Chrome OS is, which makes further elaboration unnecessary. This lede is about Chromebooks, and should be as concise as possible about this subject. The purpose of the lede is not to expand upon all related subjects, wikilinks serve that purpose. - SudoGhost 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think both arguments have merits, so I have reworded the lead to explain that this is an operating system, without being redundant. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly looks better, but I don't think it should be "the Google Chrome OS", just "...running Google Chrome OS as its operating system". - SudoGhost 19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that it grammatically required a definite article, but feel free to remove it if you think it reads better without it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think "the Chrome OS operating system" is cleaner. But here's an offer. I'll drop my opposition to having the hyperlink only--on the proviso that SudoGhost rewrite the iPad and iPhone ledes to do the same. If it works there with a much larger base of editors, I'm more than happy to accept it here. Barte (talk)

@Barte: You're more than welcome to do that yourself, but I have no interest in those topics, and I'm not going to edit something I'm not interested in just so that this article can be written correctly. Chrome OS operating system would be no more correct than using "PIN number" at the Personal identification number article.

@Ahunt: Every article I've seen on the subject omits any sort of definite article (Example), I don't think "the Google Chrome OS" would be any more correct than "the Netflix". 30,000 complicated exceptions aside, proper nouns don't need definite articles. - SudoGhost 19:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ZDNet a technical site. Take a look at any of these from the NYT, which, like us, is writing for a general readership. Barte (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there, because none of those results (and other searches I performed on that page) return any use of "the Google Chrome OS", nor does it use "Chrome OS operating system". In fact, when it does describe what Chrome OS is, it does so exactly the way I did above: "...Chrome OS, an operating system..." If anything the link you provided reinforces that fact that "Google Chrome OS operating system" should not be used. - SudoGhost 19:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to establish in the lede that Chrome OS is an operating system. My concern was putting that burden entirely on the hyperlink, which is what I thought you were arguing above. If the exact phrase "Chrome OS operating system" is the problem, no problem here. Barte (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Though ultimately unnecessary, that's already in the lede. The only real issue was the atrocious way in which it was worded. - SudoGhost 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear now and lacks unneeded redundancy! "Clarity-brevity-conciseness" - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Chromebook Pixel: 4th gen machine?

The article currently has it that there have been three generations of Chromebooks, and I think that reflects how reporters and reviewers have seen it. But what of the Chromebook Pixel? At $1300 and up retail, it's not exactly part of the generational trend toward ever cheaper machines. Is it fourth generation? Is it third generation with an asterisk? Or is the whole notion of Chromebook generations now outmoded? Barte (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I read the articles on the Pixel and no where does it mention generations. I think we have to stick with what the refs say and avoid any WP:OR. In going though the refs we seem to have good refs for the concept of a "second generation", but not so much for a third generation. I think we probably do need to reassess whether the refs really support whether that exists or not. Another related issue is whether the Chromebook Pixel should have its own article or not, or just redirect here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Chromebook Pixel.....that was fast. ;-) It would be pretty easy to remove the generation mention here, including removing the first column from the chart. Barte (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed generation mentions (except an Acer-specific one), removed the generation column from the tables, made availability column 1, added a paragraph on the Pixel in the lede & inserted entry into table. (Another editor made this a dual-entry, Wi-Fi and LTE: looks good to me. It's a start. See what you think. Barte (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks good to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why were generations removed? You can simply go by generations as they align to Intel and ARM generations from the time-period in which they started after the prototype / cr48 model. For instance, The Sandy and Ivy CPUs were interchangable models according to CoreBoot and Linux / Windows specific models within the original OEM machines. Since the Pixel is an Ivy Bridge CPU which is closely related to the updated Samsung 5 550 which isn't even mentoned here... though they should both fall under Generation 3. The non-prototype CR48 models would be generation 2, only due to being actually sold but still containing the Pineview ATOM CPUs, also bumping it up to dual core. To give another example, Samsung has updated their Exynos SoC to include other peripherals as well as a differing GPU, so whatever(I assume Octa) SoC they release next would be the next generation(4). BotOrNot (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Pixel reception

Just noting with some amusement: reviewers initially questioned the value proposition of the Chromebook. Then the cost dropped to $250 and below, and the doubting largely stopped. Now the Pixel comes out, priced at $1300, and--from what I'm reading--the value proposition is being questioned all over again. Barte (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

For anyone that actually went to Google I/O, you would know that this was a halo/display/reference model for developers, much like the Nexus line of Android devices was/is. If you follow the git tree you'd see that this was to code for the touch aspect of future ChromeOS devices. Additionally it had the highest resolution for the screen size and possibly PPI for the time, which means it had no parallel from any other manufacturer, though now eclipsed by the new haswell based Lenovo Yoga 2. BotOrNot (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine at that price it would be questioned! I am sure we will see more text on that and can include it in this article. I have added two refs that have some mention of just that subject. I have also cleaned up what looked like a sudden campaign here to splash the Pixel all over this article, with pictures and way too many links. As far as I can tell this is going to be a small selling device and thus as per WP:UNDUE shouldn't be given prominent coverage over more mass-produced and adopted units. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a potential advantage of Chromebook Pixel. Not much there now (though I like the table), but there's room to go deep without worrying about UNDUE. Barte (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but we now have more text about it here than in the Chromebook Pixel article! I think the criticism section needs duplicating over there to flesh it out. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it weird to have that much duplicate text? (Will the Wikipedia gods strike us down?) We could boil the reception down to a few terse paragraphs, here, and add a see-main-article template. 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Will the Wikipedia gods strike us down?" Well not really. I attributed the text in the edit summary, so it is legal under the licence. Over time the two texts will get edited and will diverge from each other so that a reader who reads both articles won't see as much duplication. Feel free to move that divergence forward if you like! An alternative would be, as you noted, to remove the criticism of the Pixel from this article and use a shorter summary, sending people to the Chromebook Pixel article with a Main template, for the greater detail. That would have the advantage of making this rather long article a little bit shorter and leaving that one longer (which it could use right now, being pretty short). - Ahunt (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, preserving all the refs. I didn't move the graphic showing pixel comparisons because I couldn't make it work to my satisfaction on Chromebook Pixel. But given that what's left is a summary, I think it should also be moved. Barte (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem! It looks good! I moved the image and also fixed the fair use rationale! - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Sundar Pichai heading Chrome OS/Chromebook?

Per http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/update-from-ceo.html and elsewhere, Sundar Pichai is now heading Android, in addition to Chrome (the browser) and Google Apps. We also have a picture of him speaking at the Chromebook launch at Google I/O. The move has increased speculation that Chrome OS and Android will begin to merge. Logic would have it then that Pichai is also heading Chrome OS and Chromebook....but I can't confirm that. Any sightings? Barte (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

coreboot

Do all Chromebooks have coreboot instead of BIOS/UEFI? I read thisgolem article in german, so some Chromebooks come with coreboot. If they do, this definitely belongs in the article. Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A section on Coreboot is fine, but it needs to be referenced by notable secondary sources. In the English-language press, all I can find are sightings that a Chromebook prototype was seen running it in April 2012: http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/13/google-demos-coreboot-on-chromebook-prototype-hints-at-ivy-brid/ That was more than a year ago, so is this still a coming feature or something that didn't pan out? I tried reading the Golem article in translation, but couldn't get anything further. Barte (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also removed the section you added asserting three ARM-based Chromebooks. That appears to be incorrect. As far as I can tell, the only ARM-based version is the Samsung (via its Exynos CPU), as already noted in the chart below. Barte (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There are three, but they are only different in configuration/specs for different markets... which doesn't clash well with the US specific revision models shown here instead of overall models(please see the Acer insanity going on when there are around ten models total with different dates and configurations based on the same model) which clashes with the edits currently. The individual is correct on coreboot / seabios and I would love to add some information if that should go here. I personally believe it should go here due to coreboot running on Chromebooks and not ChromeOS(you could for instance book Windows or OSX with Coreboot, such as this individual who simply compiled or used John's precompiled coreboot rom: ). BotOrNot (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

All Chromebooks besides the first three run Coreboot, see http://www.coreboot.org/Chromebooks ScotXW (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Packaged applications?

Here's the original: "Chromebooks also run packaged apps,which are applications that offer native like capabilities but as safe as a website.These type of app works offline by default." Here's the edited version: "Chromebooks also run packaged applications that offer native like capabilities and work offline." Seems to me that neither summarizes what's actually in the article, or is backed up by a ref. And what, exactly, is a "packaged application with native like capabilities"? Barte (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The original text addition didn't make much sense, so I tossed up just deleting it or fixing it up and opted for the latter in the short term. I am glad you brought it up here though. If the article is better without it then feel free to axe it altogether! - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. Given that it's in the lead paragraph, axe now and ask questions later. Barte (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Good call. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Barte,

Native like capabilities include VMwares as explained on Google Chrome developers.Perhaps I should include Packaged app in a separate section?I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank You Evan -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanjltan (talk o contribs)

Thanks for the clarification and welcome to Wikipedia. I think (and this is just my take) that the confusion here is that, per Google, Packaged apps are modified Web apps, making them a subcategory of Web apps rather than a completely new one. So the phrase "Chromebooks also run..." in the lead paragraph is confusing, as well. Take a look at this section on Packaged apps from the Chrome OS article. Maybe we should link it further down. And if you think the topic needs expansion, that may be the place to start. Thoughts? Barte (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is laughable... anyone that actually develops on the Chromebooks knows that typical webapps, PNaCl, portage packages and NaCl apps are available and running depending on what machine, mode, and channel you are on. Can we get some other actual devs and or Chromebook enthusiasts who have actually deployed to a production environment before on here? At best it shouldn't be mentioned because it is ChromeOS and ChromiumOS specific which have their own wiki. The ChromiumOS dev pages are out of date too so that doesn't help much (for instance python is no longer included by default). Here are some sources you should probably be reading instead of asking questions regarding the existence of: https://developers.google.com/native-client/announcements https://developers.google.com/native-client/overview#intro https://developers.google.com/native-client/pepperc/ http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?a=project_list&s=chromiumos&btnS=Search http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/how-tos-and-troubleshooting/add-a-new-package

Seriously, there are distro and fan specific wikis for this and every single one has better and more valid information than Wikipedia. Search if you don't believe me. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by BotOrNot (talk o contribs) 07:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Joey Who?

Some nobody by the name "Joey Sneddon" is mentioned 4 times in this article. This smells very much like astroturfing. Any objections to deleting all references? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't object. It does seem highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, at the very least.--greenrd (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sneddon is the publisher of OMG Ubuntu and OMG Chrome and has written extensively about tech subjects. Both websites are independent third party refs, with editorial oversight and meet WP:RS. His reviews of Chomebooks have been quite critical and provide some balance to some of the more glowing reviews quoted in the article. There is no problem questioning sources used in articles, but there is no need for the insults aimed at sources given above. A read of the actual references cited would soon show that these are reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahunt, you seem to have added OMG Ubuntu!/Sneddon references to a very large number of Wikipedia articles. You also seem to be very zealous in defending them and reverting any removal of them. Are you sure Jsneddon wouldn't be a more appropriate handle for you? Just because you read a particular source a lot doesn't give you a right to plaster it all over Wikpedia, especially not the 13 separate instances that this article has. Calm down with the fanboyism and astroturfing please. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.176.129 (talk)

And you can read WP:AGF, WP:OUTING, and WP:NPA and stop making wild and unfounded accusations about the identity of other editors here. If you check my user page you will see I live in Canada, not the UK, where this website is based. As I have stated before I have no connection to this website, other than I sometimes read it. OMG Ubuntu has been sent to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and there were no objections there and so as a consensus it is considered a reliable source and can be used as a reference for Wikipedia without restriction. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

LG Chromebase

According to a boatload of sources, including The Verge, CNET, PCWorld, and, oh, yeah, a quick Google Search that those corresponding articles are indexed by, along with the other sources including OMG Chrome mentioned previously in this discussion, LG has taken the wraps off an all-in-one Chrome OS desktop called the Chromebase. So why isn't it mentioned here, and why hasn't the corresponding redirect been created? 2602:306:BCA6:8300:D5A:D37A:E17E:4C55 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite an actual reference? Then we can add it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is one reference: http://www.eweek.com/pc-hardware/lg-chromebase-expands-chromebook-model-to-an-all-in-one.html
The Chromebase is coming, so I worked on the formatting of the page a little bit to make space for a category of computers running chrome os. We now have laptops (chromebook), desktops (chromebox), and All-in-One systems (Chromebase). I think the section "Chromebase Models" can go before or after "Chromebox Models" off the main tree. If someone would like to write up this section, then please do. Otherwise, I will work on it when I have the time. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by OtherKevin (talk o contribs) 05:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the official press release from LG. I have a feeling we might want to wait on adding information, the press release says it will be on show at CES from January 7th to the 10th. We will probably get more information then. CraigTumblison (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a release date or price for the LG Chromebase yet, which is one reason not to include much about it. It could be mentioned that LG announced it though. Be bold and add it. --Pmsyyz (talk)

Processor benchmark column

Would be nice for the models table to have a column for processor speed benchmark for comparison purposes. --Makkachin (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone found a good source that has comparable benchmarks for all the chromebook models? This sort of benchmark could be useful on the main table, but I think it might be hard to find and maintain correct numbers for all the various models. Ideas? OtherKevin (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

We need to have a picture of every Chromebook. If you have a chromebook, then please upload a picture! Mark a chromebook on the list below as "done" if the picture has been added on the page. OtherKevin (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Cr-48  Done

Pixel  Done

Acer AC700  Done

Acer C710  Done -- OtherKevin (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Acer C720

Acer C720P  Done -- OtherKevin (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dell Chromebook 11

HP Pavilion Chromebook

HP Chromebook 14

HP Chromebook 11

Lenovo Thinkpad X131e

Series 5 500  Done

Series 5 550

Series 3 303  Done

Toshiba Chromebook

Comparison table

The table is getting too wide.

Codenames: I agree with the IP's edit that codenames are not useful in the table. But if they are kept, they should be in the prose for each chromebook.

Touchscreen: Seems a waste to have a column [1] with so little content, I liked it integrated into the Screen column. But as more are released with touchscreens, it might be ok.

--Pmsyyz (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Chrome OS Pilot Program / Cr-48 Test Pilots / Chromebook Central

Hello. This is my first time editing Wikipedia. I've been trying to expand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromebook#Cr-48 for months now, especially the part about the Chrome OS Pilot Program, Cr-48 Test Pilots (I am one) and our community, experience etc and Ahunt has been immediately editing or deleting almost every single change I've made. I wonder if anyone else even gets to see it. I have references for everything and am stating facts, if the problem is it's too off topic maybe it should have its own section or page rather than being completely deleted as if it's irrelevant or useless "trivia." If the problem is it's worded wrong I don't mind it being reworded so much though this person insisted on calling "Cr-48 Test Pilots" a "euphemism" even though that's just their opinion and I thought these articles were supposed to be written with a neutral point of view. This is what Google named the participants just like they named the device, program, community, etc. None are "euphemisms." It might be that only the participants in Chromebook Central are named that because not everyone is in that official community nor has a badge and we only got them for a limited period of time, so I was trying to clarify the confusion with this name, among other things. I would think since I was part of this I have more knowledge and experience to contribute on this topic than Ahunt unless they were too. If this is what editing Wikipedia is going to be like (constant edit wars) I'm not inclined to do it much any more. I'm willing for others to expand this section too, I just think there's no or hardly any information on it so I keep trying to contribute. Thanks -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.52.6.155 (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I edited it to remove non-encyclopedic trivia. Just because you can find references that says something is true doesn't automatically mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Text that describes exactly how to report bugs or how many stickers people got is not encyclopedia content. Calling "Cr-48 Test Pilots" a "euphemism" is precisely correct by the way. A pilot is a person who flies an aircraft. Calling a person who uses a computer "a test pilot" is a "euphemism". There are quite a number of editors actively watching and working on this article who will have reviewed your additions and my editing of them and who will revert my edits if they think I removed text that does belong in the article. Incidentally you adding material and me editing it is not "an edit war", it is the normal edit cycle, as described at WP:BRD. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, which means all text added or removed is subject to review and revision. You can't just add text and expect it to be retained in all cases. If you don't like working in an environment where your writing is reviewed and edited than perhaps working on Wikipedia is not the best environment for you. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I know what a pilot is. The first time I added anything with the word "pilot" in it you removed it completely calling it a "marketing term," I had to keep adding it back with references because there was no mention of this anywhere in the article, and made it clear that in this case "pilot" refers to a pilot study which has nothing to do with someone flying aircraft, but you still want to associate the two for whatever reason. In addition to that Google also made references to a test pilot on the box's artwork and community's badge, so I think they referred to both terms. I thought details like this would help explain why things were named what they were, just like there's a sentence in the article explaining how the Cr-48 got its name. This is no more of a "marketing term" than "Chromebook," "Cr-48," or any other terms Google used to name anything, and we're not describing those as euphemisms which means "a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant." If you view these uses of the word "pilot" as offensive or unpleasant that's just your opinion and you can take it up with Google. I'm just trying to state facts here and not have them immediately changed because of someone's assumption or opinion. I've tried to keep these facts relevant and in context enough to not be considered trivia but I accept it could be written or presented better, which is why I'm suggesting it have its own section and/or page, so it could be expanded more easily and be clearer some of these topics are separate from the device itself. It's not the collaboration I had a problem with and I welcome that because I don't know everything. 107.55.57.23 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Google called them "test pilots" to make it seem dramatic and to attract people to test the devices for free. Call it whatever you like, the participants in Cr-48 project were "computer hardware and software testers", not test pilots. That is marketing. There are a quite a number of active editors, with an interest in this subject, watching this page, so let's see if any of them add comments here that indicate that the text detail you added is considered of value to the story. If there are no expressions of support here then you know that my removal of the superfluous detail is supported. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's also an assumption. We did not get these "Cr-48 Test Pilot" (and other) badges until half a year later, as indicated by this thread, so that didn't attract anyone to do anything. It was only given to people who participated in this group at some point between when it was created and the Chromebook announcement at Google I/O as indicated here. I tried to make that clear but part of what you removed was any reference I made to this group or the past names it had. There are many communities for Chromebooks but since Chromebook Central is the official one it should be in the article somewhere. We were also part of choosing this group's name as indicated here (I'm not sure if we were part of naming Chromebooks and would have to check). I don't see how you think an explanation of how Cr-48s were named is relevant and not trivia, but the naming of anything else is superfluous. Yes, in general we and everyone else who weren't in this group for whatever reason (it's probably most people since we were automatically added to it) were "computer hardware and software testers," but there is also a community and culture involved who helped shape what this product is today (and other things like the new design of Google Groups which we gave feedback on) and I think there should be some mention of our experience. When I mentioned stickers I never said "how many" we got but that some people got them, there are threads of artwork people made with them (different arrangements on their Cr-48), threads of Easter Eggs, maps where people entered their location, Google+ circles of test pilots, stuff about Chrome Ninjas, and probably a lot more I'm not familiar with. There are other Wikipedia pages about events/programs/internet cultures and I don't see how this is any different. I noticed this Talk page also mentions the Chromebook Guru Program, these people also came from this group. I haven't started a separate section or page because I don't know how and am not sure if I have enough information to. 107.54.172.108 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but all the stuff you are talking about here is just trivia that belongs on a blog somewhere. Having been involved as a tester I think perhaps you are just too deeply involved in the subject to have a good grasp as to what belongs in an encyclopedia article on the subject and what is just fan stuff. I am still waiting to hear from anyone else watching this page who thinks this should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of which details are or aren't included (that can be decided later), what's wrong with Wikipedia having its own page, or at least own section on the Chromebook page with more information, about the Chrome OS Pilot Program? It's not insignificant to Chromebooks and is what started all this. I think people would be interested in the history of it. 107.54.172.108 (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you have enough material and refs to meet WP:N then you can start an article at Chromebook pilot program or a similar title, but it is still subject to the same standard, such as WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT and will be reviewed and edited by other editors, as per WP:OWN. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said I'm new to Wikipedia, this is the first article I'm editing and first time I'm posting on a Talk page. I'm not ready to even make a new section myself, let alone start a new page, or know how. I was just trying to edit the Cr-48 section for now and don't know what you consider "enough material" since obviously you're making all the decisions here. I'm asking for everyone's input on this, not just yours, and am also waiting for them to respond. I only mentioned you because you're the only one who's been editing and deleting my changes for months. Some of it (whatever you haven't removed) is still there and is not all "trivia" or "blog" or "fan" stuff (according to you). If you're so concerned with editing my contributions, I'd prefer you rewrite it in an encyclopedic style since you have more experience with that, rather than remove these topics completely. I think the program, participants, community etc related to Cr-48s are much more relevant to them than what some random reviewers think of the device, which is what half of that section is about currently. It has little to do with me being a tester or fan, it's just part of their history. I thought Wikipedia was for facts and history, not opinions like device reviews but you had no problem leaving that there, when that belongs on a blog more than anything. 107.57.69.112 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+I did write it in a more encyclopedic style, by eliminating the trivia. Text on who got stickers for participating as volunteer testers and who didn't or what the box art looked like doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. That is fan-blog stuff. Criticism on the other hand is required when available in Wikipedia articles to create WP:BALANCE and avoid having articles simply turned into product promotional pages. See also WP:CRITICISM. There are a number of other editors watching this page. That they have declined to support you adding this text means there is no consensus to add it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Those weren't my only changes you edited or deleted, there were others over a period of months, and the fact that you were the ONLY one editing them, immediately, doesn't lead me to believe there was a consensus of people agreeing with you it shouldn't be there either, they might've just not gotten to see it in the first place. I gave up editing for now and might try it again if/when VisualEditor is back for people without Wikipedia accounts. It was buggy and I've had to add ?veaction=edit to the URL. Thanks for fixing my references. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.52.47.190 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All explained at WP:EDITCONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Chiming in late here (I inadvertently removed this article from my watch list), I think it might help to understand that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has an underlying formality. Editors vary in their sense of this, but even in articles on fictional characters, computer games, and other recreations, the approach - in content and tone - is more rigorous than other places on the web, including online media. Applying that here, my take is that the details of the Cr-48 test program, including the name Google gave to testers, is just not that relevant in an encyclopedia article on Chromebooks. That also appears to be true in terms of references. If the testing program were groundbreaking in some way, I would expect the program to be covered by reliable secondary sources. Here, the coverage is mostly (or entirely) from Google itself. Barte (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I think it is relevant to Chromebooks and especially Cr-48s since that was the whole reason they were created and distributed in the first place, but if not, maybe it should have its own article? I was just trying to expand on these topics and before I edited it there was maybe one sentence on it with no sources. Now it's slightly longer. The reason most of the sources are now from Google is not because they're all that exist but those are the ones I found and added. I thought official sources would be better than random news sites, blogs etc but there are plenty of those too, if you Google "cr-48 pilot program" (with or without quotes or similar keywords) you'll see them. 107.54.246.2 (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: secondary versus "official" primary sources--this might help: WP:SECONDARY. When I search on cr-48 pilot program, I do see some coverage of a sort. But it's pretty perfunctory, leading me to conclude there wasn't anything notable about the program compared with other pilot programs. And notability is really what we're looking for. It's certainly worth a sentence or two. I think you'd have a tough case establishing it as its own article. But of course, you're free to try. Barte (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to diffuse articles

Each of the models with substantial amounts of text about each should be put into their own article with a lede from each and a See also link, given how large this one is already. The comparison table should nevertheless stay. -Mardus (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I do agree this article is pretty large and hard to read through from end-to-end. One model, the Chromebook Pixel has a stand-alone article already. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

New Asus Chromebox Review

Here is a review of the new Asus Chromebox that could be incorporated into the article:

• Review: Asus crafts a tiny $179 Chromebox out of cheap, low-power parts - It's too bad that booting into non-Chrome OS operating systems is so difficult.

- Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many quotations

This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. The opinion of various bloggers on the price or quality of Chromebooks is not encyclopedic. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting this with the many tables cleared, I'm fine with the number/length of quotes as-is, particularly within the larger context of the article, which is mostly quote-free. I realize this is a subjective call. I disagree that opinions on price and quality don't belong here: on this category of device, price and quality are central. Bloggers are not automatically excluded. Per WP:BLOGS:"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" Barte (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I already cleared off the worst of the price related issues before you took the tables away. Removing the tables also removed the majority of the poor quality sources. I've gone back through all the sources that are on the article today and just three out of a hundred are problematic. I have tagged those that need attention. As for blogs, they do need to be established experts. That is the writer is established through other significant publications. Many of the blogs that were on the page were just blogs by Joe Blogs and John Doe and their opinions are not significant. Before using a source, you have to hit the "about us" page and check exactly who the author and publisher are. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. In all three cases, I think we'd be better off simply cutting the poorly referenced material than searching the web for better sources. Any objections? Barte (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Per above, weakly cited material cut. Barte (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Too many technical specifications

Wikipedia is not a change log, nor a sales catalogue. Currently the article goes into too much detail listing the technical specification of each and every Chromebook version along with reviews of each. These should be summarized. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the reviews should be largely retained, but I agree the specs are way over the top. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Rincewind42 and I had a similar discussion at Chromebook Pixel. My point there was that the Pixel was most notable not for its specs, but for its reception--because the Pixel appears, at least in retrospect, to have been more of a concept machine. So the reception is what mattered. But here, I'm not so sure that the reviews couldn't be trimmed. The core story is that the Chromebook debuted to critical skepticism and gained respect (and sales) in later generations. How many reviews does it take to make that point? I also agree the specs are over the top. Could they be moved to a separate article? (e.g. "List of Chromebook specs")? If we trim them, which or what do we trim?

Re: the primary sources tag. The article (as opposed to the tables) relies heavily on secondary sources.

--Barte (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the first table under the heading "Chromebook models" with the title, "Chromebooks" we could keep. There should be a similar table for "Chromebox". The other tables under subheadings for each brand can all go. They largely duplicated the first table. I have already trimmed them a bit, removing the price tags and links to Amazon.com, Bestbuy.com and eBay.com sales pages. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The Chromebox listings, ideally, should be combined rather than separated by vendor. I'm not sure if that's possible with the data we have. The tables do represent considerable work by editors, so I'd like to make sure we have consensus before performing major surgery. Can we give this a week or two to see if any objections emerge? Barte (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Tables removed per discussion--or at least my understanding of it. The version just before the mass deletion is here.Barte (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC) And merged the Chromebox tables retaining the most relevant (IMO) columns; updated the cites; separated the images from the tables. Barte (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it. It is much cleaner and easier to read. The only thing I would suggest is adding in storage and/or launch MSRP for each device. Storage is the only thing missing from the usual basic set of specs, and launch MSRP would give significant insight into the history of chromebooks. I would be bold and go ahead with the edit myself, but I want to get some feedback from the talk page before going ahead. 69.17.173.158 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. A column could be saved by deleting the "Touch" column and noting the few touch screens under "Screen". Also, the Chromebox chart is now in a separate article. Storage size is noted, but not MSRP.Barte (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Chromebook models in alphabetical order by OEM?

Since it appears that the Chromebook models are listed alphabetically by OEM, would it be all right if we were to put Acer C710/C720 before Google Pixel? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the table. There, the default order (as dictated by the wikitext order) is by the availability date. Or at least that was the intent. Barte (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What I noticed was the text just below the table, in alpha order: currently the major sections are Google Chromebooks, HP Chromebooks, Samsung Chromebooks. But no Acer Chromebook models described in the text. As you know, the wikitable can sort itself by clicking the top header of each column. Nice. When I click on C710, since there is no C710 header in the text, it doesn't navigate there, as it does when I click on Cr-48, for example. I was hoping to contribute text items about the Acer C710/720 . --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There's less method to the madness for the text below the table. I think what happened was that the first Chromebook vendor, Google (by way of the Cr-48 prototype), was listed on top. Followed by the first third-party vendor, Samsung. If you buy that scheme, Acer should come after Samsung. HP (which I just moved) should be after that. That work for you? Barte (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The basic idea I wanted to communicate was: the C710, with its 320GB hard disk and dual-core 64-bit cpu, is ideal for Linux software development. There is an entire organization, chromium.org, devoted to this environment. In developer mode, you can download Linux and 100s of GBs of other free and open software, on multiple C710s, for less than the price of 1 Windows workstation, not to mention the price of the add-on software. There is an ethernet port, both VGA and HDMI ports, and 3 USB ports. The 4 hour battery life is immaterial for a developer using a static work location. On the the C710, I got Ubuntu 12.04 to run with the Cinnamon UI, which I select with control-D.

The C720 allowed me to run Ubuntu 14.04, but Cinnamon has been expunged in favor of a set of keyboard shortcuts based on the search key. The C720 moved the power switch to the former location of the delete key on the C710, and the 6 cursor movement keys of the C710 are reduced to the 4 arrow keys on the C720. The VGA port, one USB port, and the ethernet port are gone. The cpu is a power-saving Haswell variant, so the battery life has more than doubled, but the storage is down to 16GB, so software development is less open for me on the C720. On the other hand, I can boot to both Chrome OS (control-D) and my choice of Linux (control-L). Chrome OS allows you to see its Linux innards by entering the crosh shell in one of its browser tabs, with control-alt-T. The file system is familiar old Linux. To summarize, the C710 is good for software development and testing, and the C720 is good for documentation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like original research Barte (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just another way of wending one's way through the voluminous data which can be found on earlier versions of the article. I have no problem with waiting for the article editors to develop its presentation.

Regards, --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Maintain in Wikidata?

Put some stuff in Wikidata, for a better maintain. Greetings, Conny (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC).

---

More popular than Windows?

http://www.omgchrome.com/chromebooks-outsell-windows-notebooks-for-first-time/

This is probably not something worth mentioning (not "installed base", and limited "market share"/sales info), but too look out for. See also that Pixel C doesn't run Chrome OS, so maybe it will not take over as the next desktop OS, maybe Android will.. comp.arch (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Chromebook

How well do they work? Starguy849 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Google PC

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chromebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for https://www.google.com/chromeos/pilot-program.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Android support

I've removed mention of Android from the intro, and I think we should wait until Chrome OS support for Android apps better comes into focus. Reports from Google I/O 2017 [here] and [here] essentially say that the feature hasn't materialized in a form remotely up to expectations. WP:CRYSTALBALL Barte (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, not notable yet. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The table sorts dates alphabetically by month

If you try to sort by the column "available," it sorts by months alphabetically rather than by date.

Possible workarounds:

1. Use dates in format YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-M (Good for reasons of standards compliance)
2. Keep dates in current M-YYYY format but prefix each date with an invisible string that sorts better (Good because it lets you keep loose dates like "Early 2018")

-- Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.89.55 (talk)

Google account

with a recently bought Acer Chromebook there is a slight brochure for set-up. It instructs the user to get a Google account. Is this necessary to run the computer or to access the Internet with it? Note: I am re-posting this. This is not a forum quesiton. This is a prompt for something to (possibly) be included in the article. Kdammers (talk)

I added it. Thanks for the suggestion. Barte (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chromebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815080514/http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/chrome-os-devices/xe503c12-k02us/ to http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/chrome-os-devices/XE503C12-K02US

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No graphic cards?

I didn't see any mention of graphic card in the article. I wonder if there's none. Hayate891 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it a laptop?

I fixed an error on the page. Per Wikipedia, a laptop is defined as: "a small, portable personal computer with a "clamshell" form factor." A personal computer is defined as a general-purpose stand-alone computing machine. The contrast is first to minicomputer and mainframe models, where computation resources are shared by many users. That's certainly the case for a Chromebook backed by the Googleplex. It's also a contrast to special-purpose computing devices (e.g. in the eighties, you could buy devices which had a spreadsheet+word processor, but which couldn't be programmed from there). Chromebooks aren't really devices where a user can practically program them to add new functionality (at least without a lot of hacking).

It's a hybrid model which brings some of the upsides and downsides of computer terminals from the olden days into the modern era. I don't think it's fair to lump it into the definition of "personal computer."

Many special-purpose computing devices share the laptop form factor without being laptops. Chromebooks, although colloquially often called laptops, fall into that category. I wanted to post to the talk page so folks could comment if there was disagreement. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.17.150.215 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: And it got reverted by Grayfell (with the incorrect comment I hadn't provided a justification here). I'm not getting into edit wars, so I'll let the page remain wrong. Sometimes, I hate popular articles on Wikipedia. Incorrect marketing claims, urban legends, and popular-but-incorrect misconceptions increasingly seem like the norm. Guess that's what happens when truth is determined by a democratic process.... -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.17.150.215 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Second update: A random citation, if anyone cares: http://www.gadgetreview.com/chromebook-vs-laptop-which-is-right-for-you

Quite a few others. Of course, there are many popular sources calling them laptops too, albeit informally. And the Wikipedia 'laptop' article itself gets pretty confused going both ways. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.17.150.215 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that Chromebooks generally meet the laptop definition as you've stated it: "small, portable personal computer with a 'clamshell' form factor." Programability to add functionality is not part of any definition I've seen. And, as you point out, while a few sources do distinguish Chromebooks from laptops, the overwhelming majority do not, including the sources cited here. That said, the definition has broadened over the years. There are now Chromebook tablets mentioned in the article that are clearly not laptops. And there are other devices with other form factors mentioned here as well. I'm going to play with the wording. Barte (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not having commented here sooner. I did not notice this before reverting, which was my mistake.

If sources generally describe "keyboarded" Chromebooks as laptops, so should Wikipedia. Programming is possible on Chromebooks, but as Barte says, I don't think this is a deciding factor. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here.

1. If sources generally describe 'keyboarded' Chromebooks as laptops, so should Wikipedia. -- Grayfell. The goal of Wikipedia is to be accurate. There are many topics where popular sources contain inaccurate information. Wikipedia isn't a place for original research, but it's also not intended to be a popularity contest among Wikipedia users or sources (although it often seems to act like one in practice). Especially for a topic like this one, popular sources often mirror press releases (in this case, not even so much from Google, who is generally pretty good about avoiding the term laptop, but mostly from Chromebook device vendors -- see the Chromebook page, where it's hard to find the term with a qualifier like "laptop form factor").

2. The word "computer" and "general-purpose computer"/"multi-purpose computer" don't mean the same thing. Anything with a microprocessor is a computer (e.g. a clamshell DVD player, portable wordprocessor, or NVidia Shield are example of computers with a laptop-like form factor). A PC is, by definition, a general-purpose computer. This explains the difference. A DVD player would be an embedded computer. An NVidia Shield or a Chromebook are something in between (in the above reference, a 'dedicated system,' but the terminology here varies; but definitely not general-purpose).

3. "Personal computer," in particular, was introduced to describe a general-purpose computer which was not designed to be shared (like minicomputers and mainframes, which were also general-purpose computers, but where storage and computation were centrally managed, with primarily IO with the user). A Chromebook functions much like some of the fancier terminals (many of which had some local storage and computation, especially in the X Window System era).

This article has specific policy implications in education (the linked article is well-worth looking at as a reference for terminology). School districts believe kids should learn technology, and are often buying Chromebooks because they are increasingly misrepresented by vendors as being general-purpose computers with easier maintenance. For the most part, they're a content consumption devices, rather than a content-creation device; they're not useful for programming, page layout, photoediting, CAD, etc. One can watch a Youtube video, and content creation is limited to things like Google Docs. Likewise, students have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and in many cases when they do create things, they lose their rights to them.

I am not arguing pro- or con- use of Chromebooks in education (as with other terminal-like devices, cost-of-purchase and cost-of-maintenance is much lower, and that may be the right choice in many debates), but for reasoned policy debate, it's important information sources such as Wikipedia be accurate. Wikipedia is often used as the canonical information source of record, especially by less tech-savvy decision makers (I'm not concerned by the article linked, where the district appears to have a highly savvy CTO; I'm concerned about more typical districts).

Your dedication for accuracy is commendable, but we still need to follow reliable sources. This is not a popularity contest, but it is a tertiary source which reflects the consensus of expert opinions, and those are determined through reliable sources. The comparison to terminals is too simple. A Chromebook is vastly more capable of functioning without the Internet than the majority of its ancestors, and comparing the Internet to a ten-client mainframe is more confusing than informative. If this is merely because the technology has advanced, than it must also be recognized that the terminology has also changed. We do not expect the same thing from personal computers as we used to, nor do we describe them in exactly the same way. Therefore, if reliable sources now describe this as generally being a laptop, so be it.

The Quora link does not mention laptops (or Chromebooks), so citing that for this article would be WP:SYNTH. I also do not accept that it supports this distinction. According to sources, what is a Chromebook's dedicated function? I can tell you what a game console's functions are, but a Chromebook is much harder to pin-down. The source mentions being "re-programmed" but this is in comparison to embedded systems. Operating systems are specifically included, and ChromeOS is frequently changed (such as through updates), in addition to the many standalone "plug-ins" and apps available. This is the norm, not a rare edge-case, such as running Linux on a Playstation.

THE Journal article's subheader qualifies it as being between a tablet and a traditional laptop, which doesn't really fall one way or the other, but strongly implies that Chromebooks are non-traditional laptops. The article itself explains that categorization varies by vendor. To me, the simplest phrasing is to mention "laptops and tablets", and then briefly explain this in the body, if necessary. There is nothing inherently inaccurate in calling these a laptop, but again, if sources other than Google consistently avoid that term, we should follow those sources. Is this your contention?

If you have any additional reliable sources about this terminology, and especially about any policy implications, I would greatly appreciate it if you would share them. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Among the sources in the Reference section that refer to Chromebooks as laptops are the New York Times, Infoworld, Los Angeles Times, The Verge, ZDNet, and Computerworld. Wired and Wall Street Journal do so in the headline: "Google to launch Chrome Laptops in June" "How Chromebooks Are About to Totally Transform Laptop Design". I think it's hard to argue that they are all doing so because of Google marketing or a collective misunderstanding of the definition. Barte (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia