Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coreboot Now Has Support For Intel Broadwell Hardware

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Coreboot Now Has Support For Intel Broadwell Hardware

    Phoronix: Coreboot Now Has Support For Intel Broadwell Hardware

    It appears that Google engineers are getting ready Intel Broadwell support for future Chromebooks/Chromeboxes. Broadwell support is now present within Coreboot...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTgyMTc

  • #2
    Sigh. Google is making such a strategic mistake of catastrophic proportions helping Intel own Chromebooks, when it could just as easily be ARM, since you pretty much only need to run web apps on top of the OS, which are architecture agnostic.

    I see Google still hasn't realized one simple equation. Helping Intel = helping Microsoft. The more Google helps Intel become more viable in mobile and in low-end PCs (instead of ARM), the more they are helping Microsoft make a comeback using the *same processors*. Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage on ARM, because it doesn't have support for it. Google is not. It should be taking advantage of that.

    Instead I keep seeing over and over again how Google seems to treat ARM as second class citizen, EVEN THOUGH the vast majority of Chromebooks are $300 ones with weak chips. In fact, Intel has completely scrapped the plan to use Haswell Celerons in Chromebooks for under $300 now. They only did it for a while, with highly subsidized chips, so people start asking for those "fast" $300 Intel Chromebooks. But Intel is now putting Atom "Celerons" in Chromebooks, which are at BEST as good as the ARM chips, at worst have half the performance of the latest ARM chip, like Nvidia's Denver.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Krysto View Post
      Sigh. Google is making such a strategic mistake of catastrophic proportions helping Intel own Chromebooks, when it could just as easily be ARM, since you pretty much only need to run web apps on top of the OS, which are architecture agnostic.

      I see Google still hasn't realized one simple equation. Helping Intel = helping Microsoft. The more Google helps Intel become more viable in mobile and in low-end PCs (instead of ARM), the more they are helping Microsoft make a comeback using the *same processors*. Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage on ARM, because it doesn't have support for it. Google is not. It should be taking advantage of that.

      Instead I keep seeing over and over again how Google seems to treat ARM as second class citizen, EVEN THOUGH the vast majority of Chromebooks are $300 ones with weak chips. In fact, Intel has completely scrapped the plan to use Haswell Celerons in Chromebooks for under $300 now. They only did it for a while, with highly subsidized chips, so people start asking for those "fast" $300 Intel Chromebooks. But Intel is now putting Atom "Celerons" in Chromebooks, which are at BEST as good as the ARM chips, at worst have half the performance of the latest ARM chip, like Nvidia's Denver.
      Maybe you should take a few seconds to look up Windows RT instead of writing three paragraphs implying such a thing doesn't exist.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Krysto View Post
        Sigh. Google is making such a strategic mistake of catastrophic proportions helping Intel own Chromebooks, when it could just as easily be ARM, since you pretty much only need to run web apps on top of the OS, which are architecture agnostic.

        I see Google still hasn't realized one simple equation. Helping Intel = helping Microsoft. The more Google helps Intel become more viable in mobile and in low-end PCs (instead of ARM), the more they are helping Microsoft make a comeback using the *same processors*. Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage on ARM, because it doesn't have support for it. Google is not. It should be taking advantage of that.

        Instead I keep seeing over and over again how Google seems to treat ARM as second class citizen, EVEN THOUGH the vast majority of Chromebooks are $300 ones with weak chips. In fact, Intel has completely scrapped the plan to use Haswell Celerons in Chromebooks for under $300 now. They only did it for a while, with highly subsidized chips, so people start asking for those "fast" $300 Intel Chromebooks. But Intel is now putting Atom "Celerons" in Chromebooks, which are at BEST as good as the ARM chips, at worst have half the performance of the latest ARM chip, like Nvidia's Denver.
        I don't know man. I can't understant how fan-less, even sink-less chip can have the performace of an desktop intel chip. Moreover as you see Google tries to have completely open-source laptop, including the BIOS. What about the GPU blobs of ARM chips. Let alone nvidia blobs...And m$ is dead as an OS vendor. They will offer 10 as free update to 7,8, and the next step will probably be completely free for anyone. Apps are going into the cloud anyway.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Krysto View Post
          Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage on ARM, because it doesn't have support for it.
          Just sayin, using Windows RT (the version of Windows 8/8.1 for ARM processors), it will run 99% of the "metro apps" (AKA apps from the Windows App Store) just fine. If you use the SDK/etc available from Microsoft, it's ridiculously easy to write a cross-platform "metro" app that runs across all of the Windows devices.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Krysto View Post
            I see Google still hasn't realized one simple equation. Helping Intel = helping Microsoft. The more Google helps Intel become more viable in mobile and in low-end PCs (instead of ARM), the more they are helping Microsoft make a comeback using the *same processors*. Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage on ARM, because it doesn't have support for it. Google is not. It should be taking advantage of that.
            Are you seriously think that if Google will own laptop market without competition from Microsoft it's will be better for everyone?

            Fact that's Google improve coreboot is great, but what's their ChromeOS is doing it's just plain evil and it's a lot worse than what Microsoft always did. And Intel is one of few companies which actually did something useful for real GNU/Linux desktop while crappy ARM vendors don't even have working 3D drivers (not even saying about open source one).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Styromaniac View Post
              Maybe you should take a few seconds to look up Windows RT instead of writing three paragraphs implying such a thing doesn't exist.
              WART is dead. only windows x86 is alive.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Krysto View Post
                Sigh. Google is making such a strategic mistake of catastrophic proportions helping Intel own Chromebooks, when it could just as easily be ARM, since you pretty much only need to run web apps on top of the OS, which are architecture agnostic.

                I see Google still hasn't realized one simple equation. Helping Intel = helping Microsoft. The more Google helps Intel become more viable in mobile and in low-end PCs (instead of ARM), the more they are helping Microsoft make a comeback using the *same processors*. Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage on ARM, because it doesn't have support for it. Google is not. It should be taking advantage of that.
                Hmm, it seems in your world "nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes" and helping Microsoft.

                I've "enjoyed" an ARM-based NAS crap once, I won't give a second shoot if I have choices.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Krysto View Post
                  Sigh. Google is making such a strategic mistake of catastrophic proportions helping Intel own Chromebooks, when it could just as easily be ARM, since you pretty much only need to run web apps on top of the OS, which are architecture agnostic.

                  I see Google still hasn't realized one simple equation. Helping Intel = helping Microsoft. The more Google helps Intel become more viable in mobile and in low-end PCs (instead of ARM), the more they are helping Microsoft make a comeback using the *same processors*. Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage on ARM, because it doesn't have support for it. Google is not. It should be taking advantage of that.

                  Instead I keep seeing over and over again how Google seems to treat ARM as second class citizen, EVEN THOUGH the vast majority of Chromebooks are $300 ones with weak chips. In fact, Intel has completely scrapped the plan to use Haswell Celerons in Chromebooks for under $300 now. They only did it for a while, with highly subsidized chips, so people start asking for those "fast" $300 Intel Chromebooks. But Intel is now putting Atom "Celerons" in Chromebooks, which are at BEST as good as the ARM chips, at worst have half the performance of the latest ARM chip, like Nvidia's Denver.
                  Give it tme, AMD's 64-bit ARM chips are already out in dev boards targeted at servers, if they start taking off AMD would be stupid to not expand ther reach. Where else are you going to find an ARM SoC that has both SATA and PCIe?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Drago View Post
                    I don't know man. I can't understant how fan-less, even sink-less chip can have the performace of an desktop intel chip. Moreover as you see Google tries to have completely open-source laptop, including the BIOS. What about the GPU blobs of ARM chips. Let alone nvidia blobs...And m$ is dead as an OS vendor. They will offer 10 as free update to 7,8, and the next step will probably be completely free for anyone. Apps are going into the cloud anyway.
                    If that ever happens, I suspect it will be because someone just does the maths and realises how expensive maintenance for old operating systems has been thus far compared to revenues. The situation of having to keep maintaining Vista closer to end of this decade is just nuts. It's as if every Windows was a LTS

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X