Whatever You Do, Don't Buy a Chromebook

[tjeremiah]

Google's cloud-only Chrome OS vision is simply not baked, and it's not likely to ever to come together

The first Chromebooks, from Samsung and Acer, are finally starting to ship, after a six-month tease by Google for its foundational Chrome OS. (Samsung's white 3G model is now shippng, and its three other models and Acer's sole models are available for preorder.) Please, save youself $350 to $500 and avoid these cloud-only laptops. Spend your money on something you'll both use and enjoy, like an iPad 2 or Galaxy Tab 10.1. I write these words from a Chromebook, where my 802.11n network feels like it's traversing molasses when using Google Docs and other Internet service.

Read more at http://www.pcworld.com/article/230666/whatever_you_do_dont_buy_a_chromebook.html

[Mr. Picklesworth]

All fine and dandy, but I'm not sure it's entirely ethical to copy & paste somebody's article from pcworld like that. I'd suggest sticking the link at the top and putting the contents in quote tags ;)

[constellanation]

Google's cloud-only Chrome OS vision is simply not baked, and it's not likely to ever to come together

ever? that's quite a statement...


The first Chromebooks, from Samsung and Acer, are finally starting to ship, after a six-month tease by Google for its foundational Chrome OS. (Samsung's white 3G model is now shippng, and its three other models and Acer's sole models are available for preorder.) Please, save youself $350 to $500 and avoid these cloud-only laptops. Spend your money on something you'll both use and enjoy, like an iPad 2 or Galaxy Tab 10.1. I write these words from a Chromebook, where my 802.11n network feels like it's traversing molasses when using Google Docs and other Internet service.

I agree that 500 (and 350) is a bit much for these currently. Though they do have some higher end specs (ssd's mostly) and I'm writing this from my cr48 which is not slow as molasses.


The sad truth is that the Chrome OS vision of all your computing occuring through the Internet is an unsatisfying reality. I've tried to be open to the idea and given the beta Chrome OS the benefit of doubt in its early versions. But as the ship date approached, I began to get nervous that Google couldn't take Chrome OS beyond being an awkward sub-OS.

I'm sorry but an operating system is supposed to premier error free? I'm thinking neither ios nor android or any other operating system has ever done that.


Now that we're at the point of Chromebook reality, I cannot in good conscience be generous. The Chromebook concept is a failure, as is the foundational "Webtone" idea that Google got from Sun Microsystems.

Simply put, I don't believe Chrome OS will ever get as good as a world of real apps that tap into the Internet but don't depend on it. The Web apps that run on Chromebooks' Chrome OS -- and they're the only apps that can -- are still primitive and not that capable. Google itself still doesn't have its Google Apps -- the key apps it expects every Chrome OS user to rely on -- yet working in offline mode. That was promised for March, and still it's MIA. Remember, this is Google: a company that has no trouble shipping apps before they're ready.

The Web is not good enough to be your app library
I've been using a beta Chromebook since they were first available in December 2010 and working regularly on an iPad and MacBook Pro, as well as testing most major tablets, trying out the Atrix Lapdock (a dockable smartphone), and dabbling in Windows 7 periodically. It's become quite clear that the Web is an insufficient venue to handle all your computing needs.

Uhhh ok again, the chrome books began shipping when? like a week ago? There is also the idea that google is trying to promote web only operations. I.e. not being tied to operating system based apps. Which if you are forced to a web only OS people (read: developers) will begin to make more and more things available on the web.


Apple CEO Steve Jobs was right when he ended the Web-app-only strategy of the iPhone after its first year and switched to an Internet-enhanced native apps model. I didn't have an iPhone back then (2007), so I didn't experience what early iPhone users went through in a Web app-only world. But the iPhone as we know it did not explode until the native apps came. For Chrome OS, we don't need to wait: Windows 7 and Mac OS X are here today, and they can run Web apps, too.

The Chrome OS Web apps, as I said, are primitive. If you've used Webmail, you know what I mean. Imagine if all your apps were like that. They just don't compare to the quality of "real" apps, whether on a tablet or computer. Google's own cloud services, such as Google Docs, are awkward on Chromebook -- even moreso than they are on a PC. If Google can't do Web apps well, don't expect anyone else to.


was steve jobs right? at the time nothing (or atleast very little) was geared towards mobile computing so apps were needed.
I've had no problem with google docs on my cr48... and again. it's been out how long?



The Web is not good enough to be your information center
But there's more reason why the Chromebook is a concept you should not waste your money on. For one, online access is uncertain -- both its availability and its quality. If you're a traveler, Wi-Fi charges will rack up fast at airports, Starbucks, and hotels. And the free Verizon Wireless 3G access that comes with one of Samsung's Chromebooks is a laughable 100MB a month -- a teaser amount if I ever heard one. You'll quickly be shelling out real money for 3G data access; after all, Chromebooks can't do anything put play a cached version of Angry Birds (once you've loaded it over the air, of course) without a connection. If those promised services ever appear, streaming music and video would break the bank. Photos too will be data hogs as you move them from online photo services to your Chromebook each time you want to view them or work on them.

And this is different then the iphone you were just praising? also my cr48 does have local file storage that I can view photos from or listen to music on... and again how old is the os?


Plus, do you really want all your personal information stored in the cloud? Or have access to your data dependent on securing a reliable data connection and the money to keep its meter running?

Yes actually I like this idea. and my wifi at home and work is free... that's where I am 95% percent of the time...


If you use a Chromebook only in Wi-Fi hotspots, such as at home and at the office, the meter won't be running, so the Chromebook is more plausible in terms of reliable connectivity. But then you are, ironically, tethered to your wireless networks. It's a brick elsewhere, while all your data is in the cloud, even if just as a waystation from other computers.

I can't even really decipher this poor form of logic.


Then there are the contextual activities we take for granted, but don't exist in the Chrome OS world. For example, forget about printing -- you need a Windows PC on a network to be a waystation to your printer unless you're one of the few people with an ePrint-capable Wi-Fi printer. Also, don't even consider syncing to your iPod; there's no way to connect to iTunes. Or to your BlackBerry, Droid, Zune, or other media devices. (Apple's forthcoming iOS 5 will let its devices work without a computer, so ironically they may be the only realistic companion devices for a Chromebook.)

Yeah printing is sort of a pain. But I doubt many people would be using a chromebook as their only (and primary computer) so it is at current logical that they would have another computer to do cloud print with. And I don't really print that much anyway.

umm syncing, possibly not with an iphone or ipod that rely heavily on their itunes interface, but both my camera and android phone connect fine.



Welcome to life with only a browser.

The browser-in-a-box is not good enough to be your computer

please don't speak for me, k? thnx



The Chromebooks are touted as simpler, cheaper devices that you can afford to lose, both because they're not costly and because they contain no data or apps. Thus, their hardware is quite primitive, per Google's specs. That keeps battery life comparable to that of an iPad, and it restricts the weight to three or four pounds. You can use a mouse or external USB keyboard, as well as acccess some external storage via what are essentially FTP windows.

ok, sure....


This may sound great for a company that doesn't want to buy computers or maintain them. But what are the chances that they can rely solely on Google Docs and similar services? Very small. Better to use VDI technology with real computers or even simple netbooting of "dumb terminal" Macs over the network. The cost wil be higher than using Chromebooks as wireless dumb terminals, but they'll actually be able to do the work.

I can't speak for corporations... but I imagine there are some things out there besides google docs...


For the rest of us, the Chromebooks lack Bluetooth, so you can't use wireless peripherals, which are gaining in popularity. You also can't use Bluetooth headsets for apps such as Skype or media players -- but given the communications issue I've cited, using Skype and digital media probably isn't realistic on Chromebooks anyhow.

communications issues? and though I don't use skype, I think it would actually be ideal on this type of computer. And bluetooth I believe is (if not already implemented in the os) just a hardware thing.


Plus, with the rare exception of ePrint models (which the iPad was supposed to popularize last October, but has failed to do so), you can't connect a printer except if you have a PC on all day acting as its print server and are willing to go through Google's very convoluted setup.


actually the setup seemed pretty easy if I remember the one time I ran through it... but again I rarely print anything.


iPads and other tablets can't do some of these things, either, but they're not pretending to be an alternative to Windows and Mac OS X (a claim made by Google's executives when they formally announced Chrome OS last December). In addition, they work much better with apps, with easier work-arounds for wireless printing. They also work with Bluetooth to varying degrees.

I'd disagree that they aren't pretending to be alternatives... seriously disagree.


This constrained hardware does simplify the Chromebooks. It also makes them commodity products for which the manufacturers can do little other than style the case, choose the keyboard and trackpad feel, and select the screen quality. They're basically just boxes. Samsung's Chromebooks are nice-looking boxes, a very strong copy of the Apple MacBook design, just as the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 is clearly a clone of the iPad's design. Acer's Chromebook looks like a generic Windows laptop.

not sure why the galaxy tab showed up in this.. and again those are different hardware manufacturers... and I suppose for an extra 1000 dollars plus you could get the macbook...


Ths means that the real driver and innovator behind the Chromebook is and will be Google.

Can Google really deliver a polished product?
That worries me, and it should worry you. Google plays with lots of technologies, and it has a culture of releasing incomplete software, then dropping it suddenly. Google throws half-baked technology against the wall, hoping it will cook itself as it travels in the air or as it sticks on the surface. I know Google has spent years on Chrome OS, so this is not a whimsical product. But those years of invesment aren't apparent in the final result.

ugghhh ok. I uhhh don't even know how to respond to that. But I would disagree with it I think.


Worse, the Chromebooks are advertised as having the benefit of improving over time due to regular self-updates. That means they're not ready for prime time and you're paying to be a beta tester. Major OSes like Windows and Mac OS X get updates periodically, but what ships is considered a viable product in its own right -- not so with Chrome OS, just as it has not been so with Google Docs.

actually that is a security and ease of use design... it has nothing to do with being an incomplete product (which I do think it is actually)


I'm tired of being told that half-baked is innovative. Thirty-plus years into the PC revolution, it's time to expect that products work well when they're sold for money. Apple has understood that, which is why it's the only PC maker to grow every quarter. Google doesn't.

Ohh you are an apple fanboy. I thought so, now I'm sure. and name a product that apple has ever produced that hasn't needed improvement at some point? Go on, I'll wait...


The Chromebooks are an interesting but failed experiment, not a product.

already? damn that was quick.


Even if you would use the Chromebook as a secondary, supplemental device -- an adjunct to your PC or Mac -- you'll have to contend with all these issues. Frankly, a tablet is a better option to be such an adjunct: It fits both the Mac and PC environments better, it supports apps whether or not you have a wireless connection, and it's much easier to carry around.

again I am typing this from my cr48, which I much prefer over the ipad sitting not 10 feet from me because it has a keyboard...


Maybe the Chromebook has some appeal because it's both new and trying to do something different. Kudos to Google for that. But if you want to invest in innovative experimentation, go for an iPad 2 or one of the better Android tablets (a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 or a Motorola Mobility Xoom); they're actual products, as well as innovators. Or just get a lightweight laptop -- a MacBook Air or a Windows ultralight -- so you have your computer and Web apps world, too.

Just don't buy a Chromebook.

Finally I agree, as is the chromebooks are over priced and in their infancy, however I think your poorly edited reasons were not the right ones to justify not buying one (currently.)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/230666/whatever_you_do_dont_buy_a_chromebook.html[/QUOTE]

[LowSky]

I really like the design of the sammy model.

Here's my 2 pennies... who does anything these days not online.
spreadsheets and word processing make up very tiny portions of what I do.

The funny thing is Google made an OS, by saying they only made a browser. The way I see it Google re-created Windows pre-95. ChromeOS is a modern version of Windows 3.11.

[ctrlmd]

i wouldn't put 500$ on a browser =/

[mmsmc]

i wouldn't put 500$ on a browser =/


would you do it for a Klondike bar?

[Legendary_Bibo]

My friend got the $500 samsung one and he seems to like it, he does everything online. Me, personally I do a lot of my word processing and stuff locally, and there's no comparable online app that's as powerful as Adbobe CS4/5 or Gimp.

He keeps a second computer for actual work.

[ctrlmd]

would you do it for a Klondike bar?

hmmmm its seems you know klondike bar pretty well don't you ?

[BLTicklemonster]

I really like the design of the sammy model.

Here's my 2 pennies... who does anything these days not online.
spreadsheets and word processing make up very tiny portions of what I do.

The funny thing is Google made an OS, by saying they only made a browser. The way I see it Google re-created Windows pre-95. ChromeOS is a modern version of Windows 3.11.

I do a lot of photography, and for danged sure don't want to be held hostage by the (in)abilities of some I(dio)T "guru" somewhere who was flipping burgers (the wrong way, mind you) just 6 months ago.

I want all my stuff (games, photos, research) here locally, and the internet out there where it's supposed to be.

I don't think that net based computers will be as big a thing as the talking heads make it out to be. Sure, there are people who can live life without ever worrying about their connection, but I don't think this will all be as big or as permanent as folks think it will be.

[Nyromith]

I would like to see the Chrome OS fail, It will be a victory for all of us. There are plenty of light OSes for cheap netbooks, on which you can install whatever you want without being held by your throat.

[owiknowi]

I would like to see the Chrome OS fail, It will be a victory for all of us. There are plenty of light OSes for cheap netbooks, on which you can install whatever you want without being held by your throat.

you mean something like that os with closed windows? lol

over here, in holland that is, there are just a few brands that don't come shipped with a pre installed os.
and what's more: put a penguin in your new closed source computer and it probably will void the warranty...

[Dragonbite]

Fast, light and easy. The Chromebook does much of what I need. I don't expect mine to replace my "workhorse" for doing any development work, but neither does any of the tablets out there except maybe with the exception of Microsoft's.

Harware wise, there isn't much spectacular; 8+ hour battry life, 1-second resume, <10 second bootup, USB, SD, VGA, light weight.

The operating system works fine for me.

I use my Chromebook for typing documentation and articles, project management, image editing, notes, email, office documents and presentations, and more.

The convenience is not only using documents in the Cloud so changes I apply while at work are there when I get home, the Chrome/Chromium/ChromeOS are all synchronized so if I add a bookmark or app to one, it is available on all of the other systems too.

For me, it does what I want. And $350 is only slightly less than the System76 Starling Netbook. Not bad for a product that is just coming out and getting early adopters. When products first come out they are usually more expensive because the price goes down afterwards.

So $350-500 now, subject to go lower in the future and with nothing more than putting in my credentials into a new system and I am migrated.

Not bad.

[owiknowi]

Fast, light and easy. The Chromebook does much of what I need. I don't expect mine to replace my "workhorse" for doing any development work, but neither does any of the tablets out there except maybe with the exception of Microsoft's.

Harware wise, there isn't much spectacular; 8+ hour battry life, 1-second resume, <10 second bootup, USB, SD, VGA, light weight.

The operating system works fine for me.

I use my Chromebook for typing documentation and articles, project management, image editing, notes, email, office documents and presentations, and more.

The convenience is not only using documents in the Cloud so changes I apply while at work are there when I get home, the Chrome/Chromium/ChromeOS are all synchronized so if I add a bookmark or app to one, it is available on all of the other systems too.

For me, it does what I want. And $350 is only slightly less than the System76 Starling Netbook. Not bad for a product that is just coming out and getting early adopters. When products first come out they are usually more expensive because the price goes down afterwards.

So $350-500 now, subject to go lower in the future and with nothing more than putting in my credentials into a new system and I am migrated.

Not bad.

not trying to be a kill joy, but what about your privacy? and what's more: who may/can do what with everything you create when stored on a remote server?

weren't there some privacy issues with that same company not so long ago?

[Dragonbite]

not trying to be a kill joy, but what about your privacy? and what's more: who may/can do what with everything you create when stored on a remote server?

weren't there some privacy issues with that same company not so long ago?

I don't have anything really interesting for them to see ;)

Ultimately risks to online and risks to local are different but both are present. The internet is not a place for the paranoid.

Cloud computing you worry about a company snooping in your files. In local systems you have to worry about rootkits like Sony.

Yes, Linux is safer than Windows, and a lot of these issues do not arise... yet.

You are always at risk when running wireless regardless of the OS.

It comes down to diligence. Are you diligent about which websites you use and what you store in them? Are you diligent about running security updates routinely? Are you careful about what small-time 3rd party program you install?

A while ago, don't know if it is still up, there was a malware-infecting site that was made to look exactly like Ad-Aware!

If you don't take enough precautions to be comfortable using the Cloud, are you really being safe?

The biggest limitation I see is backing up your files lest a company "winks out of existence". It is not easy, and sometimes not available.

On the other hand, I know if about as many companies that "winked out of existence" as I know people whose hard drive failed on them.

For my Google account, I do use the 2-step verification system. Plus I try not to put everything into one company or another.

For office, you don't have to use Google. There is Microsoft Office (recommended if you really need to have compatibility, even if the editor is limited) and ZoHo office. There are other, smaller sites too.

[youbuntu]

There's more chance of me buying a pet unicorn, than adopting this ridiculous platform. ;)

[owiknowi]

@Dragonbite

true: risks are always present in the past, present and, undoubtedly, the future.
the thing however is to be given the opportunity to make a reasonable and sensible choice based on proper information: risks vs. benefits.

i would like to read(!) information on how they store my data, back up intervals, physical location of data storage (laws on that are different per country) and for example make it easy to back up all of my online data to a local medium whenever i choose.

hardware failures, rapidly changing companies and/or policies should however not have to be taken in consideration, that would be too much like the powers that we hardly or even not at all are able to control (sun flares, fires, wars, black holes, ignorance, etc.)

so, just again i.m.h.o., offering so called 'free' (web)services but using the information thus obtained without ones consent is not a good policy and sometimes even illegal.

companies providing online services should be transparent about their policies and offer an understandable eula to their users.

-> cloud computing: just a fancy word for the good old server-client concept... another soap opera?

[NightwishFan]

I prefer to keep as much local to my disk as I can thanks. However such operating systems are not likely to die soon so I do not see the Chrome OS as a threat to my computing habits.

[Ric_NYC]

Try to use one of those in the NYC subway...

[jhonan]

-> cloud computing: just a fancy word for the good old server-client concept... another soap opera?
Actually, the 'paradigm shift' (whatever that ever meant) has come full-circle and it's more like mainframe-terminal, but with a prettier terminal window than the 1970 version.

[Dragonbite]

-> cloud computing: just a fancy word for the good old server-client concept... another soap opera?

It's meaning, I think, depends on its use.

Sys Admins may look at cloud computing of being able to add additional processing power when necessary, and reduce it when not.

Developers may look at cloud computing as the thinking of integrating services from different locations and to provide the tools for the user to create and store files or information on the server.

Users might see the Cloud as file creation, storage and accessibility all being present in the internet without having to do "programming magic" any more than is done on their more familiar local computers.


Try to use one of those in the NYC subway...

I would... if I lived in NYC.

A neat aspect is they are working towards making online applications available offline and in a way "merge" the concepts of Androids "interrupted" network connection and local apps with ChromeOS's "required" network connection and cloud-based apps.

It could turn out in a few years the ChromeOS and Android are merged into something that is the best of both worlds.

Like I mentioned, it doesn't take the place of my productive systems, just a number of daily "mundane" tasks. Right now I don't think it is poised to take the complete place of most people's local systems, just extend it much the way the phones and tablets have been.

I do agree that more open Cloud computing is essential and hope that some open source projects can really begin to take hold!

While for now one is limited to the offering of large companies, I would love to see open source projects one is able to place on their own "private cloud" they host where they want.

[jerenept]

It's meaning, I think, depends on its use.

Sys Admins may look at cloud computing of being able to add additional processing power when necessary, and reduce it when not.

Developers may look at cloud computing as the thinking of integrating services from different locations and to provide the tools for the user to create and store files or information on the server.

Users might see the Cloud as file creation, storage and accessibility all being present in the internet without having to do "programming magic" any more than is done on their more familiar local computers.



I would... if I lived in NYC.

A neat aspect is they are working towards making online applications available offline and in a way "merge" the concepts of Androids "interrupted" network connection and local apps with ChromeOS's "required" network connection and cloud-based apps.

It could turn out in a few years the ChromeOS and Android are merged into something that is the best of both worlds.

Like I mentioned, it doesn't take the place of my productive systems, just a number of daily "mundane" tasks. Right now I don't think it is poised to take the complete place of most people's local systems, just extend it much the way the phones and tablets have been.

I do agree that more open Cloud computing is essential and hope that some open source projects can really begin to take hold!

While for now one is limited to the offering of large companies, I would love to see open source projects one is able to place on their own "private cloud" they host where they want.

https://one.ubuntu.com/

[Mr. Picklesworth]

https://one.ubuntu.com/

Ubuntu One is only really open source in its client end. You could run your own server — as I understand it they'll be happy to take patches for the U1 client code to support multiple hosts — but it's up to you to glue it together.

OwnCloud (http://owncloud.org/) and SparkleShare (http://sparkleshare.org/) might be better examples.

[Dragonbite]

Ubuntu One is only really open source in its client end. You could run your own server — as I understand it they'll be happy to take patches for the U1 client code to support multiple hosts — but it's up to you to glue it together.

OwnCloud (http://owncloud.org/) and SparkleShare (http://sparkleshare.org/) might be better examples.

Those both look very interesting!

[Nyromith]

The whole point in cloud computing is covering everything in mist. You don't know where your information is stored and what is done with it.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Amazon had a problem with the way it did backups that took sites down. Sony, Sega, CIA, etc., have been hacked recently. I think I will risk having my data and applications on my own system, and storing backups in a safe deposit box at the Bank.

[libssd]

More than anything, the Chromebooks are aimed at people who don't want to be bothered with maintaining a computer OS. I started setting up a Win7 notebook for a friend this morning, and still haven't finished. Compare that to the 2 minutes it took me to get a Cr-48 going in December.

Would I buy a Chromebook if I didn't already have a Cr-48? This summer, absolutely not. Next summer, if they're available with faster processors and GPU, and Chrome OS has evolved to fill in some of the glaring holes in functionality, perhaps.

There's a lot that I can't do with my Cr-48. There's a lot that I can't do with Ubuntu. I don't consider either a failure, and I'm not going to run out and buy a Windows machine just because Windows runs Flash better, or a Mac (if I didn't already have one) to just to use iTunes. Realistically, my Cr-48 does 90% of what I normally do, and is an excellent travel computer because of its long battery life and 3G capability.

[akand074]

That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Chrome was made for a very specific audience. That has been made very, very clear by Google. Then you get the people saying it's crap because it doesn't do everything the way they'd use a main machine. I haven't actually used it myself, but it looks very good for what it's designed for.

[Dragonbite]

I haven't kept up with it, but there is also the focus on providing it (renting it) to schools and businesses for something like $20/month.

At that rate, for school it would be close to $200 for something that has good battery life, when you turn it in you don't lose any of your work and if you break it (like spill beer all over it), you still haven't lost anything unless you save things on the hard drive.

And when you are home, if your local Chrome/Chromium is synchronized then you really don't lose much of anything at all.

There has also been talk about an ARM-based Chromebook which could bring the price down into the mid-to-sub-$200.

I think that price includes 2 years of 3G connectivity as well.

[d3v1150m471c]

All fine and dandy, but I'm not sure it's entirely ethical to copy & paste somebody's article from pcworld like that. I'd suggest sticking the link at the top and putting the contents in quote tags ;)

the article was clearly open source and he did include the change log lol

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

There's no way I'd pay a couple hundred bucks for it, but I don't see it as a total failure. I think Google is just ahead of the game right now. Eventually everyone will be on board, but I think there is still a lot of broadband to be spread around before the market as a whole will want these kind of products.

I was actually hoping Google would choose me for the pilot program, but they didn't.

[Morrands]

The Chromebooks will have a short life because the people know that it's not worth it to buy a laptop with just a browser as OS.
The few people who have bought it, they will realize that they can't do everything with those ******* google apps.
I'm proud to have my laptop running Ubuntu 11.10 :guitar:

[Paqman]

The few people who have bought it, they will realize that they can't do everything with those ******* google apps.


Maybe for now. But the whole reason Google have created ChromeOS is to nudge us a little closer to a world where you can do everything with web apps.

[smellyman]

Maybe for now. But the whole reason Google have created ChromeOS is to nudge us a little closer to a world where you can do everything with web apps.

to nudge us a little closer to a world where Google is the web and they own you.

[Paqman]

to nudge us a little closer to a world where Google is the web and they own you.

Ever known a company to launch a product for any other reason than self-interest?

[Dr. C]

If one does not like Chrome OS why not just install Ubuntu on it? The one advantage over a Microsoft Windows based laptop is that since Chrome OS is GNU/Linux based it is highly likely that it will work out of the box with Ubuntu.

[Dragonbite]

I still have my Cr-48 and it is probably what I use the most. My desktop runs Ubuntu which the family uses, and I am setting up a Windows (XP) machine for my wife to use (Linux doesn't quite make it for graphical uses in this instance).

Heck, when I get a chance I want to see if I can convert some old desktops to ChromiumOS so that way
little or no system maintenance
practically thin-client like consistancy with all of my other systems
much of what I do, I can do online
I'm working on what I cannot do online ... yet.

So it may not be for everyone. When working with PHP development, I find gPHPEdit and Bluefish much better but that is only "so far".