[nextparadigms]

It looks like Google is the first company to have listened to Linus - 2560x1700 resolution laptop! They might want to use that resolution for tablets, too, as it would make them a little better for using them vertically. Although 2560x1800 would probably be even better.

I also hope it's another ARM Chromebook, as I don't want it to be very expensive and with poor battery life. In fact their goal for Chromebooks should be 10h battery life, not 6h.

[glasshead969]

Google is the second company. 13 inch Macbook Pro with 2560 x 1600 resolution was released last October.

[Jabbles]

Same time Linus made the comment.

https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/ByVPmsSeSEG

[glasshead969]

Yup. Apple announced Retina 13 inch on Oct 23 so even before Linus made that comment. And Retina 15 inch Macbook Pro (2880x1800) last June.

It wouldn't matter to Linus anyway if he doesn't care about apple gear.

Edit : As comments below me point out Linus uses a Mac in his work flow.

[damien]

Linus actually uses a MacBook Air: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/19/an-interview-with-millenium...

[prezjordan]

He uses a MacBook Air [0] for the hardware.

[0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/linus-torvalds-loves-his-macb...

[barredo]

This is a bit offtopic I think he uses Mac/s

[Jacqued]

I believe the point was that this would not be 16/9 ratio, not even 16/10, but 128/85.

Which would seem to be better because, frankly, 16/9 looks good on TVs but is really quite terrible on a computer. I even find 16/10 barely acceptable.

[wmf]

Of course, in retina mode that's an effective resolution of 1280x850. If this is real, it's not clear how Chrome OS would use it.

[ok_craig]

Isn't being ARM-based something that actually helps keep the hardware price down? I thought it was generally cheaper to go with chips like Snapdragon / Tegra / Exynos than, say, any Intel. And I also thought it actually helped with battery life. Do I have a completely wrong idea of ARM?

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the original Samsung Chromebook was ARM-based and the battery lasted forever. It wasn't the quickest device, though.

Edit: Nope, first Samsung Chromebook was Intel.

[nextparadigms]

Isn't that what I said? If it's a quad core Cortex A15, it should have decent performance, while keeping the cost very low, and high battery life.

However, knowing Google's track record with "new" products, they usually start out making them very expensive, because of stupid decisions they make (like using Intel chips). They did it with the first Chromebook, they did it with the first Google TV, with the first "real" android tablet, the Motorola Xoom, and the Nexus Q last year.

For some reason they don't seem to "get" the right price for a very new type of product, from the first time they launch it. They need like another iteration or two, before they get it, like with the ARM Samsung Chromebook, which hit the sweet spot for a low-end Chromebook at $250.

What "makes sense" to me is to do the same Chromebook now, but with a quad core A15 CPU, a bigger battery, a bigger screen and much bigger resolution, and a touchscreen. And with all of that the sweet spot should be $500. Definitely no more than that.

But again Google's track record is not great here, and I really fear they will build this with some dual core or quad core IVB chip, and make it like $800, which would be way too much for a Chromebook.

I do hope I'm wrong and they get it right though.

[ok_craig]

Oh snap, sorry about that. For some reason I read that line in your original comment as "I also hope it's not another ARM Chromebook".