Re: Food for thought (resurfacing)

On 7/30/2014 12:14 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
>     Could it also be due to the fact that the architectures of the systems
>     are tremendously different,
>
>
> They're really not. ChromeOS is Linux-derived.

Ignoring for the moment the tremendous range of complexity of Linux-derived 
systems (e.g. smartwatch to Red Hat Enterprise Linux), your comparison was 
to Windows. Windows is a system with a notoriously large, complex, and in 
some ways ad-hoc API surface area and internal structure. Worse, it has a 
user-extensible device driver ecosystem supporting a far wider range of 
hardware than I would expect to Chrome to support, and often windows does 
it with privileged device drivers. That was the comparison I thought you 
were over-simplifying. I would expect that even with auto-update on both, 
the differences in TCO might well be significant, and very possibly due to 
the complexities I've mentioned here.

Noah

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2014 13:22:53 UTC