Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Aug 2012 13:12 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "It'll be a full x86 device - Lenovo calls a 'joint effort' with Intel and Microsoft - that clocks in at 1.3 pounds with a 10.1-inch 1366 x 768 display. It's billed to have 10-hour battery life, which would be impressive for a device only 9.8mm thick. The standard model is Wi-Fi-only, but there will also be carrier versions including one with AT&T's LTE connectivity." If you see a 1366x768 resolution on a 10.1" display, they blew it.
Order by: Score:
Haha
by earksiinni on Thu 9th Aug 2012 13:35 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

Introducing the all-new Microsoft Windows 8, a touch-optimized computing experience. Now featuring trackpoint AND stylus.

Good work, Team ThinkPad. Doubling down on your guns.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Haha
by libray on Thu 9th Aug 2012 14:38 UTC in reply to "Haha"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Keyboards for tablets should be built-in, otherwise, get a netbook. But a pointer device built in is at least a step in the right direction.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Haha
by M.Onty on Thu 9th Aug 2012 15:08 UTC in reply to "Haha"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

... Now featuring trackpoint AND stylus.


It would hardly be a Thinkpad without the former, would it? I get the impression the red nipple is as much for brand recognition as actual functionality now.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Haha
by gan17 on Thu 9th Aug 2012 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Haha"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I get the impression the red nipple is as much for brand recognition as actual functionality now.

The tablet's not on my radar, but I wouldn't even consider a laptop that didn't come with a Trackpoint clitoris.

Heck, I'd actually be willing to pay extra for a Thinkpad or Tecra that was Trackpoint-only, sans those putrid multitouch-touchpad things.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Haha
by M.Onty on Thu 9th Aug 2012 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Haha"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Agreed. I've got the Thinkpad x200 because it only came with the nipple, not a trackpad. I dislike duplication of function. Nothing against trackpads, they're better for general moseying around, graphical work &c, but if you code or write then the nipple is much more suitable.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Haha
by Morgan on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Haha"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I fell in love with the trackpoint-style pointer on my very first laptop, a Texas Instruments 4000M that was a high school graduation present from my estranged father way back in 1995. I've never gotten used to the touchpad that has been on nearly every laptop I've had since then. Either it's way too big and interferes with typing despite supposed palm-sensing tech, or it's way too small to be of any use as a pointer.

I've resorted to just leaving the touchpad turned off with this laptop and either using an external mouse or (in Linux) using keyboard commands to get around. Trying to type with it turned on is an exercise in frustration that makes me want to toss it against the wall.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Haha
by kwanbis on Thu 9th Aug 2012 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Haha"
kwanbis Member since:
2005-07-06

Totally agree with you. Those who never used a trackpoint (at least for more than 1 day), do not understand how good they are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Haha
by zima on Thu 16th Aug 2012 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Haha"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

kwanbis ~from HA? Hm, consistency-wise (scientific method, rigorous testing methodology, and so on), I'd expect something better from you than "Those who never used a trackpoint (at least for more than 1 day), do not understand how good they are" ;)

...because, see, actual research suggest that trackpoints are inferior to touchpads (some examples linked in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_stick#Comparison_with_touchpa... & http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18522893 external link; and, conversely, note how the views and links supportive of trackpoint seem to be "subjective opinion" in character)

Reminds me also of http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Mouse_vs._keyboard/index.html

(and personally I do like trackpoints, I'm used to the concept; but...)

Edited 2012-08-16 23:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Haha
by earksiinni on Thu 9th Aug 2012 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Haha"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Don't get me wrong. I love trackpoints and I'm no fan of touch (I still have a dumbphone and I have no intention of switching from my trusty keyboard-controlled tiling window manager anytime soon), but I do appreciate me some fine irony. The comment about the trackpoint being for marketing purposes is dead on--what kind of ThinkPad wouldn't have a trackpoint? Or for that matter a stylus--isn't that so typically IBM-esque?

Accordingly, what kind of ThinkPad really fits in with Microsoft's vision of Windows 8? None that I know of. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Haha
by zima on Thu 16th Aug 2012 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Haha"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't even consider a laptop that didn't come with a Trackpoint clitoris.

Heck, I'd actually be willing to pay extra for a Thinkpad or Tecra that was Trackpoint-only, sans those putrid multitouch-touchpad things.

You might want to reconsider your reasons for feeling that way... http://www.osnews.com/permalink?531357

Reply Score: 2

That is why I don't bother with tablets
by moondevil on Thu 9th Aug 2012 13:40 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Tablet = Laptop with detachable screen.

Reply Score: 3

earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

I was using tablets w/ keyboard way before it was popular with the Nokia 770 and then the N800 along with my folding Stowaway Bluetooth keyboard. It seems like a minor detail, but being a humanities graduate student with lots and lots of physical paper (or vellum, ha) all around me at all times, it is very useful to be able to have the keyboard detached and move it around.

Nor do I think that what tablet + keyboard combos offer can only appeal to niches like myself. The main difference between tablets and laptops isn't in the features, it's in how they use the space in front of you.

The immediate area where your hands land on a desk right in front of you is prime real estate for working while sitting, and laptops occupy that space entirely with the keyboard/trackpad/chassis, which is inflexibly attached to the screen. That's fine and all if all your work is on the computer, but what if you're working with mixed media? What if you need to also refer to a book, printed journal articles, or physical photographs? Then the laptop becomes a big pain; even desktops become preferable at that point. Tablets go a long way to solve that problem.

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I think this is where the Asus Transformer gets it right: Fully functional tablet for when you don't need to type, with a very nice keyboard dock for when you do. When it's docked, you have nearly 20 hours of battery life and it's so seamless it actually feels like a laptop computer. My best friend has one and I have to say it's the closest I've come to wanting a 10-inch tablet, only because of the amazing dock. If it weren't for the price I'd use one instead of this laptop without a moment's hesitation.

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Yep, I almost bought one.

But around the same time Asus had netbooks with Linux here in Germany, using the AMD Fusion E-450 with 4GB RAM/500GB disk costing around 300€ vs 500€ for the Asus Transformer. With a battery time of around 6hours, if you don't abuse the GPU or wireless.

I decided to save 200€ and be able to use a plain Linux distribution without Android's restrictions.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 15:39 UTC
RE: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 16:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Lenovo is one of the companies who practically explicitly state they they deny refunds for bundled software. Up until recently, their rules used to say:

Lenovo does not provide refunds or credits for portions of a packaged offering provided at a single price or for preloaded programs installed by Lenovo.


Then, they were hit with a court ruling which exposed such product tying as illegal. They changed the wording a bit (not the essence though):

If you acquired a software product separate from a hardware product, and paid a license fee, you may return the software product in its original, sealed package within 21 days of the date of invoice and obtain a refund or credit.


I.e. they still pretend you can't get a refund, if you bought the software together with the hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Next you'll want a refund for the OS that runs on your microwave oven.

Its one thing to want the freedom to install another OS, its another thing to demand a refund for an OS which was sold to Lenovo at a volume discounted rate.

This steers into the realm of ridiculousness.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Morgan on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Next you'll want a refund for the OS that runs on your microwave oven.


You know very well it's not the same thing at all. Comparing hard-coded firmware to user-uninstallable software is misleading and beneath you.

The rest of your statement has no legs to stand on. Microsoft's own EULA states that you can and should seek a refund if you don't agree with the terms of the EULA. If the hardware manufacturer won't comply, they still have to honor their own warranty and refund for a defective purchase. The only way they can avoid that would be to post the entire Microsoft OS EULA on their website or at the physical point of sale, and require you to agree to it before completing the purchase.

If your take on it was the way the world worked, then every store in existence would just mark down all their products by a penny and say "we sold it to you at a discounted rate, therefore you are not eligible for a refund or exchange". The public wouldn't stand for that, and neither should computer purchasers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


You know very well it's not the same thing at all. Comparing hard-coded firmware to user-uninstallable software is misleading and beneath you.


Tablets are absolutely an appliance. The experience is completed by the combination of hardware and software. They are decidedly not general purpose devices, and are not sold or advertised as such.


The rest of your statement has no legs to stand on. Microsoft's own EULA states that you can and should seek a refund if you don't agree with the terms of the EULA. If the hardware manufacturer won't comply, they still have to honor their own warranty and refund for a defective purchase. The only way they can avoid that would be to post the entire Microsoft OS EULA on their website or at the physical point of sale, and require you to agree to it before completing the purchase.

If your take on it was the way the world worked, then every store in existence would just mark down all their products by a penny and say "we sold it to you at a discounted rate, therefore you are not eligible for a refund or exchange". The public wouldn't stand for that, and neither should computer purchasers.


Maybe you wish for it to not have legs to stand on. True, after some legalese you may end up wringing a refund out of an OEM, but in the process you'll have spend potentially hundreds filing in a small claims court, weeks of your time, and receive something like a $100 dollar check. That's if they don't demand you return the entire device outright.

So just because you legally can do something, doesn't mean it is reasonable or right to demand one. I believe the same argument is made for software patents, they're perfectly legal in the US too, but according to many, the exercise of that legal right is reprehensible.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Morgan on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

So just because you legally can do something, doesn't mean it is reasonable or right to demand one. I believe the same argument is made for software patents, they're perfectly legal in the US too, but according to many, the exercise of that legal right is reprehensible.


You're opening a can of worms with that one. The laws exist to serve the people, not the other way around. The moment the laws become oppressive is the moment they should be changed. That is what most of us here hope for with regard to software patents; right now they serve only to oppress the individual and take away their rights.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


You're opening a can of worms with that one. The laws exist to serve the people, not the other way around. The moment the laws become oppressive is the moment they should be changed. That is what most of us here hope for with regard to software patents; right now they serve only to oppress the individual and take away their rights.


That's a rather..primitive view of how the law should function. It is also largely besides my point that a measuring stick for morality is not legality.

Just because you can, maybe, after extensive legal procedure, get a $100 check, doesn't mean it makes sense to do so, nor does it make my statement that tablets are appliances any less true.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Morgan on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You're confusing "core" with "primitive". So are you suggesting that the law should oppress the people? I weep for your future generations...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Just because you can, maybe, after extensive legal procedure, get a $100 check, doesn't mean it makes sense to do so

What makes sense, is to be able to buy the computer with OS of your choice or with no OS (so you could install something else there).

The fact that one has to go through complex refund process is caused by monopolistic practices (of MS in this case), precisely as you pointed out for the purpose of making it too hard that it shouldn't make sense to bother doing it. It only proves the point of crookedness of MS and OEMs who do this bundling.

Edited 2012-08-09 20:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Tablets are absolutely not an appliance. They are mobile computers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Like I said before, good luck asking Apple for a refund for the cost of iOS

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by moondevil on Fri 10th Aug 2012 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Tablets are absolutely not an appliance. They are mobile computers.


They are appliances that happen to make use of a computing system to work, exactly the same way a GPS system, a fridge or games console.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by MollyC on Thu 9th Aug 2012 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Next you'll want a refund for the OS that runs on your microwave oven.


You know very well it's not the same thing at all. Comparing hard-coded firmware to user-uninstallable software is misleading and beneath you.
" [/q]

Can I play Socrates for a moment?
If I flash my own firmware onto a microwave oven, why should I not then be able to legitimately demand a refund for the firmware that was bundled, according to the logic of the commenter that started this discussion?

Second Socratic query: This Lenovo device is being sold, not as a "general purpose computer that just happens to have a particular OS bundled with it", it's being sold as a "Windows 8 tablet computer". That is, Windows 8 is part of the device being sold, just as the track nipple is part of the device being sold. Is that way of looking at it wrong, and if so, why?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by pashar on Fri 10th Aug 2012 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
pashar Member since:
2006-07-12

Lets look at the different angle. Microwave firmware has been created as part of creation of specific microwave series and suits no purpose other than operating specific microwave type. It is not a product being sold separately, and hence has no commercial value.
On the other hand, Windows 8 is a commercial product, not related in any way with specific tablet.

it's being sold as a "Windows 8 tablet computer"

In this case, "Windows 8 tablet computer" is just a short name for "General purpose tablet computer with Windows 8 preinstalled".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Tablet computer is not an appliance. It's a mulitpurpose universal computer device. Therefore your example is irrelevant.

While the notion of many vendors to turn computers into appliances is known (that logic helps them to lock them up), users should resist such kind of logic as much as possible, especially when it comes to real multipurpose devices.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

A tablet is not a general purpose device. Do you think you'd have luck asking Apple for a refund on an iPad for the cost of iOS?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

A tablet is not a general purpose device.


Only because some vendors want to prevent this. There is no logical reason for it not to be a general purpose device. Small form factor of the computer should not detract from the general purpose of its computing capabilities. Therefore people should be opposed to the restriction notion.

See also "War on general purpose computing" as a good review of this issue (which explains why vendors would want to change the perception of computers to appliances):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

Apple are notorious in their notions of locking things up and thwarting interoperability, so bringing them as an example only strengthens the point above about bad practices of manufacturers.

Edited 2012-08-09 20:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

If people were opposed, then there would be a reflection in the sales. Obviously the market is in demand of a device that is an end to end experience. The coupling of hardware and software is just a means to that end.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Market is controlled by aware people (if there are a lot of them), i.e. if they boycott something for example for some reason. For most it's hard to be aware of the technicalities, that's why sales don't reflect anything about what's proper or what should be.

Edited 2012-08-09 20:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:00 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

If you see a 1366x768 resolution on a 10.1" display, they blew it.


My laptop has a 15" display at that resolution. While I'd like it higher (Almost had it higher but didn't want to wait 3 weeks to get a higher-res version in the mail), it is perfectly usable, and doesn't look bad at all.

While a higher DPI screen can look significantly better when presented side-by-side with more standard screen resolutions, the difference is less noticeable, and less important, when the lower DPI screen is viewed on it's own.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by Morgan on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I do feel limited by the 1366x768 resolution on this 15 inch screen; I'd much prefer something like 1680x1050. But, on a 10 inch tablet I think 1366x768 would be acceptable. Once your screen gets that small, the benefit of higher resolution begins to taper off and there comes a point where you have to zoom everything just to make it readable.

Reply Score: 2

Tablets are for getting away from your desk
by ezraz on Fri 10th Aug 2012 13:44 UTC
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

The arguments on this site on whether Tablets are real computers or not are kinda stupid, sorry.

Does anyone here ever walk anywhere? Ever wait anywhere for more than 5 minutes? Ever take a train ride? Ever need a recipe in the kitchen?

Do any of you have a job that requires you to work away from your desk - Ever?

How can so many people on a computer site not see the value in having (nearly) a full computer that is always on, no setup/startup required, no peripherals required?

Even if you kept your iPad open to "nerds are us" all day or kept it crammed with O'Reilly books, how is this not useful? Is the apple logo so full of allergins?

Reply Score: 2