Metal, the primary target, on Macs with 96 GB or more. Smaller machines can use SSD streaming. SSD streaming is also needed in order to run very large models such as full GLM 5.x (not Flash) on 128GB systems
Anyone tested token speeds at less than 96gb RAM on apple?
It's edge case, but I think it's an example of how Firefox is not keeping up with demand for more functionality. Firefox is slowly becoming obselete and Mozilla won't acknowledge it.
Yes, no doubt over the years it has not been well run from a business perspective, and it is of note that the browser that was created by it's ex co-founder is found above it in the download charts on app stores.
Mozilla have been terrible at marketing and strategy and innovating technically from a end user experience perspective. With the amount of guaranteed money from the Google deal they had annually, they should have done so much more.
Yup. They can only offer limited built-in protection due to their revenue source, but important to note that unlike Chrome they don't dictate on what extensions can offer.
So they are practically speaking the only game in town (Brave being the exception on Chrome as they are keeping support for UBlock Origin)
Firefox Nightly on Android also allows desktop extensions to be used.
Why? They haven't killed anything, they have reduced support from 10 years to 8.
Chromebooks tend to be cheap relative to other laptops so 8 years isn't bad. Android tablets and Phones costing 2 or 3 times a chrome book have been promised 7 years for Android.
I also have two X220 machines, and I use them more than the X200 now. They still work perfectly, while my X200 is getting flakey. (Although with its SSD and 8GB of RAM, it runs Alpine very well indeed and could be a daily driver.)
The X220 has a slightly shallowed screen; that's a weakness. But mine are 100% usable: between them, I run Haiku, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Ubuntu, and Pop OS, and all of them go like stink and are daily-drivable on this 2011 hardware.
I have an X230 which was upgraded with a quad-core CPU (i7-3612qe), 16gb RAM, SSD, and 1080p screen, and it makes a pretty decent around-the-house laptop. I'd rate it pretty highly; it's not quite as fast as my 6th gen X1 Carbon but the X1 is starting to get quite flaky.
If that is good enough, I will put up with a bad screen.
Good speakers is very nice to have, I admit, but I do not do podcasts or videos. I do listen to the radio a lot, however.
I do not own a single laptop with 32GB RAM. That I don't care about. My desktop does, but the biggest laptops are 24GB, which was massively cheaper. Most are 16GB which I find enough for even quite intensive use.
"Best build quality" is the most important part. If you never got to handle one you are missing out. Glass and Solid milled aluminum. Silicone wrist pads and grip. 4:3 screen ratio. high quality keyboard. Rock solid 360 screen hinge.
Hardware is essentially a high end cellphone from 2016, which isn't a powerhouse but still does everything I would ask of a chromebook in 2026. Batteries are all generally going well.
Repair-ability is a challenge, but I want to work on that. You can mod it to run windows or linux. Stock it runs chromeos, linux subsystem, and android apps. It has a "feature" where if you keep in developer mode it auto-wipes itself if anybody else tries to boot it (hitting anything but the un-indicated ctrl-d at the boot screen initiates powerwash). Great for international travel.
It isn't a good choice for "power" but dominates every other aspect of "being a good laptop". It was too expensive for the chromebook market back then, but now you can pick them up for $200 and hand them to your parents and stop getting asked to fix their computer.
> Googlebooks are the Google's replacement for Chromebooks, the web-centric computers it launched in 2011 and which run ChromeOS....
The newer Googlebook range uses more powerful processors than their predecessors, plus a new OS called Googlebook OS that bakes in Google’s Gemini AI – a product the Chocolate Factory is very keen to see succeed as the great AI land grab continues.
...If you buy a Chromebook today, updates will end in 2034 eight years into the future
So they have introduced a major change and said any older Chromebooks bought going forward will only get 8. So its not a retrospective reduction for existing customers.
Sounds reasonable.
8 years is still a long time for a cheap Chromebook.
If you bought a Chromebook a month ago, updates for Chrome OS will also end in 8 years, not 10; Google promises you will get a new OS for the device [0]:
> ChromeOS devices will continue to receive regular updates and security patches through mid-2034. For qualifying devices purchased today whose 10-year support lifecycle extends beyond 2034, Google is committed to supporting your transition to Googlebook OS, with many devices offering direct migration paths.
Large organisations don’t buy a single batch of machines then call it a day. If an organisation standardised on Chromebooks because of the support period, they will still need to buy new machines and those won’t get the support period they had expected.
The worst part is that Google does not have full MDM management for Googlebooks out of the box and won't have that until "late 2027". That means these can't even be deployed to enterprise until proper policies and MDM frameworks even get built for the OS.
I see orgs flipping back to Macbook Neos now. Google just handed Apple the education market back on a light blue and green platter.
are you saying google is betraying them unless they sell new chromebooks with 10y chromeOS contracts going forward until the heat death of the universe?
No one here is saying companies need to offer products forever. They do need to honor their commitments made in the past. For purchasers who bought more than two years ago and those who purchase after today, there's no issue. They are getting what was promised prior to their purchase. People who bought in 2024 or before will get 10 years. People who buy tomorrow will get 8 years.
The only issue is for those who purchased Chromebooks in the past two years. They purchased based on a promise of ten years support. Now Google is retroactively clawing back two years of that support. If today Google had announced 2036 as end of support instead of 2034, there'd be no problem.
From my understanding of the article, it sounds like ChromeOS support is getting pared back for those devices, but the devices themselves should still be supported, albeit via a (planned but not yet in existence) migration path to GooglebookOS.
Although tbh, I've not really used either in anger, so I can't really comment on if that is a raw deal or not. (Beyond the usual dislike of change that will always be encountered).
Anthropic yesterday: We have perfect AI agents to do everything now, value us at $100 Trillion
Anthropic today: We don't really have AI agents, they are glorified versions of automation scripts and one has broken today. But tomorrow we will have perfect AI agents, so still value us at $100 Trillion.
A more cynical version of me could imagine scheduling an outage to make people think about how dependent they are on your product in advance of the IPO
For a non technical user it is much easier to right click a link (for example a reference in a news article) and choose Split View than arrange two windows (which may involve 2 different monitors).
For a Teams/Zoom screen where you are sharing only one app rather than whole desktop, again split may help.
Also good for mental switching, as you can open a link to the side and either promote to it's own tab/close and carry on with same page rather than have it open separately and break the flow
>It's been well documented that Anthropic's revenue growth in 2026 has been enormous.
Has it? Don't they just self-leak/press release 'ARR' revenue claims? Has there been any audited and formal filings? Including all the off-balance sheet and other creative stuff
We've also heard plenty of stories from companies like Uber about a need to set a limit on their token spending because they were spending so much on Anthropic. That's a solid sign that the revenue numbers are real.
What Uber and other companies said is that the money they spent didn't generate the expected value they were promised. If it had generated $2 for every $1 spent, then Uber would be spending with no limits.
The lack of demonstrable return on investment means there is a ceiling to the market size, and profit is capped as cheaper models and self hosted open source models limit the amount flagship models can charge.
Long way to go till market saturation though so they will grow for foreseeable, but its a quandary of how much they spend on R&D vs giving future shareholders dividends.
If Uber caps employee AI spend at $1500, then they've just admitted per employee AI spend on par with premium health care or commercial rent both in the 1000-1500 range, and this limited to just technical employees, i.e. subsect so presumably AI as % of business cost even lower. Health insurance 1T industry... commercial RE like 100 billion...
Anthropic thinks it's worth more than insuring all US workers AND putting roof over their heads. AI sector thinks its worth magnitude more in aggregate. If they fully displace people, i.e. untied to headcount eventually then sure, but if not, based on what Uber pays, AI is basically worth as much as insurance.
I didn't mean 'no ROI', clearly AI is a productivity boost.
For the AI companies to IPO at the money they want, they have to promise that they are going to be worth many multiples more of that value.
But currently they are spending hundreds of billions and despite this their models are not light years ahead of each other, or of the companies with much lower budgets and compute power.
What they claim they can offer in future profits is subject to considerable debate.
It's in the interests of VC's and their underlying rich investors to hype it ip, IPO and bank the cold hard cash.
Trump and Dana are close, and when Trump got re-elected, Dana was suddenly added to the Meta board as I think he was seen as a way to influence the Trump administration.
Same as how Clegg was brought in when the EU were on meta's case.
