[HN Gopher] Chromebooks will get 10 years of automatic updates
___________________________________________________________________
Chromebooks will get 10 years of automatic updates
Author : twapi
Score : 655 points
Date : 2023-09-14 16:14 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| hedora wrote:
| While getting updates is great news, this presumably means that
| they either don't intend to leverage any new hardware
| capabilities until a decade after they come out (either in Chrome
| the browser, or ChromeOS).
|
| For example, this blog post commits to not requiring on-device
| machine learning acceleration until at least 2034. Otherwise,
| users will be stuck on a "secure" but obsolete web browser and/or
| old version of ChromeOS.
|
| I'm not convinced they thought through the implications of this
| policy.
| esprehn wrote:
| They could use it, but make it optional?
| hedora wrote:
| Right. I said they couldn't do anything that requires it.
|
| For instance, a GPU is "optional" when browsing the web, but
| the last time I checked, even a high end xeon server CPU was
| too slow for it to be usable.
| TX81Z wrote:
| Show me a chrome book that has hardware which can last a decade.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| I literally did some web dev work on my Samsung Chromebook
| Series 5 550 (released 2012) last week. It's running linux[1]
| at this point (since it's EOL), and is a little slow, but it's
| still perfectly functional for running vscode and a local
| webserver. (As others have pointed out, browsing the rest of
| the bloated web is a pain, though)
|
| [1] https://galliumos.org/
| acyou wrote:
| ... And after 10 years, Google will intentionally structure their
| updates to force-sunset hardware, even if the hardware is still
| going strong.
| happytiger wrote:
| Someone is positioning against Apple's entry.
| dcormier wrote:
| That's great, Google.
|
| Now for your phones.
| Aissen wrote:
| Nice ! We were at a ridiculous situation where Google had
| released ChromeOS Flex, which would allow installing the latest
| OS on devices older that many Chromebooks that went out of
| support (and it was marketed as such). I joked that they should
| release ChromeOS Flex for out of support Chromebooks, but
| official support is much better of course.
| lg_rocket wrote:
| This is a big victory for the parents, teachers, and students who
| wrote to Google asking them to make this change.
| https://pirg.org/articles/why-google-announced-chromebooks-w...
|
| Google and other tech companies should continue to find ways to
| stop the disposability treadmill that pressures us to replace our
| phones and laptops in favor of newer models. With e-waste the
| fastest growing waste-stream in the U.S., it's not sustainable to
| consume technology at this rate. This is a meaningful step toward
| a tech industry making products designed to last.
| Zambyte wrote:
| > Google and other tech companies should continue to find ways
| to stop the disposability treadmill that pressures us to
| replace our phones and laptops in favor of newer models.
|
| The treadmill is powered by "intellectual property". Abolish
| "owning" ideas, and you abolish the treadmill. Capitalism would
| solve this issue if it were allowed to run its course.
| Unfortunately we've let artificial monopolies run rampant in
| the name of "innovation". All that we've innovated is screwing
| people over as much as possible.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Intellectual property is capital. Advocating for communal
| ownership for the intellectual means of production is more
| communist than it is capitalist.
|
| _The market_ can then fix it once you 've removed
| intellectual capitalism from the equation.
| freedomben wrote:
| There are plenty of capitalists who would disagree by
| arguing that "intellectual property" isn't capital because
| such thing isn't even possible. Many anarcho-capitalists
| hold this position. I'm not versed enough to argue it in
| depth, but the basic premise is that you can't "own" an
| idea/thought, and there's no scarcity at play with ideas so
| it fails the basic test for property.
| squarefoot wrote:
| I guess the system worked around that limitation by
| hiring people with ideas and have them sign NDAs.
| teddyh wrote:
| Bitcoin is commonly held to be worth something, i.e., an
| asset. But there are many who argue that its "true" value
| is 0. Something similar to that divergence is happening
| here. We, as a society, have a convention, a habit, where
| copyrighted works, trademarks, mining rights, etc. are
| restricted by law to be controlled by a single legal
| entity. This makes these a tradable commodity. But if the
| law did not apply to these, they would become worthless. It
| is, in fact, these laws which have created this tradable
| commodity from nothing. Other laws could be created to do
| the same to any number of currently freely available
| things; this does not prove that these things _should_ be
| covered by such laws merely because it would create a kind
| of property which would have value.
| noobermin wrote:
| It would be nice if the solution wasn't "restructure society"
| because if that's true what will really happen is nothing
| changes.
| account42 wrote:
| This is a very dangerous mindset. Copyright is only a
| couple hundred years old and much younger in many
| countries. Many parts of modern copyright (notably the
| infamous DMCA and equivalent non-US laws) were introduced
| within our lifetimes. We _did_ restructure society but in
| the wrong direction, lets not pretend we can 't fix that.
| runeks wrote:
| > The treadmill is powered by "intellectual property".
| Abolish "owning" ideas, and you abolish the treadmill.
|
| How so?
| account42 wrote:
| A lot of devices become obsolete by no longer receiving
| security and compatibilty updates long before the hardware
| is unusable.
| Zambyte wrote:
| Exactly. If a single company could not be granted an
| artificial monopoly over upgrading and repairing a system
| due to "intellectual property" laws, no company could
| decide when a device has become EOL. If anyone could
| maintain a system, anyone _would_ maintain a system.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I'm not sure Chromebooks are the best example of this
| issue. Last I checked you can install normal Linux on
| one.
| Zambyte wrote:
| I never said they were the best example. Nor was that
| really the sentiment of the comment I originally replied
| to, or my reply to it.
| RuggedPineapple wrote:
| With some caveats. I've run used chromebooks as my only
| laptop for about 5 or 6 years now. You have to undo write
| protection (usually a screw on the motherboard) and flash
| an aftermarket firmware.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| Does normal linux provide firmware updates for
| chromebook-specific hardware?
| tgv wrote:
| > This is a big victory for the parents, teachers, and students
|
| Who should never have been using computers in the first place.
| There's really no point. Using gmail and gdocs doesn't teach
| anything of value. A lot of the other software is pricey and
| sometimes even detrimental to the school result.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| I mean you can apply this kind of comment to literally any
| technology. Cars, carpentry, electricity... computing is part
| of the fabric of society and making it totally inaccessible
| won't help anyone. Imagine this:
|
| > Who should never have been using electricity in the first
| place. There's really no point. Using power tools and washing
| machines doesn't teach anything of value. A lot of the other
| appliances are pricey and sometimes even detrimental to the
| school result.
| tgv wrote:
| The weird thing is: arguments change their meaning when you
| change the words. But indeed, washing machines wouldn't be
| very useful in a school.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| > Who should never have been using computers in the first
| place.
|
| Is... is this comment in good faith? Are you sure about that,
| bud? Parents and teachers shouldn't be using computers in the
| first place?
|
| What a concerning and confusing view of the world.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Writing papers in a word processor is a far different
| experience from writing papers on paper.
| nocman wrote:
| Yeah, writing on a word processor is a million times better
| (at least it is for me).
|
| Don't get me wrong, I do think it's bad that writing things
| by hand is becoming more and more rare all the time. In
| particular, handwritten letters and notes have an extra bit
| of "personal touch" to them that can make them very
| valuable to the recipient.
|
| However, from the time I was in High School to today I
| would _never_ want to be required to write a paper, well,
| strictly on paper (from the beginning). I want all of that
| ability to quickly edit at my fingertips.
| com2kid wrote:
| As someone who has physical problems writing by hand,
| papers I wrote by hand in school where better. Being
| forced to slow down gave me mental time to edit before I
| committed to page, by the time my pencil made a mark I
| was already on the 2nd or 3rd revision of what I was
| going to write.
| Thedarkb wrote:
| I also have physical problems writing by hand, and it led
| to me handing in a lot of unfinished essays after running
| out of time in exams. If I hadn't gotten a special
| dispensation to type my exams later on, I wouldn't really
| have anything to show for my education. Before my issues
| were diagnosed, my teachers and parents felt that it was
| due to a lack of effort on my part and that they could
| punish me into writing properly, and I feel that having
| access to Chromebooks is worth it if it even spares one
| kid from having to deal with that.
| butlike wrote:
| For me it's the lack of context switching that would get to
| me. I'm many years out of school (for now) but I do
| remember having a blank page in front of me as being
| somewhat inspiring. It was a new, fresh invitation to write
| something. Ctrl + N in a word processor just opens up a new
| window, and for whatever reason, doesn't carry that same
| weight of inspiration.
| cududa wrote:
| Okay, and? Hand written papers haven't been a thing in
| nearly 2 decades unless it was some form of punishment.
| Also, teachers don't want to have to context switch between
| reading each paper, adjusting to each student's handwriting
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| > Okay, and?
|
| You appear to be violently agreeing with me that there is
| a point to giving kids computers to use gdocs.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Handwritten essays are still widely used in testing
| environments (including those arguably most important to
| a student's future, AP tests).
| NavinF wrote:
| You listed the one exception to the rule. Most AP tests
| (physics, math, econ, etc) don't have that. Even the SAT
| essay is gone. That one AP test the final stronghold for
| an obsolete medium
| easton wrote:
| The ones you listed still have FRQs that require critical
| thinking. Econ is writing a paragraph and drawing a
| graph, as I recall, and Physics has a question where you
| have to reason out an experiment. And all of the history
| and english ones require long form writing.
| NavinF wrote:
| Weird, I don't remember writing paragraphs for any of
| those tests. I took almost all the AP tests available,
| tho that was a decade ago. At most I labeled some axes
| and that was enough for perfect scores
| kstrauser wrote:
| Thankfully. Handwriting caused me massive hand cramping
| until much later in life when I re-trained myself to hold a
| pen differently. A lot of my school essays were optimized
| for the fewest number of words that met the base
| requirements.
|
| That in itself is a useful skill, but I don't recommend it
| as a coping mechanism to avoid physical pain.
| vel0city wrote:
| My boss always loves it when I write the documentation for
| my code on a wide-ruled paper in cursive instead of in our
| Wiki system.
| mongol wrote:
| You don't use gdocs to learn gdocs. You use it to write an
| essay or something. It is a tool, like a pen.
| tgv wrote:
| Which is only needed at the end of secondary school, and
| only at higher levels. Before that, essays are very short,
| and should be handwritten, or they not even part of the
| curriculum.
| Klugistiono wrote:
| ah yes of course why should a school teach kids not relevant
| knowledge like computer?
|
| Perhaps to make sure that poor kids can never learn it or
| what is your logic behind this?
| lostlogin wrote:
| I am married to a teacher who teaches 8-9 year olds. This
| is her perspective from many years with that age group.
|
| Computers and screens are introduced too early. The kids
| just use them to zone out and mess around.
|
| The kids all forget their passwords, so login is a pain. To
| solve this the school made the same password for all. Some
| brat sets all the girls avatars to boobs. The various ways
| kids look up porn is a continual frustration.
|
| It doesn't add to the learning, it makes lazy teachers
| lives easier. Some classes play Minecraft - I'm unclear how
| that's teaching. Some use iPads to take creative photos.
| It's not creative and is a waste of time and lazy.
|
| Computers have a place in schools, and it's with older kids
| than 8-9 and needs to be way more prescriptive when used
| with <10 year olds.
|
| Edit: Probably relevant, my wife and I went to a Steiner
| school, as does our kid. That system has a pretty old
| fashioned view on screen time and devices - as I started
| typing this our child stated that metal work and leather
| work lessons were starting soon.
| fragmede wrote:
| > The kids all forget their passwords, so login is a
| pain.
|
| I really wish Google would make fingerprint sensors
| standard for Chromebooks.
| autoexec wrote:
| I'm not sure collecting kids biometrics makes anything
| better. Fingerprints are easy to find, capture, and
| replicate using things students have readily available
| like glue or gummy bears
| (https://it.slashdot.org/story/10/10/28/0124242/aussie-
| kids-f...). Once a fingerprint is compromised the user is
| screwed forever because it can't be reset.
| fragmede wrote:
| You have a point, but I don't think a thirteen year old
| _slashdot_ post is the best way to illustrate it.
| Fingerprint authentication has to be implemented
| correctly, or else it does face the problem you
| mentioned, and other ones as well. Which Apple did. You
| can 't steal the fingerprint out of an Apple Secure
| Enclave and compromise it like you're thinking. So it
| would need to be done right, which Google is capable of
| mandating for Chromebooks.
|
| As far as Gummy bears are involved, my read of the Cisco
| Talos Threat Intelligence group report*, vs the
| competency and resources available to 13-year olds (who
| are not to be underestimated, tbc), is that the gummy
| bear trick no longer works.
|
| * https://blog.talosintelligence.com/fingerprint-
| research/
| butlike wrote:
| They really should just print the password and tape it to
| the inside of the lid...
| interloxia wrote:
| I tend to agree.
|
| One counter point is that I learnt how to touch type at
| that age at school, admittedly on an Apple II which
| limited most of the problems you listed. It has been a
| handy skill to have.
|
| I like the idea of kids robotics with Scratch. I want to
| believe that there is an opportunity with children to
| experience the excitement of blinking an Led with a
| microbit for example and suspect it would be more
| difficult for teenagers.
|
| Mostly I want my kids to have an understanding of what
| computers can be used to create earlier than later.
| insanitybit wrote:
| How many of us learned about computers first because we
| were playing video games, such as minecraft? How many of
| us learned what a "frame" was, and learned that "RAM" and
| "HDD" were things?
|
| That familiarity builds over years to give you a half
| decent mental model for a computer - one that is a
| massive aid to college freshman learning CS.
|
| Perhaps screens are being introduced too early, certainly
| there is a point where a game like minecraft is not
| teaching, but I wouldn't dismiss the concept outright.
| Familiarity with computers is why some kids soar through
| CS degrees and others feel like they were missing some
| secret pre-college class.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| The thing is that most schools use platforms that are
| mainly meant for _consumption_ : tablets and chrome
| books. You're right that many people in the previous
| generations picked up useful skills, but that is because
| we were using platforms that were primarily intended for
| work and creation. They were also a lot less streamlined
| so understanding the underlying tech was a requirement to
| get to the good parts.
| oidar wrote:
| I would love to here about how Waldorf education impacted
| your and your wife's adult life compared to the average
| bear. I am so close to moving so that my child can go to
| a Steiner school...
| computer23 wrote:
| Waldorf schools are dangerous anti-vax strongholds
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/nyregion/measles-
| outbreak...
| lostlogin wrote:
| It's certainly there but my experience is that it isn't
| that different to what goes on at the school (non
| Waldorf) where my wife teaches.
|
| That said, I'm in New Zealand, which was quite highly
| vaccinated and also mandated vaccinations for teachers.
|
| I rate the system for getting kids to want to learn - not
| just at school, after finishing schooling too.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >Some classes play Minecraft - I'm unclear how that's
| teaching
|
| There are definitely ways to teach within Minecraft.
| Redstone springs to mind, but I imagine there are others.
| tgv wrote:
| That's exactly what they're not going to learn. There's
| nobody to teach software engineering. The only thing they
| learn is to copy-paste from wiki into gdocs. They'll leave
| school with the same computer knowledge as they entered.
| greiskul wrote:
| My mom sent me a photo of me when I was about 8 years old,
| playing on the home computer. It was very expensive to have a
| computer in Brazil at that age, and my parents used it for
| their work. I used it for games. I grew up using computers.
| Just getting the games to run, was something that needed
| knowledge back then. That lead me to at my teenage years, to
| try out programming, cause I wanted to make some changes to
| the open source version of a mmorpg my brother and I played.
| That lead me to choosing computer science. That lead me to
| being a FAANG engineer. I had a leg up agaisnt every single
| one of my peers during all my teenage and university years.
| When my peers were learning to use a computer, I was already
| programming. When they were learning to program, I was
| already good at it. You say that computer for young kids have
| no value? Useless? That computer usage was the single most
| valuable thing that has happened to me in all of my life!
| Max_aaa wrote:
| Similar experience. Having one in the 90's was a pivotal
| point in setting my life.
| tgv wrote:
| That's exactly the kind of experience kids with chromebooks
| issued by a school are not going to get. An old Commodore
| would be more helpful.
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| Yeah keep scrolling down until you see that comment from a
| teacher who thinks it's a distraction.
|
| In general Just because you had a clear purpose for and
| interest in computers doesn't mean it's gonna be the same
| for other kids
| robrtsql wrote:
| Which open source version of an MMORPG was that? If you
| don't mind me asking.
| greiskul wrote:
| Tibia.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Not to be antagonistic, but this story makes it sound like
| your advantage came from the fact you had a computer early
| and your peers didn't. If everyone gets one, there is no
| advantage. You've just created a new necessity instead.
| circuit10 wrote:
| > If everyone gets one, there is no advantage.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking
| NavinF wrote:
| That's an odd takeaway but even if you're right, people
| who don't use computers suffer a massive disadvantage.
| Even more so if all their peers used computers. Doesn't
| change the fact that GP's "parents, teachers, and
| students [...] should never have been using computers in
| the first place" is nonsensical flamebait
| pb7 wrote:
| The advantage came from being better at it sooner in
| life. That's an advantage for a productive society.
| [deleted]
| avgcorrection wrote:
| > Google and other tech companies should continue to find ways
| to stop the disposability treadmill that pressures us to
| replace our phones and laptops in favor of newer models. With
| e-waste the fastest growing waste-stream in the U.S., it's not
| sustainable to consume technology at this rate. This is a
| meaningful step toward a tech industry making products designed
| to last.
|
| Uh-huh. Alternatively you could go back to books, pencil and
| paper.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| Yeah! We should keep kids away from technology that has
| reached 100% saturation in all other parts of society.
| Schools, as places for learning, definitely shouldn't
| integrate tech into teaching-- after all, school is
| definitely only about teaching outmoded skills and not about
| preparing children to integrate with society.
|
| The old way wasn't broken so why fix it, after all.
|
| /s
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Exactly. School is about teaching and books+pen+paper is
| perfectly adequate for most things that they teach in
| elementary school.
|
| What do you even lose by not having a laptop per child?
| Most of us _suck_ at using software. Well, correction: most
| software sucks to use. And when has someone like an
| elementary teacher made a child better at using a
| computer..? It feels like a joke just asking that question.
|
| And unless Bret Victor (or someone like him) has
| revolutionized digital teaching I'll bet that modern
| digital teaching is not _categorically_ differen than the
| old ways (pdfs?).
| thefurdrake wrote:
| Yikes.
|
| > Most of us suck at using software.
|
| It's so weird to me that you'd use this as logic for NOT
| teaching tech in schools.
|
| If only there were some mechanism society had to convey
| knowledge about how to interact with society and common,
| everyday things, like some sort of centralized location
| you can go to where you're given the opportunity to
| gather and explore new information. Ideally, we'd work
| this concept into society in a way that the younger
| generation would gain these skills as soon as possible in
| their lives, and we'd put effort into making sure the
| individuals conveying that information possessed the
| skills they are teaching (again, through some sort of
| societal mechanism to instill basic knowledge)
|
| Can you think of something like that?
| avgcorrection wrote:
| By obliquely and sarcastically referring to the teaching
| institution you have convinced me. Well played.
|
| > > And when has someone like an elementary teacher made
| a child better at using a computer..? It feels like a
| joke just asking that question.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| > > > And when has someone like an elementary teacher
| made a child better at using a computer..? It feels like
| a joke just asking that question.
|
| You're quoting this again as if it isn't critically
| damning to the position you're trying to convey. As
| though you actually believe the existence of ignorance is
| a logical excuse to continue perpetuating ignorance.
|
| If only some facility had existed in that elementary
| school teacher's life that had instilled those skills in
| a way that it wouldn't be a joke?
|
| I don't know, maybe like some sort of centralized
| institution where you can go to gain knowledge about
| basic concepts you might encounter when interacting with
| society. Some sort of... societal mechanism for ensuring
| people are competent enough to interact with their world.
|
| Can you think of something like that?
|
| > By obliquely and sarcastically referring to the
| teaching institution you have convinced me. Well played.
|
| Well, having it stated plainly for you clearly hasn't
| done the trick. Sometimes different approaches are
| needed!
| scbzzzzz wrote:
| I am really heartbroken by your response, I always feel the
| world/society should fight planned obsolescence.
| people/planet over profits. and then I see a person
| responding with a joke (I hope you don't mean it) when
| we(society) have means to make products last but some
| corporation chose profits against it and then greenwash with
| 5min mother earth videos. I know you are aware/heard of
| planned obsolescence. some people complain, these
| corporations have to maintain and it costs them, but those
| people don't realise We are gifted with wonderful opensource
| community like (pixelexperience os maintainers). These
| corporation can design it to make it easy for opensource
| community to maintain it after EOL.
|
| Since you are here in HN, there is high probability you are
| one of the geeks in industry. I hope you fight for
| "planet/people over profits".
| avgcorrection wrote:
| You have to either be very young or be very LCD-brained if
| you think advocating for simple, effective, time-tested
| teaching methods must necessarily be sarcastic.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >I am really heartbroken by your response, I always feel
| the world/society should fight planned obsolescence.
|
| alternative explanation - they feel there is overuse of
| computing devices and that one could really go back to
| pencil and paper for lots of tasks.
| walteweiss wrote:
| 'Uh-huh' changes that context and makes it sarcastic.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Uh-huh. That's about twenty extra steps compared to going
| back to books, pencil and paper.
| scbzzzzz wrote:
| yeah, that might be true, with all that's going on the
| news,my first thought was that the commenter is linking
| planned obsolescence with technology progress
| (sarcastically). Thanks for the perspective. There are
| days when I felt the urge to forgo the computing and go
| back 5 years when world is hopeful and not overwhelmed
| with computing
| oldnetguy wrote:
| I have many of my old notebooks that I wrote in as a
| child. The amount of paper and ink I used was a lot.
| Multiply that times all the children and you see how much
| paper is used vs. typing on a computer.
|
| Sometimes the technology route is better, now what we
| need to do is make it more sustainable.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Better to mine some cobalt than to cut down some trees
| eh. (This time I'm being sarcastic.)
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| There's a lot more resources that go into 1g of computing
| devices than 1g of paper and writing utensils. Several
| orders of magnitude more.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Like most schools around the world still do today.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| Google's per-user software subscription model works to their
| benefit here, as it lets schools and businesses trade the money
| saved from a less frequent hardware upgrade schedule for
| additional years of Google product usage.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| Ironically (because related to Google), I feel that the
| constant churn of web development is what makes these older
| devices unusable.
|
| I have several devices from early to mid 2010's, and the real
| reason these devices are annoying to unbearable to impossible
| to use (assuming Linux or Windows for security updates) is that
| they become very slow while just browsing the web or simply
| playing a video with a newer codec that has no hardware support
| on these older machines.
|
| In my mind, this 10 years of updates is fantastic, but also not
| very practical towards the end of the support cycle. Better to
| have the option, though.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| My daily driver is a system76 from 2015 and it works
| perfectly fine. However, I plan to replace it with a 16"
| framework so I can ditch my desktop and use the laptop for
| gaming.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| 8 year old _desktop_ computers (that have anywhere from 3
| to 6x more watts hitting the CPU) are one thing. Also
| consider whether your machine has a dedicated GPU. A
| Chromebook or other budget-to-mid-range laptop from 2015
| would have a different experience, although I'm sure
| they're still usable.
|
| I was daily driving a 2009 MacBook Pro for a while in 2018.
| It was... fine, especially as a Vim user, but if someone
| else used my computer, they would most certainly comment or
| complain with normal web browsing.
| robocat wrote:
| Slowdown can also be due to the soldered NAND flash slowly
| wearing out - not necessarily because the device is
| underpowered.
|
| Certainly the Nexus 7 (2012) had that problem (became
| completely unusably slow after a few years) and I am sure I
| have seen the same issue with other devices (Android phones
| and one iPad I had).
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| (Self plug)
|
| We senselessly use RIAs for everything
|
| https://www.radicalsimpli.city/
| jwells89 wrote:
| Even going as far back as Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad, while
| running Linux or even mildly debloated Win10, as long as it's
| been outfitted with an SSD it's not immediately obvious I'm
| using a 15+ year old machine until I have to open a web
| browser. These machines are perfectly usable outside of the
| boundlessly hungry entity that is the web.
| didntcheck wrote:
| It's also very noticeable on smartphones. My phone is as
| snappy with native apps as when I first bought it, but
| every year the ridiculous amount of CPU time and memory it
| takes to render a basic news article increases. The last
| time I did upgrade phones it was specifically to get more
| RAM, as I was finding that modern web pages were so hungry
| that switching to tab n was almost always evicting tab n-1,
| necessitating lots of reloads if I was cross-referencing
| information. And that was on a Nexus 6, not a budget phone,
| and only a few years after its release
| jwells89 wrote:
| Have had similar experiences on iPhones. Multiple native
| apps can stay in memory and play nice with each other for
| indefinite periods, but then I need to go visit a heavy
| website for some reason or another and it starts booting
| apps out of memory. It's ridiculous.
| mymac wrote:
| If you aggressively (and I mean _really_ aggressively)
| block any and all ads you 'll find that you can use that
| 15+ year old machine just fine on the web. The bloat is
| mostly in the marketing and advertising part of the web,
| not in the content part.
| dacryn wrote:
| Chrome is also very resource hungry. Its great, it lives
| on the principle that if a machine has 16gb of RAM, it'd
| be stupid not to use it. Some other browsers limit
| themselves to the minimum but lose performance.
|
| This is best for most people, but not for those with
| older devices. In that case I usually find Firefox and a
| mandatory adblock a lot more enjoyable than
| chrome+ublock. Bonus points if you have a pihole
| somewhere on your network.
| beretguy wrote:
| To aggressively speed up internet just block JavaScript.
| I use this extension which makes it easy and convenient:
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-
| javas...
|
| Keep js off by default and just whitest websites.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| As of a couple of years ago, I was using a mid-naughts
| iMac with Linux installed for a number of projects. It
| was fine for basic scripting, data analysis, and shell-
| based Web access.
|
| A _heavily_ adblocked Firefox struggled to handle one or
| two tabs, and became utterly unresponsive beyond a half
| dozen or so.
|
| (My typical sessions run ... well into the 100s of tabs.
| Yes, I'm aware I have a problem, but browser state
| management otherwise entirely sucks.)
|
| That machine's replacement is now _also_ beginning to
| struggle under what I 've considered typical and
| generally reasonable Web loads.
|
| Until browsers start heavily penalising heavy sites, this
| will continue to be a problem.
|
| And on a tablet, I find that my web browser uses battery
| 10x faster than my bookreading software. This for
| documents that tend to run 10s to 100s of time longer
| than a typical webpage's _actual text_ , though _not_
| their overall memory footprint.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| Yeah something that old is gonna be heavily memory
| restricted, javascript chews through memory like nobody's
| business, then you start swapping and it's game over.
| mymac wrote:
| Interesting. I routinely have 100's of tabs open on a 10+
| year old thinkbook with 16G in it (they were only sold
| with 8 at the time but replacing the two 4G modules with
| 8G modules worked, 16G does not seem to work).
|
| Firefox has an about:performance gizmo that can tell you
| which tabs are misbehaving, this has already led to me
| blacklisting some sites completely, others just to close
| when not in use. Especially image carrousels can be very
| resource hungry.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| modern browsers don't really keep hundreds of tabs open,
| they just keep a place holder and then return the memory
| back to the system as resources get low. I'm not sure why
| people think a browser can keep 100s of webpages open
| when modern webpages (tabs) often use 100MB->1GB of
| memory.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Browser memory management has been improving, but when
| that system was last running, let's just say that _things
| were bad_.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| SSD or HDD?
|
| 16 GB would be about 8-16x what the system I'm describing
| had.
|
| How are you blacklisting sites? Pihole/DNS, or something
| within Firefox itself?
| ksec wrote:
| At home, I am still on my 2015 MacBook Pro. The only thing
| I wished had done with going with 16GB Memory instead of
| 8GB. Surprisingly Chrome and Firefox does far better with
| many tabs. While Safari constantly for one reason or
| another reload every single in-active tabs which causes
| insane memory paging.
|
| Other than that, I can see it run for at least another 3-4
| years if not longer.
|
| And it is still _faster_ than my brand _new_ 2023 Windows
| PC I have at work due to all the security shit they put on
| it.
| distract8901 wrote:
| I'm still using a 3rd gen i5 machine as my daily driver.
| It's only just now getting to the point that I'm thinking
| about upgrading. And even then, it's really only that I
| need more cores. Quad core just isn't cutting it for my C++
| compilation.
|
| Then again, I've been shifting a lot of my compute load
| onto a 10 year old dual Xeon server. It's good enough for
| most things
| noirscape wrote:
| Generally speaking I'd suggest installing Firefox on older
| devices.
|
| It's usually at least slightly more usable as long as you
| don't have too many tabs open.
|
| I'd also recommend Firefox in general but that's neither here
| or there.
| skinkestek wrote:
| On a slightly newer machine (3 years old, 32GB memory)
| Firefox (or rather LibreWolf) again runs nicely with a few
| hundred tabs.
|
| It would probably run fine with that amount of tabs also if
| it had 16 or maybe 8 GB, but not together with 2 or 3 IDE
| instancee, Teams, Slack and ome or more applications
| running in debug.
| mymac wrote:
| It bloody well should though, 32G is massive.
| michaelt wrote:
| Sort of - but completely normal for a developer's desktop
| circa 2013, even without paying the Xeon tax.
|
| Of course, a high school at that time might have
| purchased poverty-spec chromebooks with 4GB of RAM for
| understandable reasons of price.
|
| So when samtheprogram talks about "devices from early to
| mid 2010's" that could mean a great many things.
| pbmonster wrote:
| I have absolutely zero issues on 10 year old hardware
| with 16GByte of memory. Hundreds of tabs (Firefox is
| really good about moving them out of memory when they
| don't get used for a while - which, lets be honest, are
| almost all of those tabs) and the normal everyday
| onslaught of office software, a fat IDE, and a CAD
| editor.
|
| This stuff is not rocket science. It's not even
| performance gaming. We worked efficiently in 2013, and it
| still works today. All it takes is some memory and a
| halfway decent SSD.
| froh wrote:
| til "PIRG"
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Research_Gro...
| waynesonfire wrote:
| They should have written to the schools to ban these devices.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Sadly, my first thought was, "I don't trust that remark, Google."
|
| Perhaps their hardware division will perform better than their
| software, but I can't help but feel that some exception to the
| rule will come up in a few years and this promise won't be worth
| much.
| helf wrote:
| Dunno why you are getting downvoted. That was my exact
| reaction, too. Given how often they "promise" something and
| then renege in 3 years.
| mfrw wrote:
| Can folks help me a little here, please. Sure this is an awesome
| announcement. I now am considering to buy a ChromeBook even more
| seriously.
|
| My reluctance is, can Google, tomorrow (before 10 years) feel
| that, ahh no we are bored of this so let's not do it. Google has
| a history of introducing stuff that people start to rely on and
| then kill it; I still wish Inbox had not been killed by Google.
| perfect-blue wrote:
| You're not wrong. Google does have a history of ending
| products. Honestly, someone should read the fine print and
| figure out if there is a clause in there that actually allows
| they to end support whenever they feel like it. I have an
| inkling that there is...
| ShinTakuya wrote:
| How often have they explicitly committed to support something
| for that long? Not disagreeing just curious. I think the main
| thing is whether or not they continue the product line. As long
| as they keep releasing Chromebooks they'll want to keep this
| commitment or else they'll risk reputational damage.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| Well, previously they supported Chromebooks for 8 years and
| adhered to that. They even prolonged support for some devices
| during the pandemic.
| adolph wrote:
| 10 years is a long time. I wonder how they are doing the
| accounting on this commitment or if the only cost is marketing.
| jimmar wrote:
| Longer support is good. I hope schools don't see that 10 years of
| support as meaning that the Chromebooks they buy will have 10
| years of useful life. My daughter has a 3-year old Chromebook
| issued by her high school that struggles to load web pages.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| At least this means that the OS is less likely to be the
| constraint.
| RistrettoMike wrote:
| I've seen a few folks here doubting that Google would actually
| follow through with this (which I think is a valid concern with
| their track record), but I'm more curious about if the _hardware_
| would hold up to 10 years of updates.
|
| Granted, not all current Chromebooks are as low-specced as they
| used to be, but with the way the modern web has been gobbling up
| system resources the last few years I can't imagine a Chromebook
| actually being usable through an entire decade of bloat (whether
| it's technically supported via updates or not).
| segmondy wrote:
| my chromebook is a c720 released in 2013. Still holding up
| fine.
| creshal wrote:
| For the intended education market I'd hope there's pressure to
| keep the used software reasonably well optimized for the sorts
| of hardware it gets used on. But the react zealots have
| swindled the whole world economy into funding their madness for
| years, so who knows.
| dwiel wrote:
| Not only this but my Chromebook wasn't upgradable even though
| the parts weren't soldered in. I tried upgrading the Wi-
| Fi/Bluetooth module but it wouldn't grab the latest drivers so
| I had to stick to the old Bluetooth that barely reaches across
| the room.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| You haven't worked a lot with laptops then. Many have a
| whitelist for Wi-Fi cards and will refuse to boot with
| anything else in the slot.
| [deleted]
| ygjb wrote:
| ChromeOS and Google are super creepy because of how data hungry
| they are. That said, one of the advantages is that if they have
| committed to a 10 year lifecycle, and they have a new feature
| that is awful on an older device for performance reasons, they
| have an incentive to implement a feature that executes that
| slow function using cloud compute resources when the device is
| connected to maintain their lock on customers.
|
| It really depends on how Google assesses the value prop of
| supporting older devices.
| wakeupcall wrote:
| That's a very good point. If I look at my android experience,
| two major updates is the limit I would _want_ to update to. On
| devices where I could push the limits with lineage/cyanogenos,
| I could perhaps extend this to 3, being pretty apparent you're
| sacrificing speed for security at that point.
|
| I hope they're going for a different track record.
| pseudoshikhar wrote:
| No use to me, have booted linux on it
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm still a bit salty that Google discontinued the Pixelbook and
| shut down the team responsible for it. I could easily see that
| machine becoming the perfect developer laptop with its Linux
| container support, and the high-end version had pretty good
| specs.
|
| I would love a high end Chromebook, but sadly haven't found
| anything that is even close to where the Pixelbook was.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Maybe give "HP Elite Dragonfly" a try?
| jeffbee wrote:
| The Dragonfly Pro Chromebook (terrible naming scheme) is
| really fantastic. The Elite Dragonfly is a little weird. The
| Elite seems to be only available as a build-to-suit SKU that
| ships next February, and a comparable config to the Pro costs
| 3x more, while the Pro comes with the better display and
| ships today.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| I agree with you. I think the Dragonfly Pro is the
| successor to the pixelbook go.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Same price and better in so many ways. Skipping 3
| generations of CPUs, doubling the memory, and using NVMe
| instead of eMMC all noticeably better. The dangerously
| bright backlight is just a bonus. The problem is the
| machine is bigger and heavier and although quiet, not
| actually fanless like the Pixelbook Go.
| summerlight wrote:
| Yeah, I can't say that this is the best value Chromebook but
| a decent choice if you want a premium level one. The only
| complaint I have is its noise but it's not that extreme.
| award_ wrote:
| I'm not sure if it would suit you or not, but I've been very
| happy with my lenovo c13 chromebook. You can get a decently
| spec'd chromebook-version of a thinkpad for a pretty reasonable
| price I think.
| technofiend wrote:
| It really was a sleek and elegant system. I got a friend to
| switch to one after him twice say "my computer is so slow, I
| need to buy a new one" only for me to find each computer filled
| with every browser plugin and tracking app you can think of.
| Even though I'm sure there are still sketchy chrome plugins,
| the pixelbook cut down on that sort of thing enough it's lasted
| him several times longer than a new computer does. Like you, I
| wish Google had continue to make them.
| undersuit wrote:
| Love my Pixelbook Go and now I have until June 2027 to find a
| replacement or drain the battery to death.
| Arcuru wrote:
| I agree, I used a high end Chromebook/Chromebox for several
| years as my local dev machine (for corp work) and it worked
| flawlessly. It was one of the sleekest developer experiences
| I've ever had.
|
| I use an obnoxiously custom Linux setup for my personal
| devices, but I still try to push anyone who will listen to try
| a Chromebook.
| newuser94303 wrote:
| I have been using an Intel samsumg chromebook for my dev
| machine and it is great. <$500. When I lose updates, I will buy
| a new one and still be ahead. Never buying windows or Mac
| again. Thinking about framework linux or chromebook
| pa7ch wrote:
| The I had the last pixelbook and loved it as a dev laptop.
| Although, the hardware was lacking.I have a Framework running
| Fedora now.
|
| I like the default window manager and shortcuts on chromeOS
| better then any linux distro. I hate customizing linux
| distrubtions and I like a laptop where I can sync my backups
| and start new with little time configuring. I really love the
| linux container/vm integration and would like to see further
| polish for running VMs and containers. For me the single
| remaining and sort of major downside is that I can't just read
| a large variety of filesystems to access backups. I can't DD a
| linux ISO to pen drives either. I'd like to play with bcachefs
| when its out for backups but currently I can't on chrome OS.
| Its so close to being such a nice base secure OS with great out
| of box container/primitives, but it just feels easier and more
| practical to run fedora these days and chromeOS develops pretty
| slowly.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| You can write arbitary images to pen drives using the
| "Chromebook Recovery" Chrome extension.
| bubblethink wrote:
| There's a framework Chromebook. It's on last gen and not
| entirely high end, but close enough.
| pphysch wrote:
| I switched to a Acer Spin after my Pixelbook EOL'd, and have
| been happy with it. Aluminum chassis, enough ports, nice
| keyboard, touchscreen 2-in-1, etc. I don't really use the touch
| features but it doesn't hurt.
|
| ChromeOS has come a long way and the builtin Linux VM makes it
| surprisingly easy to e.g. do full-stack development with VScode
| devcontainers.
|
| It feels like a proper OS. I hit the search key and type "code"
| and it launches my full dev stack. No more mucking about with
| crouton or dual-booting or other hacks.
| sfmike wrote:
| until 2 years later we are discontinuing chromebook support in 90
| days.
| southwesterly wrote:
| Will they though? I don't trust google now as far as I can throw
| them.
| drcongo wrote:
| ...unless we decide to just cancel the whole project on a whim.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| That's pretty good. Are they also able to run popular Linux
| distros?
| _joel wrote:
| Yes, but if you want to run linux, then I wouldn't suggest
| getting a Chromebook. It's a square peg in a round hole imho,
| just get a laptop.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Of course. I'm thinking more about life after those 10 years.
| kogepathic wrote:
| _> life after those 10 years_
|
| Yes, Chromebooks run coreboot and almost every model has a
| community coreboot build with a SeaBIOS/EDK (UEFI) payload
| available. [1]
|
| When you flash that, you lose the ability to boot ChromeOS,
| but you can install a standard Linux distro on them.
|
| IMHO, Chromebooks are awesome machines. With ChromeOS they
| have one of the most secure boot chain/data models of
| anything currently shipping. Unlocked bootloader, vboot by
| default, all user data is encrypted, and power washing is
| trivial. Amazing battery life. Also, they're cheap, and
| _guaranteed_ to run coreboot with a bootloader that can
| always be unlocked by the user.
|
| [1] https://mrchromebox.tech/
| pphysch wrote:
| If you just want to run some Linux software, or do linux
| development, a modern Chromebook is totally sufficient. The
| built-in Linux VM is easy to set up and no longer requires
| voiding your warranty.
|
| Docker, VSCode, et al works great.
|
| It's a very different world than 5+ years ago with crouton,
| etc.
| _joel wrote:
| Fair one if it's improved but it still feels on par with
| WSL2 for user experience, some people like that I guess. A
| vanilla linux laptop just seems better imho but I've not
| played with one for a while, I admit.
| ritchiey wrote:
| To me the big difference between the two is security.
|
| WSL2 mounts the windows file systems. A VM in crostini is
| completely isolated and yet it can still display windows
| on the main desktop.
|
| The only other thing I know that does that is QubesOS.
| pphysch wrote:
| WSL2 has significantly worse experience IME. The ChromeOS
| Linux VM takes like 10 seconds to launch initially, but
| after that I haven't observed any latency.
|
| Meanwhile, the same dev stack running in WSL2 has
| noticeable latency e.g. seconds of extra delay launching
| any containerized Python interpreter (on a powerful
| Windows desktop workstation, too).
| londons_explore wrote:
| I have a Gen 1 chromecast, which was supposedly still supported
| till April.
|
| I can tell you, that for the last~3 years of its life, it was
| pretty much useless. About half of youtube videos would stutter
| so badly it was unusable (ie. half the time they'd be paused).
|
| Third party apps were also about only about half functional - the
| loading time of the app frequently meant there was a comms
| timeout before the app had loaded.
|
| And the chromecast itself couldn't stay connected to any wifi
| network for more than about 20 mins - which obviously isn't great
| for something designed for TV watching.
|
| Basically - support is useless unless they actually put enough
| effort in to make sure the product remains usable.
| bitigchi wrote:
| We are yet to see for how long Apple is going to support their
| Apple Silicon machines, but this definitely sets a precedent for
| Apple. It would be really shameful if they go the iPhone route
| and cut support after 6 years of updates.
|
| On the other hand, Apple is still selling the iMac with a 2020
| chipset, so we could say that they look like they are committed
| to providing updates. I hope they wouldn't just cut off support
| in 3 years time.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| Apple has typically supported Mac hardware for about 7 years
| from introduction for a while now. That is provided you're
| updating to the last supported version of macOS for it and then
| all security updates. I'd be surprised if they changed this
| much either way for Apple Silicon.
|
| One issue is that Apple never tells you when they end of life a
| given version of macOS officially, so you're left guessing a
| bit.
| davidw wrote:
| I'm kind of amazed at the Chromebook I got for $250. I can do
| pretty much everything I need with it, it has good battery life.
| I can even do some coding with it. I bought it as a stopgap when
| the Dell I ran Ubuntu on died, but since I don't do a lot of
| coding these days outside of work, haven't replaced the Dell yet.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Same experience, except all 4 of my Mac and Linux laptops still
| work fine.
|
| I bought a Lenovo Chromebook two years ago for $300: includes
| keyboard case and pen. Linux containers work well (but a little
| slowly). If I were poor, I could have a good digital life with
| just this one device.
|
| re Google: good for them doing this!
| skrowl wrote:
| [dead]
| pjmlp wrote:
| My 300 euro Asus 1215B netbook bought with Linux in 2009 is
| still going, without sharing everything I do with Google, and
| survived several Ubuntu upgrades.
| davidw wrote:
| I've had a number of these Dells over the years, and most
| have been great. This one developed a problem with the wifi
| system that I think must be in the HW.
| robocat wrote:
| WiFi failure is common on laptops.
|
| You can often easily replace the internal WiFi card - Intel
| cards were usually the best bet in my experience
| (especially on Linux - sometimes best to replace when you
| buy laptop if Linux is your main OS). I have done quite a
| few replacements for friends.
|
| if just the Bluetooth craps out and you have a spare USB-A
| port then you can get cheap Bluetooth dongles.
| gabrielhidasy wrote:
| Is WiFi failure something that happens? I've never seen
| one. I did upgrade a few cards (in one to go from B to G,
| in other from N to AC), and I replaced a few broadcom
| cards with intel ones to get better Linux support, but I
| don't think I ever saw a broken card.
| robocat wrote:
| I think the theory is that cards go out of spec and start
| connecting less reliably. I replaced a friend's WiFi card
| the other day when they were about to throw the laptop
| out because connectivity was poor (Windows, and it wasn't
| a driver issue). Obviously you also need a reliable
| access-point (that's a much more difficult topic to
| address!). And don't forget some secondary means to
| connect to laptop to the internet or you can't download
| the driver!
| londons_explore wrote:
| 10 years of updates, sure. But will 10 year old hardware actually
| be usable on the web? Especially Chromebook hardware that tends
| to be low end.
| tytso wrote:
| They don't have to be low-end. You can buy higher-end
| Chromebooks, but they cost more money. Do people remember the
| "netbooks" that were-super cheap Windows laptops with 10 inch
| screens? Even if you install Linux on it, with the 512MB or 1G
| (or maybe 2GB for the really highly spec'ed out netbooks),
| there was real limits to what they could do.
|
| If you want something super-cheap, then perhaps it won't be
| useful 5 or 10 years later. You get what you pay for; this
| isn't unique for Chromebooks.
| cibyr wrote:
| Now we just need every model to come with its expiry date clearly
| labelled.
| tantalor wrote:
| Not a good idea when the date can be extended later.
| lasftew wrote:
| This has all the devices and dates:
| https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/6220366
| jiofj wrote:
| Expiry date? It's not like after 10 years those laptops will
| simply shut down.
| mcbutterbunz wrote:
| How about an "Officially Supported Until:" date?
| breakingcups wrote:
| They might as well, since they will be insecure.
| ChrisLTD wrote:
| Old Chromebooks can run Linux, or ChromeOS Flex
| Moldoteck wrote:
| afaik you can't install another OS on any chromebook,
| some are locked
| fragmede wrote:
| https://MrChromebox.tech/ would like to have a word with
| you.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| Wrong, Chromebooks aren't locked by default. But the
| owner/institution can opt-in to lock them.
| hedora wrote:
| Do they require the hardware drivers to be upstreamed to
| the Linux kernel?
|
| If not, then there's no way to patch security issues.
|
| Also, what about the binary blobs, such as the cell and
| wifi chipset operating systems?
| modeless wrote:
| I don't know but the hardware drivers are not directly
| exposed to the web. The biggest security issue is the web
| facing attack surface and Google is in complete control
| of that.
| modeless wrote:
| Or they can continue to get automatic browser updates
| after the platform updates stop with Lacros.
| izacus wrote:
| The Chromebooks show that prominently in "About" dialog
| izzydata wrote:
| But do Chromebooks harvest user data to sell to advertisers?
| switch007 wrote:
| Users will pay for those 10 years one way or another
| SquareWheel wrote:
| Data isn't "sold to advertisers" under any account plan, but
| there are stricter controls for Google Workspace for Education
| users.
|
| https://workspace.google.com/terms/education_privacy.html
| [deleted]
| Kalkaline wrote:
| Of course
| [deleted]
| fluxem wrote:
| [flagged]
| Havoc wrote:
| I guess the bad PR got to them
|
| Regardless...its a win
| cogman10 wrote:
| And how long will my windows laptop, or linux laptop receive
| updates?
|
| Answer: Basically forever.
|
| Google is playing the game of "See, we got everyone in mobile to
| think 3 years of updates is good. Maybe we can do the same with
| laptops?"
|
| 10 years is good, but frankly for a laptop built on linux it's an
| embarrassment. If google would instead support a standard distro
| like debian we'd see way better support. (but then, they couldn't
| track everything as easily).
| sneak wrote:
| "basically forever" is only true in Mac-land now because of the
| recent architectural switch.
|
| Apple was dropping support for specific Intel
| microarchitectures with each release for a while there.
|
| Now that the future is ARM, these machines will be supported
| for a long time. Not sure how long the Intel Macbook Pros from
| 2020 will be. I bet it's not another 8 years.
|
| 2016 is an important cutoff because it is when they introduced
| the T1 boot security chip. Some future macOS will drop support
| for everything before these machines, which will permanently
| evaporate the concept of a hackintosh.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Agreed. Right before your comment I pulled mac from the list.
| I was thinking of apple's iphone support being pretty good in
| the mobile arena and conflating that with their non-mobile
| support.
|
| After double checking to see what's going on with old
| hardware, it became really clear that apple doesn't support
| their older laptops.
| mmwelt wrote:
| Things are changing with Windows. Windows 10 will only be
| supported until 14 Oct 2025[1], and Windows 11 explicitly does
| not support some relatively recent hardware configurations,
| e.g. 7th generation Intel processors[2].
|
| [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/lifecycle/products/windows...
|
| [2] https://blogs.windows.com/windows-
| insider/2021/08/27/update-...
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| My reaction is simply that poor schools will soon be budgeting a
| 10-year Chromebook cycle. In 2033, students will be typing and
| tapping on Chromebooks that could be twice their age. Yuck.
| supertrope wrote:
| If it works it's fine. Schools are under immense budget
| pressures. It's normal to use a textbook with your older
| sibling's name written in it because it was issued to them. Now
| if it shows your mom's name written there the book is too old.
| Retr0id wrote:
| So what? Laptops made 10 years ago are perfectly cromulent for
| typical classroom activities.
| sandGorgon wrote:
| how is Google doing this ? i mean as opposed to Apple, ChromeOS
| has to support a much wider variety of chipsets/motherboards/wifi
| drivers, etc.
|
| how is Google guaranteeing 10 years of updates on Linux while
| supporting newer and newer models every year.
|
| In 10 years - Google's supported chromebook devices would
| exponentially blow up (versus Apple).
|
| How are they pulling this off ?
| nolist_policy wrote:
| There is a small selection base boards prescribed by Google,
| that a manufacturer can built a Chromebook around. That base
| board covers pretty much everything AFAIK, except for touchpad,
| touchscren, pen input, etc.
|
| I count around 40 base boards[1] that are still supported
| today, one year from now it's 37, two years from now it's 31.
| And you see much fewer variety in newer devices.
|
| The x86 boards are very similar, you'll often have the same
| board just with a newer CPU/SoC. It just means you have one
| more device in the regression test lab, it won't necessarily
| create more work.
|
| [1] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-
| information-f...
| dingosity wrote:
| If only this were true regarding the ChromeBook I bought 9 years
| ago.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| The hardware will be obsolete after 5 years as the web browsers
| require more and more hardware to render text and graphics. Soon
| it'll be 20GB and 16 cores to render cnet.com. And OS updates
| always slow down the machine. I just got a Samsung update to my
| smartphone and now it's 50% slower.
| knorker wrote:
| Retroactive to devices released in 2021.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| would be nice if at end of support they would allow to install
| another OS, like some linux distro
| nickthegreek wrote:
| >Starting in 2024, if you have Chromebooks that were released
| from 2021 onwards, you'll automatically get 10 years of updates.
|
| Nice of them to cover a few from the last few years as well. From
| a school standpoint, this is a big win. I doubt many chromebooks
| in active use by students would even last 10 years.
| runjake wrote:
| > I doubt many chromebooks in active use by students would even
| last 10 years.
|
| Maybe not, but we've been surplussing tens of thousands of
| otherwise-usable Chromebooks regardless, because they could not
| be updated to current.
| [deleted]
| synergy20 wrote:
| typically a school chromebook will break in 3-4 years though
| xattt wrote:
| I am also seeing all the easy educational access around
| Chromebook ecosystem as a long play to secure Google Suite as a
| de facto desktop publishing app for the next generation.
|
| Kind of like Adobe did with easy piracy of Photoshop during the
| early versions.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| As did Microsoft. They cared about businesses pirating
| office, teenagers and for home use, not so much.
|
| Ubiquity is it's own reward.
| Yizahi wrote:
| The problem with Chromebooks is that their supported period is
| ticking even when they are sitting unsold in the shop in the
| unopened box. So someone buying a new condition 3 year old
| model Chromebook with lets say 5 years of support would only
| get 2 years of support left. So this change will mostly makes
| them competitive with a regular laptops on the support terms.
| jsnell wrote:
| I don't think it's even covering just the last few years but
| goes back further than that:
|
| > For Chromebooks released before 2021 and already in use,
| users and IT admins will have the option to extend automatic
| updates to 10 years from the platform's release (after they
| receive their last automatic update).
|
| I don't entirely understand why the 2021 cutoff for it being
| opt-in vs. opt-out is there. Maybe it's about the "already in
| use" bit somehow, and making sure that pre-2021 models don't
| continue being manufactured and sold as as new.
| wrs wrote:
| I'm wondering if that will be a paid option. That's how the
| last stage of support for commercial OSes often works.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| I have an original Pixelbook (late 2017 release date) and
| the auto update support page [1] has been updated from June
| 2024 to June 2027 (with an asterisk saying it is user opt
| in but that's all I can see). So at first glance it doesn't
| seem to be paid.
|
| My Pixelbook doesn't get much use anymore vs my M1 MacBook
| but it's nice to know it will still be supported. It can be
| a handy thin client and I don't have to worry as much about
| it getting stolen/abusing at this point in its life.
|
| [1] https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/6220366?visi
| t_id=...
| fma wrote:
| There was an article from the WSJ that wrecks Google for
| e-waste due to not supporting Chromebooks past 5 years. A lot
| of chromebooks were purchased from 2020 due to the pandemic.
| It's not the date of purchase that determines obsolescence,
| so many were coming up to be thrown away.
|
| It would be better if Google defaults to supporting 2020,
| 2019 (Many purchased in 2020 were manufactured in 2019).
| nolist_policy wrote:
| If you where cheaping out an bought Windows 10 devices in
| 2020, you'd also only get 5 years of support.
| highwaylights wrote:
| My guess is that they've received commitments since 2021 on
| parts and drivers for 10 years, and don't have those
| commitments prior to that date, so they're only offering opt-
| in OS updates that will be under subtly different terms for
| liability indemnity purposes.
| silvestrov wrote:
| Might also be a case of minimal RAM/SSD requirement and OS
| build using reasonable new compiler.
|
| HW might also be more standarized today, e.g. using USB
| internally for webcam and keyboard.
| yencabulator wrote:
| The footnote says
|
| > For devices prior to 2021 that will receive extended
| updates, some features and services may not be supported.
|
| So.. they might need to rip out some problematic drivers,
| maybe? Like, imagine the bluetooth chip vendor not being
| cooperative, you get to choose to continue updates but losing
| bluetooth as a feature.
|
| The footnote continues
|
| > See our Help Center for details.
|
| So kudos to first one dig out the exact page they're
| referring to (there's no link).
| Zenst wrote:
| https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/6220366?hl=en
| That one, had link for me.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Except that also just ends with
|
| > ** For devices prior to 2021 that will receive extended
| updates, some features and services might not be
| supported.
|
| which doesn't really say anything...
| redeeman wrote:
| > imagine the bluetooth chip vendor not being cooperative
|
| no, then you tell them that if they dont play ball, they
| will NEVER sell a single chip to anything google ever
| again, and then you hire some people to reverse engineer
| the shit, and make it work anyway. And then you publish all
| about how company X is being stupid and trying to work
| against efforts to save the environment, how they are
| trying very hard to make money on peoples hardware being
| obsoleted before time etc.
|
| But then we realize that google themselves have bummed out
| to large extents with what they have permitted on android
| and chromebooks, so anything like this would not happen
| saagarjha wrote:
| Tell me you have never worked with hardware suppliers
| without telling me you have never worked with hardware
| suppliers.
|
| Imagine that the part you want (given the constraints,
| etc.) has maybe two suppliers. You pick one of them and
| use them in your product. Then they drop support and you
| pull this stunt. What do you think will happen? People
| will storm the company with pitchforks and they'll
| quietly release their full source code and promise to
| never do that ever again?
|
| No, what's actually going to happen is you're going to
| write a blog post, Hacker News is going to be like "yeah
| I worked with that supplier once, never again" and the
| average consumer is going to be like "who is this
| company?" and it will be forgotten by next week. Your
| reverse engineered drivers, which you of course spent
| millions of dollars on hiring top-tier engineers to make,
| will ship and the company will immediately sue you for
| infringement. Maybe if you did a very careful job you
| might be able to claim some sort of interoperatability
| defense and win the case years from now. Before then the
| court will grant an injunction preventing the sale of
| your device.
|
| There's no need to tell the supplier that you will never
| work with them again. You've ruined the relationship
| already. And the other supplier? They probably won't work
| with you either, because they're doing the same thing and
| would like to keep doing it, thank you very much. Oh, you
| think you're Google so people will care about your
| business? They're selling 10x the volume to Samsung for
| their smart fridges. And now you get to I guess create an
| entire division to create a Bluetooth chip from scratch.
| By the way leadership wants to ship Pixel 9 on time so
| can you please have it ready by December? And it needs to
| support all the latest features because it would truly
| suck if Apple shipped Bluetooth 6.5 support before we
| did.
| redeeman wrote:
| perhaps if it was something mega complex, but we are
| talking a bluetooth chip, hardly an unwinnable scenario
| for google.
|
| are you saying for real that google isnt big enough to
| get its way with these things? they could buy these puny
| suppliers, piss on every desk in their offices, and close
| them down, just for fun if they so wanted.
|
| and how come this "sued into oblivion" doesnt happen when
| the community writes drivers for linux in the cases where
| vendors do not play ball? are you saying theres
| absolutely no way google could pay money to make this
| happen?
|
| get real
| tytso wrote:
| Unfortunately, the supply chain often goes 3 and 4 levels
| deep. And by the time you get to companies that far in
| the supply chain, (a) no one has ever heard of that
| company, so the trying to threaten them with reputational
| damage doesn't really work (it will be some random set of
| chinese characters for a company in Shenzhen, for
| example), and (b) it will turn out that the team that
| wrote the device driver for that particular subcomponent
| in the SOC was disbanded as soon as the part was
| released, and 4 years later, half are working for a
| different company, and half were died during the COVID
| pandemic.
|
| Sure, if you could set the Wayback machine back in time,
| and require that device driver be upstreamed, with enough
| programming information so it's possible to maintain the
| device driver, maybe it would be possible to upgrade to a
| newer kernel that doesn't have eleven hundred zero-day
| vulnerabilities. But meanwhile, back in the real world,
| very often there's not a whole lot you can do. So this is
| why it's kind of sad when people insist on buying Nvidia
| video chips that have proprietary blobs because
| performance, or power consumption, or whatever, instead
| of the more boring alternative that doesn't have the same
| eye-bleeding performance, but which has an open source
| device driver. Our buying choices, and the product
| reviewers that only consider performance, or battery
| life, etc., drives the supply chain, and the products
| that we get. And this is why we can't have nice things.
| eru wrote:
| Good luck with that, in case the company goes out of
| business?
| toast0 wrote:
| In that case, it's easy for Google to never buy from them
| again.
| mholm wrote:
| I worked an inner city public school system's well funded IT
| department about a decade ago. Chromebooks had just been
| distributed to all students with grant money. After the first
| year, about 1/5 laptops needed major repair. None of them would
| make it to 5 years.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| I've been dating a 6th grade teacher in a SV adjacent town,
| and hearing how she attempts to teach with these things is
| hard to imagine for me even though I was a computer nerds as
| a kid.
|
| They have like 5 different saas programs/platforms they use.
| They also have video platforms. Reading, library checkout,
| digital media, quizzes, tests, who knows.
|
| If I was a kid without add, I would for sure have it having
| to use that stuff at 11 years old.
|
| I'm not sure who thought doing away with pen and paper and a
| simple book in front of you was a good idea.
|
| I assume it was an IT/software salesperson with ability to
| give kickbacks.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > After the first year, about 1/5 laptops needed major
| repair. None of them would make it to 5 years.
|
| The second sentenxe doesn't follow the first - it's a flavor
| of Zeno's paradox, after 5 years, you'll be left with 4/5 x
| 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 of the original batch.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| For things which are effectively integers there is no
| paradox when your division results in a number less than
| one you have nothing or perhaps more accurately a
| probability of having 1 but any given instance in actuality
| has either 1 or zero. Also equipment failure isn't a linear
| thing its a curve as things reach expected lifespan. For
| instance a battery which is nontrivial to replace has an
| expected number of charge cycles until your battery is so
| shot you can't really use it off a charger any longer. An
| increasing number of mechanical hard drives fail, charger
| sockets start failing. Heating and cooling cycles cause
| progressive degradation of electronics.
|
| You absolutely could design it to last 20 years with
| batteries that are easy to pop out and pop in as easy as
| changing a double aa but your customers won't pay a premium
| over a more disposable machine and indeed if your customer
| has a good experience over the 3-5 they actually use it for
| you make MORE if your hardware is designed to need
| replacement.
| Finn_ wrote:
| This assumes that 1/5 of them break every year which is
| probably not the case, older laptops will break more
| frequently.
| gabrielhidasy wrote:
| On the other hand, considering we are talking about kids
| breaking laptops, this failures are much more random, a
| brand new laptop is not that much more likely to survive
| a fall than an old one.
| account42 wrote:
| If the older laptop has already "survived" a fall, yes,
| it is abosolutely more likely to break from the same fall
| than the new laptop.
| yebyen wrote:
| You're assuming that 4/5 of the laptops remained in
| pristine condition. I doubt that very much. You need to
| take account for the ordinary wear and tear compounded
| together with the impact of abusive 1/5 of users that do an
| excessive amount of damage (requiring a total overhaul.)
|
| And anyway, if 1/5 of laptops needed major repairs and some
| of them got it, those go back into circulation. Are they
| still original laptops? (Ask my grandfather's axe...)
| lambda wrote:
| Failure doesn't work that way.
|
| It's not the case that there's a constant 1/5 probability
| of failure each year. Many failure modes are based on
| cumulative stress/degradation; so the probability of
| failure can go up over time.
|
| Some failure modes go down over time; maybe there's some
| manufacturing defect, and those that have the defect fail
| early, while those that survive past the first year will
| have lower chances of failure early on.
|
| But in this kind of environment, the cumulative stresses
| are much more likely than the early failures.
| mholm wrote:
| This was the case. There were no pristine laptops. Some
| kids are gentle with them, but things happen outside
| their control, kids play destructive pranks, or are just
| clumsy. Theoretically possible to make it to 5 years?
| Sure. Practically? No.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| All data you have from the author's sentence is the first
| year, none about the following ones, then the conclusion
| that none last the full five years. But you assumed it's
| 1/5th per year, every year.
|
| Anyway, it doesn't matter much either way, even if there's
| a few that survive, they will be having wear and tear to
| the point you wouldn't want another student to have them
| (or maybe as a replacement for a broken one); you wouldn't
| want some year 1 students to get a new ones while others
| get the year 4/5 leftovers, they'll resent it for sure.
|
| Second, they'll be paid off after a few years.
| highwind wrote:
| Colloquial comment doesn't need to meet mathematical rigor.
| He's just saying that these laptops do not last.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > The second sentenxe doesn't follow the first - it's a
| flavor of Zeno's paradox, after 5 years, you'll be left
| with 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 of the original batch.
|
| You made a mistake: it's not that 1/5 of the computers
| spontaneously break every year. It's that 1/5 of the
| students treat their computers roughly.
|
| Assuming that laptops get collected over the summer and re-
| distributed each year, you should actually expect that 100%
| of each tranche of laptops would need to be replaced every
| 5 years.
| TJSomething wrote:
| I don't understand how that math could work. Assuming
| random assignment, the probability that a given computer
| is given to a one of those students is identical from
| year to year.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I don't understand how that math could work. Assuming
| random assignment, the probability that a given computer
| is given to a one of those students is identical from
| year to year.
|
| That's fair. I guess, it's more accurate to say that
| you'd expect a number of laptops equal to the size of the
| initial tranche to be destroyed after the first 5 years.
|
| Although if I was running IT, it'd definitely keep track
| of the "destructive" students and issue them the oldest
| equipment, in which case, we'd be back to something
| closer to my original statement.
| greggsy wrote:
| They're much more robust today
| fullstop wrote:
| I've seen some of the chromebooks at my daughter's school and
| they are beyond abused by the kids. Missing keys, screens
| cracked, you name it. My daughter's is in pristine condition,
| though!
| ugh123 wrote:
| Pretty soon we'll see kids making their own covers and
| protective cases for Chromebooks like we did back in the
| day with our textbooks
| burkaman wrote:
| Was it an issue with Chromebooks specifically, or just a
| general consequence of heavily-used shared laptops?
| Scaevolus wrote:
| Chromebooks are made out of plastic, children are not very
| careful, and people don't value free things they're given.
| Gigachad wrote:
| We had macbook airs at school and they were similarly
| destroyed because people would just carelessly chuck them
| around.
| fragmede wrote:
| Pedagogically, it would seem the answer to that would be
| to have the classroom be a computer lab on the first day
| of school, and then make the kids work (running laps,
| taking quizzes on having done the reading) before they
| earn the laptop to take home.
| mholm wrote:
| Teachers were building lesson plans around everything
| being on the laptop, and that all students would have one
| available. A student couldn't just be restricted to not
| taking laptops home, because that means that student
| either can't do their homework, or has to do their
| homework afterschool, which would require parent
| involvement.
|
| The sorts of kids with laptop issues were not the
| children with high parent involvement.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| But then you can't export the work of designing and
| implementing homework into some faceless corporation
| who's only real goal is to appeal to administrators, not
| teachers or kids, certainly not to match course material
| or learn.
|
| I've seen an explosion of online homework recently and
| it's all confusing and either way to easy or waaayyyy too
| hard with very little of the partial credit and recourse
| that an actual person grading a paper assignment has.
| fragmede wrote:
| Which comes from the same place that Microsoft Teams
| craptacularity comes from. The people buying the product
| aren't the ones using it. Computerized homework could
| auto adjust to be not too hard and not too easy, by
| changing the difficulty of the next problem, based on how
| the student did with the previous problem. But
| implementing that is beyond our capabilities, apparently.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Nah, that won't work either, kids forget about that very
| fast. You don't sound like you've got kids yourself
| either.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Kids aren't all or nothing. They remember, and they also
| forget.
|
| The only thing that really works are repeated reminders
| and attentive consequences, over a sustained period of
| time.
|
| Also, adults don't typically have coworkers grab their
| laptop and smash it because they're disliked.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > Chromebooks are made out of plastic
|
| Wait to see what happens to devices made of glass !
|
| Jest aside, any device lasting even two or three years in
| a school environment is kinda of a big deal given the
| daily abuse it will get.
| dheera wrote:
| Plastic isn't necessarily a bad thing, metal tends to
| dent and deform while plastic has some elasticity. It
| depends on what plastic they use.
| singron wrote:
| E.g. thinkpads usually use a composite plastic
| (carbon/glass fiber), which makes them lightweight,
| durable, and thermally insulated from your body.
| Chromebooks definitely use the cheap stuff though.
| kernal wrote:
| >After the first year, about 1/5 laptops needed major repair.
| None of them would make it to 5 years
|
| Do you believe a Mac or Windows laptop would have been more
| reliable given the abuse they were subjected to?
| butlike wrote:
| I think a simple fix would be a psychological, not
| technical one. Simply, it's "their" laptop. They don't
| return it at the end of the year and if they keep it in
| good form, then they have one. If they don't; they don't.
| partdavid wrote:
| And when they don't, what? The workhouse?
| blackoil wrote:
| They'll get a crappier bulky version.
| calgoo wrote:
| So like the office then? Your 12" light laptop that you
| use for travel breaks? No worries, here is a 17" 8 year
| old machine that will break your back carrying around
| everywhere, and cant be used on a airplane.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| The reality is some people take care of their stuff
| others dont.
|
| I see adults with absolute garbage looking iPhones. Some
| people just do not care. Others do. There is some amount
| of 'psychological' you can do to fix some of it. But at
| the end of the day you will have a mix of 'sorta broke',
| 'broken', 'did you ever take it out of the box'.
|
| Then on top of that. There is a level of junk products. I
| have a high end laptop I absolutely baby. That thing is a
| piece of rubish and in a year or so I am going to gladly
| get rid of it. It has major defects ~2 years in. The
| previous 3 laptops I had were in very good condition for
| 5+ years each until the plastic literally started
| detreating. The same ODM's making that laptop are also
| making chromebooks. My only option to fix this is by
| buying used parts of sites like ebay. Or be without my
| primary computer for 4-8 weeks. Chromebooks margins have
| to be decently thin or they would not sell them that
| cheap. Which probably means the things are kind of junk
| too.
| firecall wrote:
| That approach doesn't really work with children.
|
| Removing student access to technology is overly punitive
| and does not support the intended learning and
| development outcomes of attending school.
|
| To ostracize a child because they damaged their laptop is
| psychological abuse.
|
| We can just help them take better care of it and
| reinforce the reasons why and train them to do so! :-)
| mholm wrote:
| Mildly. Some classes had MacBook airs, which were a bit
| more durable to the sorts of abuse that would happen, but
| they costed 3x as much, and didn't take 3x the punishment.
| I can't imagine a solution beyond 'give them the cheapest
| thing possible' which happens to still be chromebooks.
| nxobject wrote:
| Having participated in a one-laptop-per-student pilot program
| ages ago, with Fujitsu tablet convertibles that were very
| much plastic painted to look like brushed metal, I had
| problems keeping my laptop intact too - since I was
| constantly running between classes, sandwiching my laptop
| between textbooks, the case plastics didn't last the year.
| But laptops were much, much heavier then.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I think an individual device not making it 5 year would be
| fine.
|
| A big issue with chromebooks in particular: there's many
| discreet models of different sizes and builds, that all
| require different parts, and don't get renewed every year.
|
| One school ordering 400 12" HP chromebooks for instance will
| have no guarantee to be able to order another batch 2 years
| later, even of an equivalent machine that could be a straight
| replacement.
|
| Perhaps Dell has a more stable offering given they probably
| understand these problematics better ?
| moneil971 wrote:
| Unlikely to last that long, but helpful that they'll still be
| supported so they can be repaired, updated, etc. -- and so they
| can slowly upgrade throughout a school system, rather than
| having to do a wholesale update every few years.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Unlikely to last that long,
|
| That's what I keep coming back to. I've known two classes of
| Chromebook, shelved and about to be.
|
| Most of my customers tried them. It seemed reasonable their
| office could use them for light web app use. Every one was in
| the closet within 6 months.
|
| They're commonly slow. Printer support is a crapshoot, MFP
| doubly so. Corporate plugin support is a crapshoot. Whatever
| unforeseen new computing experience arrives, they probably
| can't do it.
|
| I was at my mechanic's shop last month. He stopped mid
| sentence to say 'I hate this thing; I'm about to throw it
| thru a wall' while he's trying to lookup parts online. It's
| an Acer Chromebook and will likely be gone by my next visit.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| I agree, but at the same time, this is an extension from 8 to
| 10 years. While this will surely buy time for many schools to
| upgrade, we can all be prepared for a re-hash of this kerfuffle
| in 2 years.
| ChrisLTD wrote:
| What laptops are we seriously expecting to last more than 10
| years? I wouldn't expect that from a MacBook Pro or a
| Thinkpad, let alone a $300 Chromebook.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > I wouldn't expect that from (...) a Thinkpad
|
| You wouldn't? I have an X230 and it still works fine/is
| perfectly usable, and that's over 10 years old at this
| point. Why would you not expect a laptop to last more than
| 10 years?
| TJSomething wrote:
| I run a small convention that just needs some easy to setup
| web kiosks to use for checkin. We bought a lot of 30
| surplus Chromebooks at $15 each a few years ago, but we're
| throwing them out because of lack of support.
| jsight wrote:
| Why not just isolate their network and keep using them? I
| can't imagine this being a big risk for a convention
| checkin system.
| Marvy_a wrote:
| My father had been using a laptop he got in 2011 (I5-2410m)
| until a few months ago when I bought him a mini PC with an
| Intel N95, he didn't even want to switch because for the
| most part everything worked pretty well and why wouldn't
| it? The i5-2410m is faster than the Celeron N4020, which is
| commonly found in many ChromeBooks and budget laptops
| today, and the i5-2410m wasn't even the best mobile
| processor back then. Many cheap laptops today are also
| limited to a soldered-on 4GB of RAM, but most older laptops
| can be upgraded to 8GB.
|
| I have several other laptops from 2011 which are even
| weaker (One with I5-560M (upgraded from 380M for 6$) and
| other with I3-2310M) and they are also mostly fine for web
| browsing and office, and capable of playing 1080p YouTube
| video even without hardware acceleration (they don't have
| VP9 decoding),with H264ify CPU usage drops to 30-40
| percents.
|
| With progress in semiconductors slowing down i would expect
| laptops to last even longer, but with manufactures
| soldering down RAM and sometimes even SSD maybe that won't
| be the case. Cause if i wouldn't be able to replaces HHD
| with SSD and upgrade RAM on these old laptops they would be
| garbage long time ago.
| acdha wrote:
| Any Apple laptop has a good chance? My 2011 MacBook Air
| still works fine (as does the 2013) - the main problem is
| software support. You're not playing games on that but it's
| fine for email / web / video chat / office docs and light
| coding. Each of the earlier ones I had was replaced for
| performance reasons, not failure other than hard drives
| back when spinning metal was the norm.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >the main problem is software support
|
| Hopefully this announcement will put some pressure on
| Apple to do the same.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Apple has been top of the industry in terms of length of
| OS/software support for their devices.
|
| My iPhone 8 is still supported by the current iOS (no
| longer by 17, womp womp.) It's nearly seven years old, is
| still on its first battery with about 79% capacity left
| and it hasn't gone into brownout-prevention mode yet. I'm
| figuring that with the new iOS release it probably won't
| be supported, but who knows.
|
| A few whiz-bang features aren't supported; fancy but
| kinda useless webcam stuff, and newer iPhones can do more
| extensive object recognition in photos like bugs and
| plants that I think my phone won't do.
|
| I'm not missing much aside from better cellular band
| support, which is kind of a wash because my phone has a
| qualcomm modem and Apple's switch to intel modems didn't
| go well.
|
| Even the newer cameras aren't tempting because a
| generation or two after the 8 and X, they all became
| inflicted with Apple's horrifically bad "AI" image
| processing that makes everything look like a watercolor
| painting.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >Apple has been top of the industry in terms of length of
| OS/software support for their devices.
|
| They have for phones but I think they could do better
| when it comes to the computers.
|
| Also it would be nice to have a formal statement of what
| their intentions are.
|
| As an example I have no idea how long my four year old
| Mac Mini will continue to get updates for.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The average lifespan of a desktop is five years, and for
| a laptop, 3-5. All of you bitching about how computers
| older than ten years old not being supported is some
| massive injustice are completely divorced from reality in
| the marketplace.
|
| Apple provides security updates for the prior two
| releases, which means that damn near any Mac made in the
| last ten years, even without Opencore Legacy, is still
| receiving security updates.
|
| My 2013 Macbook Pro will run the current MacOS release
| with Opencore Legacy. That's a now-ten-year-old computer
| running the current OS release.
|
| Anyone who uses their computer for a significant period
| of time, and especially to make money, who does not
| upgrade more quickly than every ten years, isn't very
| smart. It doesn't take long, waiting for your computer
| every day, before it's costing you more in lost
| productivity than it would be to replace it with
| something newer, especially if you buy used.
|
| Claiming that a ten year old laptop, Apple or otherwise,
| is "perfectly usable" is a joke by people who clearly
| haven't spent any appreciable time using current
| hardware, which is by every single measure _enormously_
| better.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > Apple has been top of the industry in terms of length
| of OS/software support for their devices.
|
| For phones and tablets, sure. For desktops/laptops, Linux
| outdoes them handily. My mid-2012 MacBook Pro can run
| Catalina at the latest, which has been outdated for
| several years and unsupported since last year. But I can
| still install a current Linux distro on a machine of that
| era just fine.
| sgerenser wrote:
| This doesn't absolve Apple of their lack of support for
| older Macs, but if you want to keep using that MacBook on
| a more modern MacOS, take a look at Open Core Legacy
| Patcher. Have Monterey on my 2012 Mac mini and it's
| working great.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Linux, with 3% market share, is not "part of the
| industry" for personal computers like laptops and
| desktops.
|
| The only valid comparison is versus Windows, because only
| Windows has similar capabilities and user experience.
| acdha wrote:
| Agreed. They have the lease excuse of any vendor to say
| drivers are hard to support.
| nextos wrote:
| Same here. My family uses my MacBook Pro from 2009 on a
| daily basis, the original unibody model.
|
| Zero issues, I just had to migrate to Linux to get OS
| updates. It has pretty damn good reliability.
|
| Hardware can last pretty long, it is wasteful not to
| bother releasing software updates.
| twunde wrote:
| As (The Verge's
| article[https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/14/23873319/google-
| chromeboo...]) about this points out
|
| ``` The company currently guarantees eight years of
| automatic updates to Chromebooks. That period, however,
| begins at the time when the company certifies a Chromebook,
| not when it's actually in the owner's hands. Because of the
| time it takes schools and businesses to purchase, receive,
| set up, and deploy new fleets of computers, they commonly
| end up getting four to five years of use out of them in
| practice. ```
|
| so this is really about ensuring that the laptops actually
| get 5 years of use before needing to be replaced.
| runjake wrote:
| Rugged Chromebooks? I still use Acer R11s (albeit these are
| non-rugged) that were released in 2015 -- almost 10 years
| ago.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Software should not be a limiting factor in the lifespan of
| a laptop. If the hardware breaks and you toss it, I think
| that's much more acceptable than tossing it when the
| hardware still works but the software is out of date.
| phoyd wrote:
| 2008 ThinkPad t400 user here, running Ubuntu. Most business
| class notebooks are incredibly durable and the market
| offers replacement parts for 10 of 15 year old devices. A
| t400 battery is less than 25EUR on Amazon and there are
| dozens of vendors.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I still lug a T430 around. Runs Win 11, hyper-v and 1
| bazillion tabs across multiple browsers.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| As I said, the previous window was 8 years. Presumably
| schools are able to get end up with enough 8 year EOL
| laptops to have caused a storm about it. If they were
| manage cause that miracle, then they can probably manage to
| get enough of them to 10 years as well.
|
| (And yes, I know what the real answer is - they bought
| bargain bin laptops like 4-6 years after RTM, so they only
| have like 2-4 years of actual wear and tear on them. Given
| their carelessness the first time, I wouldn't rule out a
| repeat in 2 years).
| toast0 wrote:
| If the hardware is still working, and the battery works
| enough to run off AC, even a 10 year old machine is still
| usable for a lot of stuff.
|
| I got an Acer Chromebook C720 in 2013ish, and the dual-core
| Celeron 2955U (Haswell) with 4GB of RAM is still ok. The
| touchpad stopped working in mine, and I dunno how bad the
| battery is, and I installed FreeBSD for fun after ChromeOS
| stopped updating, but I bet it'd run ChromeOS Flex no
| problem. It doesn't have the virtualization extension
| needed to run Android apps (not part of ChromeOS Flex
| anyway), but I don't think there's anything else missing
| really.
|
| I'll probably install ChromeOS Flex on my Lenovo ThinkPad
| 13 Chromebook after I let the final official OS update
| simmer a bit more (it's a pain to get to the firmware write
| protect screw), it's a much nicer case and a little bit
| newer processor, but otherwise pretty close to the Acer
| one; and the touch pad still works. OTOH, I don't think I
| can change out the storage and as I mentioned the write
| protect screw is hard to access.
| jules22 wrote:
| I am using a 12 year old Thinkpad as a secondary device. I
| don't see why it won't last me another 10. It runs a
| responsive and quite good looking modern Linux desktop
| environment from a HDD and I am not even using 40% of the
| RAM I have on it. I am obviously not encoding 4K video,
| running AI or AAA games on it, but for most things that
| people do on computers, it's perfectly fine.
|
| This wasn't the case in 20-25 years ago when stuff would
| outdate real fast. 90% of people don't really need new
| computers.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| My personal laptop is a Thinkpad x250 from 2015. That is
| "only" 8 years old at this point, but I have every
| intention of continuing to use it for the foreseeable
| future.
| jefftk wrote:
| I bought an eeepc netbook in 2008. It was my main computer
| until 2012, spent several years sitting on a shelf, and now
| is my daughter's. It's still doing fine, as are the two
| other eeepcs people in my family bought around the same
| time.
|
| It's not useful for very much, since it's way underpowered
| for most things you might want to do today, but it still
| works for typing and basic networking.
| devjab wrote:
| My MacBook Pro 2015 still trundles along just fine, and
| while that isn't exactly 10 years it's getting there. I did
| replace it with an M1 air for my personal use but my wife
| is still quite happy with it. The only thing that has
| needed replacement despite its hefty usage has been the
| power cable which fell apart at one point. Maybe it had
| seen too much sun? Not sure exactly, but the plastic sure
| disintegrated.
|
| I'm not sure I'll ever really need to replace my M1. I
| could technically still work on the pro, and I mostly got
| the M1 because of hype, but I really don't see what is
| going to increase my systems requirements in the next 20
| years to be beyond what the m1 is currently doing. Maybe if
| I start doing more compiling on it instead of in the cloud?
| But I really think we're at the point where it'll
| physically break before the spec become obsolete, or
| alternatively, that it'll stop getting updates from Apple.
| At which point I guess it can just live on with Linux.
| blagie wrote:
| My experience is different. My experience is that the
| failures are pretty random.
|
| If you expect to lose 20% of laptops each year, after a
| decade, about 10% of laptops will still work after a
| decade. It's more if you are willing to work around issues
| (e.g. epoxy a crack or replace a part).
|
| It's crappy if you need to toss otherwise good computers
| purely due to a software issue.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| My opinion about 10 years ago (most likely affected by
| inflation now) was that a laptop costs roughly $100/year.
| When I had an inexpensive $300 laptop, it lasted about 3
| years. In that time I opened the case multiple times to
| fix problems, usually involving overheating. Towards the
| end the laptop was unusably slow and unable to play full-
| screen video. When I bought a $1000 laptop, it so far has
| lasted 8 years and counting. I opened it once to upgrade
| the memory, and once again to simply tighten screws to
| reduce the chassis flex that had gotten worse over time.
|
| Failures are random and infrequent if you start with good
| hardware. Sadly, in my experience a lot of cheap laptops
| do not come with reliable hardware.
| theodric wrote:
| My buddy will be delighted to know that his $4700 MacBook
| is good to go until 2069
| blagie wrote:
| It's less about price than about grades of laptop.
|
| For example, if you buy Lenovo, the Idea* laptops will be
| junk laptops, while Think* will be pretty good quality.
| There are sub-grades within both. With Dell, there are
| usually several series with names changing periodically.
| In the Latitude series, the first number corresponded to
| quality when I last bought. 3xxx is junk. 5xxx is decent.
| 7xxx is good. There are similar divisions in their
| consumer lines.
|
| It's possible to find very good reliable laptops if
| you're willing to live with last years' model, and
| especially with off-lease premium laptops. Corporate
| environments will often lease a thousand premium laptops
| for three years, not stress them very hard, and then
| they're sold for a song as there's a corporate-wide
| refresh.
| bandrami wrote:
| Oh Lord. There are _lots_ of early teens /late oughts
| laptops out there being used today. Non-power-user laptop
| specs haven't really changed that much since then (4G of
| ram and 500G of storage) and normal people don't actually
| care about their processor or graphics card.
|
| I was shift lead for a SIEM team when lockdown started and
| the number of 2009-2011 era machines that got pulled out of
| a closet and brought online when remote work started was
| staggering.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I have an HP Elitebook 8460p that was released in 2011 and
| is still working really well.
|
| It got ssd and battery replacements + memory upgrade
| though.
| dharmab wrote:
| I still have functioning Thinkpads from 2011. They run well
| with SATA SSDs and minimal Linux distros, and they're handy
| in the garage or on a workbench where you might not your
| expensive devices lying around but need to reference
| technical data.
| WalterBright wrote:
| My chromebook simply stopped playing videos of any sort a couple
| months ago. I followed all the procedures google provided,
| nothing worked. Everything else works fine.
|
| I figured it was some automatic update that did it.
| tedchs wrote:
| This is a big relief. I have a Samsung Chromebook Plus that still
| works fine and I like the form factor. I recently got notified
| that ChromeOS updates were EOL, so I reformatted it with
| PostmarketOS, an Alpine Linux derivative. Installing was easy,
| and I want to like it, but it _almost_ works. It has no sound,
| won 't play videos, and the touchscreen behavior is janky.
| daveoc64 wrote:
| >All Chromebook platforms will get regular automatic updates for
| 10 years -- more than any other operating system commits to
| today.
|
| I suppose Microsoft technically doesn't offer 10 years of support
| with Windows 11, but it has done with Windows XP, Vista, 7,
| 8/8.1, and 10.
|
| There's also a footnote on the Google article:
|
| >A small selection of device platforms may not receive the full
| 10 years of automatic updates, and some features and services may
| not be supported. See our Help Center for details.
| Jenda_ wrote:
| And more importantly: with "normal" computers and OSes, you can
| just upgrade the operating system to the next version. So even
| though a computer with Debian from 2008 did not get "15 years
| of updates", it still runs a current and supported operating
| system today.
|
| It has only started with this smartphone madness, that you
| cannot install a stock OS of whatever version you want and are
| dependent on manufacturer or community for device-specific
| images.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| But you can install Linux just fine on Chromebooks.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| A serious question, what do people do with Chromebooks?
| Especially people who use their own money to get one, instead of
| getting one free from school.
|
| A decent Chromebook seems to be around 1000EUR, with prices going
| up to 2000EUR. You can get an _actual_ laptop with that. Why get
| a glorified hardware browser?
| mkjonesuk wrote:
| Very low bloat. And if you use mainly Google cloud based Apps
| you can get pretty much everything done.
|
| The only problem is the lack of a 'premium' model that isn't
| cheap plastic.
| salawat wrote:
| ...Define bloat.
|
| Because if you say thAt a Beyond Linux From Scratch built
| system with a package manager integrated is bloated, I'd like
| to draw your attention to the fact there is a certain minimum
| footprint symbol table wise to provide a complete interface
| to the hardware for the user. Which can also be had literally
| ad-free, no web telemetry, no one else's encryption keys
| involved.
|
| Anything using a cloud suite like Google or Azure, I assure
| you, is fundamentally _not_ unbloated.
| entropicgravity wrote:
| I'm just in the middle of installing Linux Mint on my 2017 Asus
| c202 because the updates stopped this summer. The c202 is still a
| fine machine for my uses. I've take taken the screw out of the
| mother board now and just reading up on how to install Linux but
| now ... maybe I'll wait and see if fresh updates restart coming
| my way.
| whompyjaw wrote:
| im extremely biased, since its my daily driver for everything,
| but i think Linux is the better way to go. maybe a little
| awkward at first if you're fully embedded in the Google eco,
| but can still use most google products via browser, anyway.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| Slight tangent but why do school students need laptops? What's
| wrong with pen and paper and a scientific calculator? Every thing
| taught in school can be taught using pen and paper. Introducing
| expensive unreliable (compared to pen and paper) tools is
| unnecessary.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I'd be happy if they got full keyboards, with Control, Super, and
| Meta so I can run Emacs.
| walteweiss wrote:
| Why not re-map the keys? I absolutely love my Chromebook's
| keyboard for just that, less keys.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I'd love a laptop with a Space Cadet keyboard ;-)
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Why not just make it indefinite?
|
| Updates as long as you want.
| hanniabu wrote:
| [flagged]
| mato wrote:
| Cool, can we get the same for Pixel4+?
|
| Ta.
| kgbcia wrote:
| That's ambitious for a laptop. Would expect like 7 years max.
| Need a chrome phone.
| baz00 wrote:
| I worry more about Google's service longevity than the updates on
| these.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| I have a chromebook from 5+ years ago other than the 4gb of ram I
| don't see why Google couldn't just keep updates going forever?
|
| Surly chromeOS isn't so "heavy" now that it cannot run on a 3.5gz
| dual core and 4gb of ram?
|
| Latest of any major distribution still runs pretty well.
| Zuiii wrote:
| They should also guarantee that OEMs will not leave the
| Chromebook bootloader locked once those 10 years of automatic
| updates are over and they should release the source code for
| their drivers. My android is useless after 3 years because google
| doesn't do what microsoft does with x86 OEMs.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| The only one who can lock the boot process is the device owner:
| school/company laptops might be locked down and they might not
| bother resetting that.
|
| By default it's locked-but-user-unlockable (presence test, user
| data removal), with various levels of trade-offs between
| "degrees of freedom to replace stuff" vs. "ability to recover
| without external hardware tools". When user and owner differ
| (e.g. schools or companies), the owner gets to decide.
|
| As for source code, go wild:
| https://review.coreboot.org/plugins/gitiles/coreboot/+/refs/...
| popchat wrote:
| Google Pixel phones have unlocked bootloaders[0] (see the
| excellent projects GrapheneOS[1] and Calyx[2]), so if that's
| something that is important to you (it's good that it is), then
| you should purchase your next phone with that in mind.
|
| 0. usually, but not always. Sometimes you need to install, for
| example, a T-mobile app for some previously GoogleFi phones in
| order for the phone to check with T-mobile's servers and get
| unlocking approved, but the phone can be purchased unlocked
| directly from Google as well.
|
| 1. https://grapheneos.org/
|
| 2. https://calyxos.org/ from https://www.calyxinstitute.org/
| Projectiboga wrote:
| Graphene only supports the same time frame as Google, 3 years
| from launch for the #a series models. Calyx goes about an
| extra year. I really got hosed by not reading the fine print,
| I just bought Google 5a, and it runs out of support in a year
| now, its a 5G phone, I'll have to use Calyx or Lineage OS to
| go beyond. I wish I had just gotten an LG V50 or V60 and
| gotten better audio quality and a nicer screen.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Sometimes there is no known way to unlock a Pixel bootloader:
| https://jacobhall.net/2022/01/29/000177/
| tonfa wrote:
| Are chromebooks bootloader locked?
| londons_explore wrote:
| No. Chromebooks have all open source drivers, and you can
| compile it yourself if you like. The only closed source bits
| are third party code (usually due to patent reasons - eg. mp3
| codecs).
|
| If you want to run all your own stuff, you do need to have
| the machine in dev mode, which will warn you on every
| startup.
| colecut wrote:
| That warning screen is the most awful thing...
|
| Not because of the warning, but because if you press
| Spacebar on that warning screen (which is the only key that
| the screen suggests you might want to press), it re-enables
| OS Verification, removing your ability to boot anything but
| ChromeOs until you run some more terminal commands do set
| it all up again..
|
| If at any point a child, or pretty much anyone else besides
| you turns on your laptop, this is guaranteed to happen.
|
| I hope they had good reason for making this design decision
| because for me it was one of the most frustrating aspects
| of trying boot outside of ChromeOS
| Steltek wrote:
| I went to a lot of trouble to set up my kid's Chromebook
| in unlocked mode with Linux+Steam installed. It all got
| obliterated by one naive keypress after it ran out of
| battery and rebooted. That self-destruct button is
| ridiculously easy to push.
| colecut wrote:
| Yes, I had nearly the same exact experience.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| It's to ensure that you, the user, know when the boot
| process has changed substantially, and that you have a
| simple way to get back into familiar territory.
|
| If you want to get rid of Chrome OS and all its user
| protection measures entirely, that's possible with
| official and relatively standardized means. The open
| source firmware community provides documentation and
| tested firmware images for that (of course: no warranty),
| most prominently https://mrchromebox.tech/
| colecut wrote:
| But I don't want to get rid of it.
|
| ChromeOS tends to provide the best experience for
| anything that ChromeOS is able to do.
|
| I want to be able to choose at bootup, and not have that
| configuration be "easily obliterated" as someone else
| described. The warning is fine. The way back is a bit too
| simple...
| hedora wrote:
| Do OEMs still release modified versions of their
| Chromebooks with a standard BIOS?
|
| I used to have an x86 Acer "CloudBook" that shipped with
| Windows and a nice EFI bios. It boots Linux well, and
| even has an option to disable the windows trusted boot
| keys, and to use user installed (i.e., grub) keys
| instead. The hardware seems to be designed to run chrome
| os, except that it has a standard keyboard.
|
| My only complaint is that I'd like a higher-end version
| of it.
| akyuu wrote:
| I have serious doubts about how comprehensive this support will
| actually be, especially regarding firmware updates and non-Google
| vendor commitment.
|
| There is a wide variety of Chromebook hardware manufacturers, and
| most of them don't have a good track record of providing firmware
| upgrades for long. Google can keep ChromeOS updated on these
| devices, just like Microsoft can keep pushing Windows updates,
| but are the manufacturers going to provide firmware updates for
| 10 years? Are Intel or Mediatek going to be providing 10 years of
| microcode updates for the CPUs used on these devices? It doesn't
| make sense to me that these companies are suddenly going to
| invest a lot of money just to support these cheap devices that
| probably don't make a lot of profit, when they have never given a
| similar level of support to their flagship products.
|
| I think this 10 year support window will not be full device
| support, just a commitment to providing OS updates that don't
| break stuff.
| creshal wrote:
| > but are the manufacturers going to provide firmware updates
| for 10 years?
|
| Typically, yes, at least for severe, headline-generating
| issues. Most others tend to be able to be worked around in
| Linux kernel drivers anyway (and usually better than by most
| vendors...), so realistically the burden will be on Google to
| use a 10-year LTS kernel and meaningfully support it receiving
| backports for various issues.
|
| > Are Intel or Mediatek going to be providing 10 years of
| microcode updates for the CPUs used on these devices?
|
| Intel at least seems to be providing updates for 7+ years,
| going by their recent microcode releases. It's not quite as out
| of the ordinary as it seems, at least for the big vendors.
| Mediatek is another question.
| sublimefire wrote:
| Google has a track record of discontinuing things when they feel
| like it. Such a statement is welcome but it needs to be tested in
| time. I would even say it is much more related to the fact that
| it is September than anything else or because they want to make
| their brand look better in the light of all this antitrust
| probing.
| [deleted]
| cptaj wrote:
| I'm sure we can trust google on this one
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Purposely being coy about they type of updates thinking it will
| get brand new OSs up to year ten is disingenuous. It will
| likely be security patches mostly after year 3
| scottlamb wrote:
| Unsure if this is true, but would it be so bad?
|
| I won't use a device that is significantly behind on security
| updates.
|
| I will absolutely use an OS that only has the features
| available at time of release. Might be preferable to the
| Apple situation in which devices seem to get slower and
| slower over time as you jump to major OS revisions with
| heavier base requirements.
|
| On the other hand, websites generally expect modern browsers.
| I don't recall if they separately version the base ChromeOS
| from the actual Chrome browser that is primarily[1] what
| people do with these machines. I'd probably want the latter
| to be fairly up-to-date on features as well as security...
|
| [1] Recent Chromebooks also can run arbitrary Linux
| containers. The feature is called "Crostini" or "Linux on
| ChromeOS".
| salawat wrote:
| Security updates don't really do squat in the realm of
| reassuring you that you're okay, and definitely wouldn't
| even be a thing if we had comprehensive documentation of
| the underlying hardware/firmware these bastards are running
| on. Software/hardware gets better with age, but only with
| full disclosure and a full, unblack-boxed picture of what
| you have to work with.
|
| God, how I wish for a modern, fully documented, fully
| public Mobo+Processor+chipsets of reasonable oomph. Kill
| the firmware blackbox, and watch the quality that can be
| bootstrapped. If I live to see the day when the leading
| cause of electronic equipment retirement is "50th time
| reflowing solder, and oopsed", I can die a happy man.
| throwaway128128 wrote:
| I wonder what changed that allowed them to have a better update
| policy. AFAIK the time horizon was capped because SOC vendors
| fail to update drivers for legacy products.
| javier_e06 wrote:
| I have a samsung chromebook plus 32 bit ARM based and now it has
| plastered on the screen a message that says: "Security Updates
| Ended. Update your device" The message cannot be removed. If I
| click on it, opens chrome and sends me to the Google store
| (effing commercial).
|
| The laptop runs like a charm (I replaced the battery) with termux
| installed. It has a great touch interface with a stylus that will
| break If I try to install other OS on it.
|
| Google way to obsolete this things starts looking a lot like
| Apple. They want to kill their old devices with a thousand little
| cuts.
|
| I just want to remove the goddam message and for Google to leave
| me alone. Good luck with that.
| beretguy wrote:
| Just install Linux on it, if you can.
| hackmiester wrote:
| How does this look like Apple? Google is far worse about
| obsolescence than Apple, and, afaik, always has been.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Have you tried wiping ChromeOS and installing Linux on it?
|
| https://itsfoss.com/install-linux-chromebook/
| m3kw9 wrote:
| We all know after 3-5 years it will be only security patches
| danans wrote:
| ChromeOS updates are all full system updates, not just security
| updates. So they include any features that the hardware can
| reasonably support.
| freedomben wrote:
| This is fantastic! I had kind of stopped buying Chromebooks
| because of how short the supported life was, even though they
| were great for my needs and very affordable. I'll be buying
| Chromebooks again.
|
| With Pixel phones getting 5 years, and Chromebooks getting 10,
| I'm feeling good again about recommending them to people,
| particularly since they are unlockable so you can install
| alternative ROMs to get more life. I'd really love to see them
| match Apple by doing at least 7 years for Pixel phones, but I'm
| feeling really good about the direction we're going!
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I'm skeptical, they don't have a track record of supporting
| anything long term unless it's ad related...
| stewbrew wrote:
| But don't expect them to check whether the Chromebooks are still
| useful after an update. E.g., the original Lenovo duet turned
| into an oversized paperweight after one of their later updates.
| paravirtualized wrote:
| I would never use a Chromebook, but this is extremely appealing
| either way. I wonder if their other hardware and operating
| systems will receive this kind of support eventually.
| jraph wrote:
| > this is extremely appealing either way
|
| Not really, any standard computer gets updates forever.
|
| (at least for Linux, I don't know other OSes really well).
| paravirtualized wrote:
| I don't know of any distribution that gets 10 years of
| support besides Ubuntu LTS with paid support.
| hedora wrote:
| However, Chromebooks supposedly come with well-tested Linux
| support.
|
| If this is a guarantee that the drivers will get security
| updates for 10 years and be mainlined into the linux kernel
| (and if there is a way to get these things with a normal
| keyboard and BIOS), then this is great news.
|
| I'd never run ChromeOS, but would happily buy a flagship-
| grade laptop that lived up to the expectations in the
| previous paragraph (and then run Linux or even BSD on it).
| walteweiss wrote:
| Why BIOS (did you mean UEFI?) when it runs the best boot
| loader, which is Coreboot1. Many users would love to re-
| flash their bios/uefi for it, if it's supported.
|
| 1: https://www.coreboot.org/
| cududa wrote:
| Chromebooks are popular in schools because of ease of use and
| ease of device management. Suggesting school districts with
| thousands of students deploy and manage linux students is
| asinine.
| salawat wrote:
| Not really. Not once you get the primitives nailed down,
| and your network architecture/endpoint management sorted.
|
| In fact, most of the biggest things holding back Linux in
| schools is the lack of a multi-billion dollar corporation
| extprting enough money that after the "student and
| educational discount version" is released and a few paltry
| assurances by a salesman that support will be a thing that
| school administrators are fine with provisioning networks
| of it.
|
| Novell, contrary to popular belief, exists, and works just
| fine with Linux, windows, and Mac. Lets you use your own
| servers and cloud infra and everything. Novell itself is
| just a bunch of effort put into migration scripts, some
| custom OpenLDAP schemas, a few augmented endpoint
| agents/pieces of groupware, and the _ever important to the
| Enterprise_ license management framework.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| No operating system gets updates forever, no software package
| gets updates forever, no hardware gets firmware updates
| forever, and there's no such thing as a standard computer.
| But other than that you're right.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| Well you can install Linux on a Chromebook too.
|
| And for a Chromebook to be supported by Google means that
| exactly the same device runs in some Lab and every ChromeOS
| update gets regression tested against it before going live.
| That's a big difference to "just install Linux".
| stabbles wrote:
| The question is, is this statement binding for 10 years, or can
| they "kill" it within a couple years?
| pluc wrote:
| Until they decide to change their mind
| 1-6 wrote:
| This does more for the environment than renewables. Kudos
| kramerger wrote:
| Serious question:
|
| Is the chromebook division run by an entire different company?
| They are great exactly where Google has otherwise failed.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| "Certain behaviors of a corporation look very different from
| how they usually seem to behave" is most easily explained by:
|
| {Google, Microsoft, Apple, Intel} is big enough so that {insert
| product here} operates a lot like an independent company, just
| with lots of automatic mind share (although that can backfire
| when the parent brand is devolving), access to top-tier
| lawyers, marketing, sales, etc people and practically infinite
| runway (as long as the bosses like what you do).
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean. When Google shut down Stadia they
| refunded everybody everything, for instance.
|
| Google generally seems to treat its users pretty well. As long
| as you can accept that free accounts don't come with any kind
| of customer service or recourse. And that it's going to shut
| down products that don't ultimately contribute to its bottom
| line, since it's a business.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| Wait... if you got a stadia/bought games, etc., all of it got
| refunded when they folded?!
| sangnoir wrote:
| Yes - all Stadia purchases were fully refunded - software
| _and_ hardware (Chromecast and controllers).
|
| Google also released a firmware update for the controllers
| allowing them to be used as generic Bluetooth controllers.
| It was the best Google product sunset I have experienced.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| Wow I'm really surprised I missed that!
|
| Google sure gets a ton of flack (and deservedly so) for
| unceremoniously axing beloved products that don't quite
| bring Google-scale revenue, but this sunset sounds beyond
| incredibly respectful to their users and really shines a
| positive light on them. The controller thing is such an
| unnecessary but trust-promoting thing to do!
| AuthError wrote:
| Yes also i think they sent out update for controllers so it
| can be used outside of stadia
| jeffbee wrote:
| ChromeOS always seemed to me an expression of the main stem of
| Google culture. Android, if that is the distinction you were
| drawing, is from an alien planet.
| kweingar wrote:
| That's an interesting perspective. When I think of core
| Google culture, the first thing that comes to mind is the
| mission statement, "to organize the world's information and
| make it universally accessible and useful".
|
| If search is the root, then the branches would be maps,
| street view, books, earth, scholar, patents, etc. Just
| cataloguing and indexing everything there is. Truly mind-
| blowing projects, each one of these. Hardware (and some of
| the other PAs) seem somewhat tangential to this core idea.
|
| What comes to mind for you when you think of Google culture,
| and what parts of that do you see in ChromeOS?
| jeffbee wrote:
| I always viewed platforms hardware as the core
| organization. I really think dirt-cheap computers is their
| core product and all those things you mentioned are just
| side-effects of owning a huge number of servers. The
| Chromebook definitely resembles the internal platforms
| approach to removing as much as possible from the machine.
| Everyone else has followed but in 2010 the CR48 was quite a
| bare-bones machine.
|
| On the software side, ChromeOS also reminds me of the
| Google's internal platforms software. Remove everything and
| start from scratch, build something that doesn't really
| resemble anyone else's Linux distro. Use all of the
| sandboxing and isolation features that other distros
| ignore, and invent a few new ones. Don't take the BIOS for
| granted. Maybe you don't need one.
| therealmarv wrote:
| Probably they are close to Google Chrome. Google is very good
| with development with Chrome IMHO.
| fzeindl wrote:
| Is there anything, maybe a legal agreement, that can stop google
| from breaking this promise in three years?
|
| They are not famous for longterm project management.
| Thorrez wrote:
| Has there been an instance of Google promising to support
| something for a certain number of years then failing to do so?
|
| Disclosure: I work at Google.
| agos wrote:
| Pixel Pass, which was supposed to give you a new phone after
| two years, was closed 22 months after being introduced.
| iamdelirium wrote:
| This was never suppose to give you a new phone after 2
| years. It was just a way to finance the phone. The way to
| upgrade was to get a new Pixel Pass that would lock you in
| another 2 years.
| eduction wrote:
| That's amazing, how did I miss this. What a classic example
| of Google's inability to see anything through (at least in
| consumer facing paid products!).
| hu3 wrote:
| > Can I still upgrade my Pixel device after 24 months?
|
| > Yes, you can still upgrade your Pixel device after 24
| months, you just won't be able to renew your subscription
| to Pixel Pass. You can purchase or finance your next Pixel
| device directly from Google Store or Google Fi Wireless,
| and you have the option to trade-in your current Pixel
| device towards your next device. Current Pixel Pass
| subscribers received $100 towards their next Pixel purchase
| good for 2 years, which can also be used alongside
| available promotions.
|
| https://support.google.com/pixelpass/answer/13968577?hl=en#
| z...
| sirjaz wrote:
| We need to go back to making everything available offline, and
| use local compute power. Chromebooks and the ChromeOS are useless
| really in offline mode unless you are technical expert. The Linux
| container and Android support is abysmal unless you have the
| fastest and most powerful chromebook. At which point you should
| just get a Windows machine with WSL and WSA, or a Macbook.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I can't think of one single way in which a Chromebook is less
| useful when offline than a laptop running some other operating
| system.
| sirjaz wrote:
| If you are only in a web only/SaaS type user.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I think those sorts of people would have trouble offline on
| any OS.
| mouse_ wrote:
| Google can't decide if they want it to be a cloud-terminal thin
| client OS or a powerful Windows-competitor, so we get the worst
| of both worlds.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Not true at all in my experience re:speed, it's really bizarre
| to me how often people assert that without even a token
| anecdote. It's not the same speed as your average devs machine
| but doesn't mean it's any slower than WSL on the same hardware
| sirjaz wrote:
| You still need the fastest hardware. It would be better if
| Google just released a true Linux desktop and killed ChromeOS
| all together. This would allow native application install and
| better hw support.
| refulgentis wrote:
| It does? I'm confused
| summerlight wrote:
| It is interesting to see a very specific number 2021
| here...Wonder why they picked that year as a cutoff? Did they
| have any (relatively) recent technology implemented around that
| time to make the update easier and future proof?
|
| I know that this kind of long commitment is painful for platforms
| because third parties won't do a shit for old machines and
| platforms usually don't have a good way to enforce them to update
| their problematic firmware or whatever.
| cududa wrote:
| Probably a certain class of chipset/ SoC that was used in a lot
| of machines sold that year? Also could be that in 2020, when
| schools were buying oodles of chromebooks during the pandemic:
| a) Schools were already buying years old models that made them
| infeasible to continue supporting b) ...they want all the
| schools that bought tons of chromebooks in 2020 to re-up
| 1-6 wrote:
| Why 10 years? 12 is a better. #Dozenal
| Projectiboga wrote:
| Hmm, I wonder if they will extend the update time frame for their
| Pixel Phones? The #a series only get 3 years of updates, which is
| way too short.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Is this contractually binding? Or is it an opinion piece on a
| blog with no legal impact?
| dnfjficiv wrote:
| [dead]
| amatecha wrote:
| Cool, the computer I use every day is older than that, and has
| the latest OpenBSD on it... and it cost me less than any
| Chromebook on the market (and I can upgrade/repair it myself).
| /shrug
| penguin_booze wrote:
| As a reminder, this is the same Google that once announced
| unlimited photos and such. No one should be surprised when they
| come back and say oopsie.
|
| Also, if you can replace the browser with Firefox, that'd be
| great - I might consider buying one.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-15 23:02 UTC)