I’ve always been able to dual boot my Chromebooks in Developer mode, and the Intel architecture is compatible with the largest choice of distros.
My only problem is the lack of a touchscreen. It’s really essential on a CB, especially with Android apps.
Just a appreciation post for you, thanks for being that helpful person in every thread!!! 
…and possibly the flip / tablet form factor as well in some use cases.
So after 8 years and the AUE on that motherboard expires will there be an easy process to turn it into a regular laptop/x86 motherboard?
I know Chrome OS already has tools within Dev mode to enable a legacy BIOS and USB booting so would it be dependent on something like that
Will they make the louder speakers available in the marketplace?
If an 11th Gen batch 1 will support it, I would consider it.
I’m late to this thread, but I said this in a post all of 24 hours ago:
Do I get a medal or something? It’s not exactly what I was referring to but, boy, the timing is uncanny.
As someone who previously used a Chromebook Pixel 2015, and switched to my Framework laptop a bit over a year ago, I find this quite amusing.
When I used my ol’ Chromebook Pixel 2015, it really set the standard for me in what I wanted from a laptop form factor (3:2 aspect ratio screen, glass trackpad, machined aluminum frame, etc), and these things it had in common with the Framework, were much of why I picked the Framework for my next laptop.
I don’t have any interest in the Chromebook edition for a variety of reasons (happy with my current Framework, and no desire to go from Arch Linux back to ChromeOS), but for someone who wants a premium Chromebook I think this is a compelling option that fills a similar niche to what the Chromebook Pixel 2015 filled.
^ This would be nice if possible. I currently often boost volume above 100% on my Framework, and having more headroom to not do that would be nice. I’d be very willing to pay for that part.
Yeah, mine has the flip function, but I keep having the disabled keyboard and touchpad reactivate at the worst times. I get more use out of “tent mode” for watching movies.
oops, yeah is misread that…
I wouldn’t have guessed that was coming, but it sounds like a very good idea. I’ve never used a chromebook or ChromeOS but have heard many good reviews on both. Another option to the Linux/Windows DIY and the Windows pre-built offerings sound like a really smart move to me; more choices is generally a good thing.
I’m happy to see this sort of expansion and I definitely hope it is a successful move for Framework.
The 3.10 UEFI update got me (it may have come earlier, I may have skipped a couple firmwares) an option in UEFI to manually set how full the battery will be when it’s charged. Just an open field, enter your favorite integer between 0 and 100. It appears this means my laptop is forever “charging: 85%, 0:23 until fully charged”, but a reasonable starting place for the “I want my battery to have a longer lifetime, not longer daily battery life” crowd. Downside is I like switching between those two modes, and popping into UEFI to do so is disruptive.
To be clear, pure speculation: I have zero information as to the Google-Framework relationship: Google has a long history of getting other manufacturers to sorta prototype a field for them. They could spend serious effort creating a “repairable hardware” division, hire a team, do market research, design, build, and market an ecosystem… Or they could hand Framework ten million dollars (again, 100% theoretical), putting 10k repairable chromebooks in the field that I’m guessing are largely parts-compatible with the existing ecosystem minus the mainboard and top cover. This would be a win-win-win. Google presumably is buying stake in Framework, and gets its name out there in the fight against e-waste. Framework gets a cashflow boost while servicing a new market segment. And the community gets futher delivery on the promise of an interchangeable parts laptop ecosystem. Could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that 2030 support commitment is longer than most of the Chromebooks out there.
People keep campaigning for an AMD framework, but in many ways the ChromeOS edition gives more user-choice expands the brand more. I say full speed ahead. Bring on the Framework nvidia shield edition, M1 Framework, and Framework Ampere Altra, now with lap-incineration technology.
Edit: skimming HN, nrp’s post on the changes in the new version are informative. Don’t think we can benefit from the codec change, but if they’ve got better transducers? I’d consider ordering upgraded speakers. Curious, given how much the audio codec has lead to design changes, might the Framework team consider making the audio codec entirely modular / replaceable on the next-gen / first major design shift? Could see a whole little market developing around third-party audio codec / amp kits in certain circles.
The fact that they deliver better speakers with this has a bitter taste.
People were complaining since day 1 about them.
The chassis and battery are the same, so the speaker should be a drop in replacement for the 11th and 12th gen.
Dont get me wrong here, i love to see that they have worked on this and there will be an upgrade path, but now 2 months old machines already have outdated hardware…
People will upgrade, extra shipping sucks for the environment and the old speakers go to waste…
Moreover, maybe the new speakers do not make sense without the new codec.
This is a big unknown for me, I really wish I could get some details.
I don’t want to devolve/stray away from the topic of this thread, so anyone reading this please keep that in mind.
However, I feel very strongly about this when someone says this, so I’m going to finally give my 2 cents on this.
This is the exact mentality that prevents Linux from being adopted by the mainstream. There are certain Linux distros that are certainly “set and forget”, and I’d say even more-so than Windows/macOS. ChromeOS itself is Linux.
What makes people support Linux is the open-source and collaborative nature of it. One can go as deep into it as they want, by themselves, and customize anything. Or roll a “simple” distro like elementaryOS, Mint, etc.
I’m sure this is the reason why a lot of people (including definitely myself) support Framework and what they are doing.
And that’s exactly why there’s an irky side to this. Locking a product to a specific company goes against the entire mentality of open-source, user repairability/freedom, and in part, sustainability.
I get that this partnership and perhaps cash infusion can greatly benefit Framework in the end and the mission a lot of us are behind. But, to the Framework team, please let this only be a necessary detour.
Question is: Do you need a new audio chip for the new codec or is this pure software?
In the context of Nrp’s comment on HN, I’d say it is a different audio chip.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32926574
Any time I hear kernel version mentioned instead of distro version…that, to me, is an automatic not ‘set and forget’. To that, I have yet to find a distro that I can live with without ‘needing’ to know the kernel version (due to kernel missing hardware support, kernel breaking hardware support…etc).
While I do think, some of your assessments about the deal between framework and google could be right, I do disagree with the win-win-win situation, you formulated, depending on how open the google hardware solution would be for manual adjustment.
If (and I say if, as I do not know) the google chromebook is closing down its chip/bios to forbidd other systems to run on it, this would be not a win-win-win (except for money), it would be a PR disaster for Framwork. While this is a hypotethical point right now, Google and the likes (MS, Apple …) are infamous for trying and actively shutting down hard and software. Having one (another one) of them influencing decissions of a startup, positioning itself to fight against exactely this, may give more money (hell, of course a cooperation with the big will give more money, duh), but will at the same time deminish believability of the mision Framework claims to be on.
As I have said - IF google wants to reform itself and fight for open software and hardware, they would start opensourcing any hard and software products, they already own, but instead, they seem to try to invade a new startup (even buying stakes in them, it seems). Honestly, if google is starting to own Framework, while not doing steps into the direction of open up Hardware and Software they own, I will consider to move away from Framework - WHAT a win-win-win …
What framework seems to do here, is playing football and complaining about the other team cheating and promising, that they will never do so. First they seem to follow that promise, but now one starts to see, how they take money and influence from the cheating party … NOT a good look - win-win-win my a**.
If Framework needed money, they were hundreds of hundreds of ways to try to collect money first, instead of going for Google (if your theory is right).
God bless the CPU if you had to decode audio in software.
Hehe, true 
I thought maybe the audio chips firmware could be updated somehow…