Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:14 UTC
Windows After yesterday's TV advertisement, Microsoft finally unveiled the pricing for its Surface tablet - the ARM Windows RT version that is. The cheapest Surface - 32GB without touch cover - will set you back $499. They're aiming straight for iPad pricing here, ignoring the popular cheaper Android offerings. Update: only available in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States. As usual.
Order by: Score:
Too expensive
by ronaldst on Tue 16th Oct 2012 12:41 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

299$ is the max I can put on a 720p tablet.

These prices are not competitive.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Too expensive
by ronaldst on Tue 16th Oct 2012 13:46 UTC in reply to "Too expensive"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

If China can build acceptable 89$ ICS/Android tablets why should I buy an overpriced 500$+ WinRT tablet that has zero apps?

All revealed Windows tablets are priced to stay on the shelves.

I am sooo disappointed. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too expensive
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Oct 2012 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Too expensive"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If China can build acceptable 89$ ICS/Android tablets why should I buy an overpriced 500$+ WinRT tablet that has zero apps?


If by 'acceptable', do you mean sub-par? I've not seen one for under $200 that wasn't absolute shit.

Everybody wanting to scrape the bottom of the barrel and demanding a $300 or lower price point is the reason why we struggle to get any decent Android tablets. The only really good one so far is the Nexus 7, but that's missing HDMI, and has anemic storage space.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Too expensive
by unclefester on Wed 17th Oct 2012 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too expensive"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The only really good one so far is the Nexus 7, but that's missing HDMI, and has anemic storage space.


Most people don't use HDMI. The cheap tablets all have an SD slot.

Techies nearly always confuse their needs with the needs of the vast majority of people. Most people just want to browse, watch youtube videos or read emails.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Too expensive
by WorknMan on Wed 17th Oct 2012 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too expensive"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Most people don't use HDMI.


I guess that's why the new Nook and Kindle tablets have HDMI ports, since it's such a worthless feature ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Too expensive
by unclefester on Wed 17th Oct 2012 07:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too expensive"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

I guess that's why the new Nook and Kindle tablets have HDMI ports, since it's such a worthless feature ;)


I didn't claim that HDMI is worthless - just non-essential.

The Kindle and Nook are deliberately crippled multimedia devices designed for the US market.

The cheap android tablets are primarily designed for very low cost internet access.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Too expensive
by ze_jerkface on Wed 17th Oct 2012 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too expensive"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

What the hell are you talking about? Ever heard of the Kindle Fire? It's $199 and the #2 selling tablet. I have a Nook Tablet and I prefer it over the iPad.

The Kindle Fire HD just came out and the screen is excellent. So for $200 you can get a nice tablet with a decent software library or pay more than 2x for Surface which gets you IE10 and Office Light.

IM GONNA GO GET IN LINE FOR MAH SURFACE PAD

500 DOLLARS IS A GOOD PRICE FOR IE10

Edited 2012-10-17 03:04 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Too expensive
by WorknMan on Wed 17th Oct 2012 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too expensive"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The Kindle Fire is not an Android tablet. It's also locked out of the Google ecosystem (unless you do software voodoo), and lags horribly. The HD is somewhat improved, but still nowhere near as smooth as the Nexus 7.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Too expensive
by ze_jerkface on Wed 17th Oct 2012 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too expensive"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Yes it is an Android tablet. What do you think it is running?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/06/amazon-confirms-kindle-fire-hd-m...

It may have a different store and UI but it's the same OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Too expensive
by WereCatf on Wed 17th Oct 2012 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too expensive"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It may have a different store


If you are willing to root it you can even install the regular Google Play Market on it and enjoy yourself: http://liliputing.com/2012/09/installing-google-play-store-on-the-r...

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Too expensive
by WorknMan on Wed 17th Oct 2012 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too expensive"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Yes it runs some form of android, but it's as much android as Mac OSX is BSD. It's forked, customized, and closed source.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too expensive
by chithanh on Wed 17th Oct 2012 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too expensive"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

If by 'acceptable', do you mean sub-par? I've not seen one for under $200 that wasn't absolute shit.

7" tablets for under $200 are very popular, and they work well.

E.g. the Ainol Novo7 Crystal, Android 4.1, 1024x600 MVA panel, 1.5 GHz dual-core Amlogic CPU, 1GB RAM, 8 GB flash, mini-HDMI, microSD starting at $130 on eBay.

For $10 more, you get the Aurora 2 with IPS screen and 16 GB flash. The $170 Flame comes with 1280x800 screen (essentially a slower Nexus7 with microSD+HDMI).

If you go below $100 as the GP suggested, you will have to live with one ore more limitations, like TN panel, only 2-point multitouch, single-core CPU or measly 800x480 resolution. Maybe not enough for serious work, but still decent for casual web surfing, email, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Too expensive
by WorknMan on Wed 17th Oct 2012 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too expensive"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

LOL, have you actually used any of these devices? The one I know about is the Aurora 2, and that thing is a cheap piece of Chinese crap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Too expensive
by chithanh on Wed 17th Oct 2012 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too expensive"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Yes, I own an Ainol tablet. It is indeed cheap (what can you expect at that price), but it works great.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Too expensive
by ze_jerkface on Wed 17th Oct 2012 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Too expensive"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

If China can build acceptable 89$ ICS/Android tablets why should I buy an overpriced 500$+ WinRT tablet that has zero apps?

All revealed Windows tablets are priced to stay on the shelves.

I am sooo disappointed. ;)


Why was he voted down for this comment? The general reaction has been that the prices are too high.

I guess Microsoft fanboys actually have to watch the bus fall off a cliff and explode before they have a discussion on whether or not the driver might be crazy.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Too expensive
by unclefester on Wed 17th Oct 2012 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too expensive"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

+1

Reply Score: 2

RE: Too expensive
by gsyoungblood on Tue 16th Oct 2012 19:08 UTC in reply to "Too expensive"
gsyoungblood Member since:
2007-01-09

My thoughts too. First thing I thought was they priced themselves out of the market. For $200 less I'd consider it. At $199 I was ready to buy one immediately.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Too expensive
by tomcat on Tue 16th Oct 2012 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Too expensive"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

My thoughts too. First thing I thought was they priced themselves out of the market. For $200 less I'd consider it. At $199 I was ready to buy one immediately.


Yes, they have priced themselves out of the "piece of shit" market. Which is fine. The quality of those POS machines can't even begin to touch Surface.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too expensive
by darknexus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too expensive"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Yes, they have priced themselves out of the "piece of shit" market. Which is fine. The quality of those POS machines can't even begin to touch Surface.

You have hands-on experience with it? Do share.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Too expensive
by n4cer on Wed 17th Oct 2012 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too expensive"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

It'd be nice to see what would happen to an Acer Iconia W510 if subjected to this drop test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVSyp9OUM1s#t=0h0m22s

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too expensive
by ze_jerkface on Wed 17th Oct 2012 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too expensive"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

They have priced themselves out of the Fire/Nook/Galaxy market and into a magical fantasy land where people pay $500 for a version of Windows that doesn't work with Window software.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Too expensive
by MollyC on Wed 17th Oct 2012 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Too expensive"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Priced themselves out of the $200 market? Maybe because they don't want to sell at a loss. Just a thought.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too expensive
by tonny on Wed 17th Oct 2012 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too expensive"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Yeah, right. the BOM and whatnot of the surface is like ~$400. With no GSM. They get the material from Mars, and sent it to Earth. How can they want to sold it at lost, right, bud? It's so much better than the rest of crap gadget out 'dere. It innovative, from the future.. Smart boy.. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Surface Pro
by wojtek on Tue 16th Oct 2012 13:01 UTC
wojtek
Member since:
2010-01-24

I guess you are in same boat as me waiting for Surface Pro with better display. And for me - also an option to run regular Windows apps in desktop mode.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Surface Pro
by digitallysane on Tue 16th Oct 2012 13:08 UTC in reply to "Surface Pro"
digitallysane Member since:
2011-12-19

Same here, but it's pretty clear now that the price for that will come in close to 1000.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Surface Pro
by Praxis on Tue 16th Oct 2012 14:45 UTC in reply to "Surface Pro"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

Yeah, Win 8 is designed for the convertable tablet/laptop experience and despite my incredible disdain for letting win 8 anywhere near my desktop tower on something like the surface it is interesting. But the RT is not way to go at this price, its priced liked a high end tablet, has the specs of a mid-range and doesn't have the x86 windows ecosystem to draw from. Call my when the Pro pricing is announced, but based on these prices for RT the full version is probably going to be very expensive.

Reply Score: 3

Shooting oneself in the foot
by sukru on Tue 16th Oct 2012 13:17 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

I really do not like this price. I can understand the reasoning -- they don't to undervalue their product, also cut into their own partners' profits, like Nexus effectively killing all profit margin on Android tablets. However I still do not like the price.

I'll wait for other offerings, hoping lenovo or another partner producing a Win 8 tablet at a reasonable price (maybe around $300).

Reply Score: 3

Beyond stupid
by tomchr on Tue 16th Oct 2012 13:17 UTC
tomchr
Member since:
2009-02-01

Well, it seems like Microsoft is pulling a "need for speed" down the road to guaranteed failure.

This could actually be a good thing, because maybe the wake up call from this monumental screwup will happen sooner rather than later - instead of contemplating Ballmer's and Sinofsky's return from Mars.

Edited 2012-10-16 13:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Beyond stupid
by tomcat on Tue 16th Oct 2012 23:45 UTC in reply to "Beyond stupid"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Well, it seems like Microsoft is pulling a "need for speed" down the road to guaranteed failure.


Define "failure". Microsoft doesn't need to make any money on these machines. At all. What they need to do is set the bar so that their OEM partners produce better hardware. And, by that standard, they succeeded.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Beyond stupid
by ze_jerkface on Wed 17th Oct 2012 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Beyond stupid"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Failure will be a giant hole in their income where they were expecting more Windows 7 users to upgrade. Failure will be the capital they invested in Surface as part of their lame duck tablet strategy.

Shareholders will see a poorly selling Windows 8 and Surface tablets that sit on shelves. They will also see Apple having a holiday cash bonanza. You can talk all you want but that is what they will see. A giant tech company with billions spending billions on a new OS that pisses off their loyal customers and doesn't do a damn thing to slow the iPad.

Windows isn't an open source project where the developers can screw around. They actually have to make money for shareholders.

The parent is right in that it is better for Ballmer to crash into a wall as quickly as possible to show what a dumbass he really is.

Reply Score: 1

Market comparison
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 16th Oct 2012 13:50 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Against the ipad and android tablets it doesn't seem so great. But really I think it will end up being compared against straight up laptops more often by people looking for laptops. Its a small light weight notebook, like a netbook with touch. You can get a decent laptop for $500 or so. The price is not terrible, but not good enough that I would suggest this over a larger laptop for most people. Its a cheap, low powered ultrabook. All the style with less sizzle. I can see some marketing people using that as a pitch: Stylish cheaper ultrabook with touch.

At that price and that market segment I think it makes sense, but I'm not sure as I'm the right one to make that judgement. I detest ultrabooks as they sacrifice performance, specs for style and higher prices.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Market comparison
by r_a_trip on Tue 16th Oct 2012 14:05 UTC in reply to "Market comparison"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

At least that ultrabook is running a true multipurpose OS. Windows RT on this machine is just a glorified phone OS.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Market comparison
by lucas_maximus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Market comparison"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why do you need full blown multi-tasking and windows on such a small machine is beyond me.

The multi-tasking thing is brought up again and again with Tablets and Phones ... yet iPhones and iPads sell like hot-cakes.

So most people obviously don't care.

Edited 2012-10-16 20:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Market comparison
by _txf_ on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Market comparison"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Why do you need full blown multi-tasking and windows on such a small machine is beyond me.

The multi-tasking thing is brought up again and again with Tablets and Phones ... yet iPhones and iPads sell like hot-cakes.

So most people obviously don't care.


If I'm working I usually need all sorts of windows open at the same time. Task switching, copy+paste etc is still way too jarring and clumsy for me to feel comfortable. Sure it is possible for some people, but not for everybody.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Market comparison
by lucas_maximus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Market comparison"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

But are you doing it on a tablet computer?

In Requirements Engineering we have a "Use Case" you design for the most common use case.

If your use case is not appropriate for the platform, then one can't really criticise if for not including it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Market comparison
by lucas_maximus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 20:07 UTC in reply to "Market comparison"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Ultrabooks, don't really do that.

The main bottleneck on a modern PC is the Hardrive, if they have an SSD unless you are running Sharepoint or something equally heavy for development you won't really notice.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Market comparison
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Market comparison"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think my original post may have been surprisingly grammatically unclear. If such a think is possible. I really do think that ultrabooks are priced higher than other notebooks that have the same level of performance (along with a heavier, thicker frame).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Market comparison
by lucas_maximus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Market comparison"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well obviously you are paying for the "lightness" are you not?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Market comparison
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 16th Oct 2012 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Market comparison"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

But I don't want the extra lightness, I want functionality that is useful to me, a non traveller that rarely moves his laptop out of the house. And, I'd suspect most notebook buyers are like myself. Its nice that its under ten pounds and I can move it around the house, but its okay if it weighs more than my cutting board.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Market comparison
by lucas_maximus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Market comparison"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well then the product isn't aimed at you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Market comparison
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 17th Oct 2012 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Market comparison"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't think the product is aimed at %70 of the notebook buyers, which is why I don't recommend them to friends looking for notebooks.

I think surface works best targeted to a percentage of that 30% that wants a cheaper ultrabook.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Market comparison
by lucas_maximus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Market comparison"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I would say it fits perfectly with what I want, my aging Dell D430 is fit for a replacement it gets used on trips and when I have to write emails etc outside of work ... the Surface for me would be a good replacement.

We will see who wants it and who doesn't in the coming months. I hope it does decently because I don't want a two horse race again.

Reply Score: 2

Tipping point
by bowkota on Tue 16th Oct 2012 14:09 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Teenagers right now are growing up with Android and iOS.
The desktop and mobile are converging.
MS is not doing well in mobile.
Vista was a total failure but Windows 7 and Kinect were a success.
I applauded them for being bold with Windows 8 and the Surface when first previewed.
However, it feels like they're not a good enough package.
These next few years are very critical for them.
Where will this lead them?

Edited 2012-10-16 14:10 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Tipping point
by moondevil on Tue 16th Oct 2012 15:03 UTC in reply to "Tipping point"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Hopefully back to a 80's like scenario where there was plenty of manufactures and operating systems to choose from.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Tipping point
by lucas_maximus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It was sooo great how nothing would work with one another </sarcasm>

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Tipping point
by moondevil on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tipping point"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Everything worked fine with standard document formats.

I never had problems exchanging data between Amiga and PC for all my music, image and documents.

With heterogeneous computing everyone needs to respect standards for data interchange, otherwise they dye.

Office only became the monster it is today, thanks to the hegemony of the Microsoft based systems in the PC world.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Tipping point
by lucas_maximus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tipping point"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well standards are usually either implemented poorly or extended so they usually don't work.

Web Standards (as of today) are a joke.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Tipping point
by zima on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Tipping point"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Everything worked fine with standard document formats.
I never had problems exchanging data between Amiga and PC for all my music, image and documents.
[...]
Office only became the monster it is today, thanks to the hegemony of the Microsoft based systems in the PC world.

What standard formats? (and working across compact cassettes for C64 & Atari with their different data encoding formats, Amiga with 3.5, and the seemingly typical data-entry & accounting PC with 5.25?)

And Office took over because of... oversight of the older, established dominant players http://www.osnews.com/thread?522221 (stuck in the 80s? Maybe not very related to 80s micros, but...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Tipping point
by mattymoo on Wed 17th Oct 2012 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
mattymoo Member since:
2011-12-29

I hope so too! I diverse ecosystem of operating systems is good for everyone.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Tipping point
by zima on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Hopefully back to a 80's like scenario where there was plenty of manufactures and operating systems to choose from.

And the times of lock-in much greater than today - all the investment in a usable setup, all its hw & software, couldn't be moved to other platforms (typically, not even from the same manufacturer). Additionally, NVM that 80s micros were generally too limited & not the best deal, there was also a big risk of getting simply a total flop of a platform.

Other than that, there were essentially only 3 platforms that mattered ...maybe 5; not much different than now. The rest were rubbish - even most of the 5 were, considering their prolonged death (Commodore for example was still pumping out C64's in 92 or 93, and flooding less fortunate markets with them)

Luckily the PC, with its powerful hw and sw brought by its economies of scale, liberated us from those.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tipping point
by drcouzelis on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:27 UTC in reply to "Tipping point"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

Vista was a total failure but Windows 7 and Kinect were a success.

It what way was Kinect a success? Do you have a citation?

...I don't mean to sound confrotational. I don't know if Kinect was a success or a failure. I'm just curious. ;) I saw the Kinect in the store and at a friend's house. Both times nobody could get it to work. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Tipping point
by JPisini on Tue 16th Oct 2012 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
JPisini Member since:
2006-01-24

"Vista was a total failure but Windows 7 and Kinect were a success.

It what way was Kinect a success? Do you have a citation?

...I don't mean to sound confrotational. I don't know if Kinect was a success or a failure. I'm just curious. ;) I saw the Kinect in the store and at a friend's house. Both times nobody could get it to work. ;)
"

There is a Microsoft store across the street from where I work and While I don't know if Kinect was a success or not I don't have one and neither does anyone I know (kind of says something). I have seen it working in the store and it does track pretty well. Of course one would hope that Microsoft would know the proper settings and distances to set one up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Tipping point
by n4cer on Tue 16th Oct 2012 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

It what way was Kinect a success? Do you have a citation?

...I don't mean to sound confrotational. I don't know if Kinect was a success or a failure. I'm just curious. ;) I saw the Kinect in the store and at a friend's house. Both times nobody could get it to work. ;)


As of 2011, it was the fastest selling consumer electronics device ever.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12697975

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Tipping point
by bowkota on Tue 16th Oct 2012 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

"Vista was a total failure but Windows 7 and Kinect were a success.

It what way was Kinect a success? Do you have a citation?

...I don't mean to sound confrotational. I don't know if Kinect was a success or a failure. I'm just curious. ;) I saw the Kinect in the store and at a friend's house. Both times nobody could get it to work. ;)
"

I haven't used it myself but from what my friends tell me it's quite good. What I do know is that they sold lots of them and the Xbox had strong sales after its introduction.
Im a Physics student and if you search the web you'll see the Kinect being used in all sorts ways for experimental purposes both in the office and at uni. When a product aimed primarily at the game console market manages to have such an appeal in so many other technological areas, it can only be considered a success in my opinion.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tipping point
by lucas_maximus on Tue 16th Oct 2012 20:11 UTC in reply to "Tipping point"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Microsoft sold 180 million licenses in its first 18 months, which was more than Windows XP in its first two years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/apr/25/windows-7-lic...

Hardly a failure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Tipping point
by shotsman on Wed 17th Oct 2012 06:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Statistics, statistics and <redacted> lies.

Remember that the PC market as a whole is several times larger when Win 7 came on the scenes than when XP did.
Please try to be sensible in your comparisons unlike the majority of hacks especially those who work for the once esteemed journal you quoted.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Tipping point
by lucas_maximus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 08:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tipping point"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I appreciate that, but tbh when has selling 180 million units been a failure in business?

While Vista is many things it is not a failure ... it sales were simply not stellar.

Edited 2012-10-17 08:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Tipping point
by skpg on Wed 17th Oct 2012 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Tipping point"
RE: Tipping point
by zima on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:21 UTC in reply to "Tipping point"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Vista was a total failure but Windows 7 and Kinect were a success.

That "total failure" Vista still has more users than all versions of OSX combined, and an order of magnitude more than all Linux distros combined.

And Vista SE just got a PR trick of "lucky 7" in its name.

Reply Score: 2

Drop it to $300-400 and we'll talk.
by Alfman on Tue 16th Oct 2012 15:03 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

No not me, I'm not going to be buying into any locked platform which I cannot freely control & develop for. And for the sake of free & open computing now and in the future, I hope there's enough of us boycotting these restrictive platforms to make a difference. Otherwise, future generations can say goodbye to things like independent software, homebrew development, dual-booting, and distribution outside the grip of corporate app stores.

I've heard too many people defending walled garden platforms by pointing to jailbroken devices. That's an incredibly naive justification people use to distance themselves from the fact that they're actually supporting these closed platforms.

I don't give a crap whether it's microsoft or apple or anyone else trying to pull this nonsense; it's a bad future for consumer computing. We need to stand up against corporate control over the devices that we supposedly "own". We need to educate people about what is at stake, since too often they just are not aware. Consumers who spend good money on closed platforms are not only investing in technology designed to eliminate end-user choice & control, they're also investing in technology that, if overwhelmingly successful, stands to displace unrestricted & open hardware. Before long indy developers will have to accept that corporate kickbacks for walled gardens and oversight are a new cost of doing business with consumers. Developers who don't like it will have to relegate themselves to open platforms which fewer and fewer consumers will have access to.

Before anyone accuses me of exaggerating here, open your eyes, if enough consumers buy these devices, this is where consumer computing is headed. My projection is that sane businesses are not going to accept these close devices for themselves because they can see right away that walled gardens are a raw deal. But consumers are another story. Consumers will buy into closed hardware without even knowing that it's closed, and without even realising that a corporation intends to monopolise access to them in a power play to control and tax 3rd party development.

Edit: MS requires every Windows 8 ARM tablet to be locked down in hardware. If you're not ok with a corporation telling you how you should be allowed to use your own devices, then don't be a hypocrite, encourage people not to buy into these closed platforms.

Edited 2012-10-16 15:10 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

I could not agree more!

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No not me, I'm not going to be buying into any locked platform which I cannot freely control & develop for.


So you aren't going to be developing anything because no one person controls any platform.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Edit: MS requires every Windows 8 ARM tablet to be locked down in hardware. If you're not ok with a corporation telling you how you should be allowed to use your own devices, then don't be a hypocrite, encourage people not to buy into these closed platforms.


It is an integrated consumer product. The argument you guys make is like saying a washing machine, a car's internal computer, digital watch or television shouldn't tied to a product.

Some of these devices have computing power now that were thousands of times better than what we had in the 80s and 90s.

The argument is ridiculous and stupid. A not point is "developer or poweruser" hardware going to go away for the same reason the mainframe and servers haven't dissapeared. It just turning into more of a niche product and the market will decide.

Also unlike Apple's App shop, Microsoft lets you decide the pricing model.

What we are seeing is the industry growing up.

Edited 2012-10-16 21:08 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"It is an integrated consumer product. The argument you guys make is like saying a washing machine, a car's internal computer, digital watch or television shouldn't tied to a product."

Right, because there's no difference between sideloading apps on our tablet PC versus sideloading our car or washing machine.

* For those who are sarcasm impaired, note heavy use of sarcasm here.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

While you are correct you are still missing the point.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"While you are correct you are still missing the point."

Haha, I'll take it. The thing is, the competitive damage of corporate walled gardens is proportional to their *collective* market share. It's still good to have more competition over less, but if consumer's choice ends up being between one walled garden or another, then it represents a significant threat to open computing for consumers. A software-only developer won't be able to compete fairly or sell unapproved software without the blessing of gatekeepers because we are not a hardware provider ourselves. If this is allowed to happen, it would retrograde the entire software industry.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It won't happen because the need for bespoke software will always be present.

The landscape is changing, but that doesn't mean doom or gloom.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"It won't happen because the need for bespoke software will always be present.
The landscape is changing, but that doesn't mean doom or gloom."

I think that maybe you are the one missing the point. Do you understand what happens if microsoft's locked down metro platform becomes successful? It represents yet another personal computing platform that has monopolised distribution rights. If we don't actively protest them today, these restricted platforms have the potential to become the defacto norm for consumers in the future. Whether this is doom or gloom is open to your opinion, but this kind of change in landscape is exactly what I've been describing as closed computing. Open computing is responsible for building the entire software industry to what it is today. Software development would not be anywhere near as pervasive as it is today if not for the openness of computers we have benefited from up to this point.


I'm disappointed that people are being blinded by fanboy fetishes when so much is at stake. If another entity were to step in and do the exact same thing, it would be an unmitigated disaster. People would be up in arms if a government stepped in to regulate software developers, charging taxes, forcing us to apply for the right to distribute and sell our own software to consumers. Yet this is exactly the model apple and microsoft are pushing us into, with themselves in control of everyone's software. There's just too much conflict of interest in allowing top oligopolists to control the fate of the software industry.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

if consumer's choice ends up being between one walled garden or another, then it represents a significant threat to open computing for consumers. A software-only developer won't be able to compete fairly or sell unapproved software without the blessing of gatekeepers because we are not a hardware provider ourselves. If this is allowed to happen, it would retrograde the entire software industry.

OTOH a typical (smallish) software-only developer won't be able to target more than two ecosystems effectively, anyway... (maybe three - if the "gatekeepers" do all the appstore, payments, etc. dirty work)

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I don't give a crap whether it's microsoft or apple or anyone else trying to pull this nonsense; it's a bad future for consumer computing. We need to stand up against corporate control over the devices that we supposedly "own".


Good luck with that.

Reply Score: 3

...
by Hiev on Tue 16th Oct 2012 15:10 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Any one has tried one of those keyboards?

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by drcouzelis on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:22 UTC in reply to "..."
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

As far as I understand, absolutely no one has yet to try either the computer or the keyboard:

http://marketingland.com/hands-off-microsoft-surface-tablet-review-...

Is this still the case?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by ezraz on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

As far as I understand, absolutely no one has yet to try either the computer or the keyboard:

http://marketingland.com/hands-off-microsoft-surface-tablet-review-...

Is this still the case?


Microsoft must be so proud of it. Considering their target is Apple's now 3 year old iPad1 you'd think they'd be a little more confident.

If your ad campaign focuses on a plastic snap (which will break) and will cost an additional $120 to even get it in the first place, you are in trouble.

They always shoot for apple and end up hitting disaster land almost every time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29
Enterprise
by pgquiles on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:46 UTC
pgquiles
Member since:
2006-07-16

If it's well integrated with Active Directory, Exchange, Office, etc, and I assume it is, it will sell very well in the enterprise market.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Enterprise
by TemporalBeing on Tue 16th Oct 2012 17:20 UTC in reply to "Enterprise"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

If it's well integrated with Active Directory, Exchange, Office, etc, and I assume it is, it will sell very well in the enterprise market.


Not necessarily.

Many are already introducing iPad/iPhone support, which means they've already left the boat and iPads and iPhones are cheaper than these Microsoft Win8 devices - it's kind of sad when Apple can beat you on price.

Those that have not, won't like these price points since they'll be able to get a laptop for that price instead, one that is easier to manage and they already have a policy for.

So there is no real win situation here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Enterprise
by pgquiles on Tue 16th Oct 2012 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise"
pgquiles Member since:
2006-07-16

Supporting iPad and Android requires third party tools and it a hassle for IT.

Support for Windows tablets is integrated in the operating system and Microsoft tools and services, which means less complexity and costs.

Microsoft is going to get a big chunk of the tablets market, at least in the enterprise space.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Enterprise
by TemporalBeing on Tue 16th Oct 2012 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Enterprise"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Supporting iPad and Android requires third party tools and it a hassle for IT.

Support for Windows tablets is integrated in the operating system and Microsoft tools and services, which means less complexity and costs.

Microsoft is going to get a big chunk of the tablets market, at least in the enterprise space.


Not necessarily.

First, remember that if they have already integrated those 3rd party tools for Android and iOS, then those costs are already sunk - the only difference then is the cost of the devices themselves, for which Microsoft is more expensive.

Second, remember too that Win8 is in two forms - Intel-based (which its multiple versions) and ARM based; both are incompatible with each other. So while you may get MS Office with the WinRT version, all those 3rd party tools you integrate with it won't work. Nor will any existing software you have. So now you need to upgrade all your software to new versions and buy two versions of each upgraded product - one upgrade for what you have, and one new for WinRT. Win8 RT is not going to reduce costs, but increase them and significantly so. At the very least, it will be no more expensive than supporting Android and iOS for a company that does not have support for Android and iOS already.

So going back to my original comment:

- If they already have iOS (and let's add Android to that too) support, then Win8 won't be of interest. They've already left the Microsoft only ecosystem and will have cheaper devices available than what is provided by Microsoft.

- If they haven't, then they're not looking at mobile devices that support iOS or Android, and they'll do better by just continuing their use of laptops and desktops at the same price points, for which they already have all the software they need and the policies in place to control them - introducing Win8 will require adding new policies to control those devices even if the place is Windows only. (That has always been the case with upgrading Windows.)

So just saying that it integrates well into an existing Microsoft-only shop does not resolve the problem. It may integrate well with the Microsoft tools. But how many businesses or people do you know that only use Microsoft tools? Even one purchase outside of Microsoft requires having something ported to support Win8 RT if you look to upgrade to Win8 and get tablets that have better battery performance than laptops.

And no, touch based interfaces are not a key feature for businesses. Productivity is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Enterprise
by _txf_ on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Enterprise"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Support for Windows tablets is integrated in the operating system and Microsoft tools and services, which means less complexity and costs.


The support packages for RT tablets are an extra cost on top of the regular packages.

Windows RT does not support Active Directory. As I understand it, MS is changing the focus of active directory, and in the process creating the necessity for the extra RT support software.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Enterprise
by telns on Tue 16th Oct 2012 19:02 UTC in reply to "Enterprise"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

Yeah, but for a tablet 98% of what people need is handled by ActiveSync (e-mail, calendar, and contacts), and IT's concerns are handled by enforcing security policies, remote wipe, etc. which the major devices all support.

Another 1% takes a VPN, which the iPad more often than not can handle.

There is only a small slice of people left that need more than that on a pure tablet.

When the x64 Win8 devices come out, it may be a different story. I expect there will be some interesting laptop/tablet convertible devices available that will appeal to business, where all the Active Directory aspects come into more focus. Lenovo has advertised one that I am sure will appeal to lots of business travelers.

Edited 2012-10-16 19:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Enterprise
by ze_jerkface on Wed 17th Oct 2012 02:29 UTC in reply to "Enterprise"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

No.

You could make Furby AD compatible but that doesn't mean enterprise will buy it.

Surface can't:

1. Run $internal_application

2. Run Windows applications.

3. Run $plug_in required for intranet or Citrix

99% of enterprise computers are on desks and don't need to go anywhere. Surface doesn't offer enough benefits over a laptop to make it worth purchasing.

Disclosure: I'm a .NET enterprise developer and I think Windows 8 is a POS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Enterprise
by Lorin on Wed 17th Oct 2012 12:47 UTC in reply to "Enterprise"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

No it won't.

Enterprise needs absolute control of internal security and that means installing custom software that they likely developed. My company has even went as far as to forbid anyone from bringing in a tablet since they are security risks.

Not to mention the impossible task of even developing software on one of them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Enterprise
by lucas_maximus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No it won't.

Enterprise needs absolute control of internal security and that means installing custom software that they likely developed. My company has even went as far as to forbid anyone from bringing in a tablet since they are security risks.


Win 8 tablets can use group policy.

Not to mention the impossible task of even developing software on one of them.


Well, POS (point of sale) system at the the local shop in spain begs to differ, fully touch screen running on what looks Windows NT 4.0 workstation. It could easily be a Metro App.

Reply Score: 3

What an interesting experiment
by Tony Swash on Tue 16th Oct 2012 16:55 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Microsoft can see the writing on the wall - finally. The days of growth in the PC market are over, what looms is at best stagnation in units sold and probably gentle but persistent decline. On top of that the generous mark up for software that MS has enjoyed for so long will also decline as the vast inexpensive app markets come to dominate and define software pricing.

So now Microsotf has to do two very difficult things at once, both things it has never done before.

One is to make and sell hardware at a reasonable profit and in numbers that matter. Selling lots of units is doable if you reduce the price until the profit disappears but that is not a road Microsoft can embrace this time round. If Microsoft is to successfully reengineer it's business for the post-PC world and shift from being a company that makes it's money from software to one that makes money from selling hardware it cannot sell at cost, it must make a profit on the hardware it sells. This becomes even more critical given the fact that a move by Microsoft into hardware is also a move away from it's OEMs no matter what Microsoft says about it. As soon as MS starts selling hardware it calls into question it's OEM ecosystem partnerships and raises the very real risk that a move towards a new business model (hardware) will undermine and disrupt the old business (software licences+OEMs).

So MS must make profits on Surface now and that is a hard thing to do because it is up against competitors such as Apple, with four decades of hardware experience and with the planet's best supply chain, and Amazon and Google, who can both continue to sell at cost because they make their income from services (their hardware is just a gateway to their services).

The second very hard thing that Microsoft has to do is to enter markets (phones, tablets) where it is a tiny bit player and carve out a profitable and successful niche for itself without the benefits of incumbency that it has enjoyed for so long in the PC world. Microsoft hasn't really had much experience at doing that, of entering and growing and making profits in existing markets. The Xbox in the console market wasn't really the same because Microsoft could sell it at cost (in fact make a pretty big loss when all it's capital costs are factored in) because it was seen as loss leader forging an entry to the lucrative living room. Microsoft is not looking for another loss leader, it's looking for another profit centre.

Microsoft's strategic response to this new challenge, of entering and succeeding in a new market full of dynamic incumbents, was Windows 8, an attempt lever it's position in the PC market to build instant installed base so that it's tablet and phone offerings could ride the on the back of it's PC business and attract developers, enterprise customers and generate some traction. It might work but the danger is that in reshaping Widows 8 to help its touch based devices MS will kill the goose that, for now, is still laying the golden eggs. If Windows 8 causes a stutter in it's desktop market whilst not leading to a tablet and phone take off MS could find itself in a difficult position.

The next eighteen months are going to be very tense times at Redmond as they wait to see if it all pans out.

How very interesting.

Reply Score: 4

Pricing
by Bobthearch on Tue 16th Oct 2012 19:12 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Well I guess this was bogus:

http://www.osnews.com/story/26274/Surface_for_Windows_RT_just_199_

It would have sold like hotcakes at $199 or even $299. But $499? I predict a flop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pricing
by MollyC on Wed 17th Oct 2012 11:44 UTC in reply to "Pricing"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Well I guess this was bogus:

http://www.osnews.com/story/26274/Surface_for_Windows_RT_just_199_

It would have sold like hotcakes at $199 or even $299. But $499? I predict a flop.


Anyone with a working brain knew that the $199 price was bogus. This device likely has the highest build quality of any tablet or laptop ever made; to expect it to sell at the prices used for the "piece of junk" market (like the Silvania Android tablets that are sold at drug stores and are literally given away by banks when one opens a savings account) is foolish.

As far as your "flop" prediction, you might want to actually put a numerical definitoin on that, and when you do so, know that Microsoft is only making 3 to 5 million units for the rest of this year. Given that, what is your definition of flop? How many must Microsoft sell by the end of the year to avoid "flop" by your definition?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Pricing
by WereCatf on Wed 17th Oct 2012 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Pricing"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

This device likely has the highest build quality of any tablet or laptop ever made;


I really have to ask... how did you come to such a conclusion?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Pricing
by Bobthearch on Wed 17th Oct 2012 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Pricing"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

It did sound too good to be true. That's why I didn't hold my breath waiting for the Surface; last month I bought the 7" Samsung Galaxy Tab for $250-ish (the 10" model would have cost $399, which is generally beyond my budget for unnecessary toys). Both of those models are priced $50 lower now than last month - quality units that like it or not, Microsoft will be competing with on price.

The "flop" prediction isn't based on price alone, but it's obviously important. People who want a quality affordable tablet are going to choose the Nexus, Samsung, Kindle, etc. People who want to spend more for a trendy tablet at still going to choose the iPad. Then there's the software. How long will it take for Microsoft's app store to catch up to Android and Apple? We've yet to see any reviews of the Surface, but that could be a factor as well.

know that Microsoft is only making 3 to 5 million units for the rest of this year.

The lastest iPad sold three million for the first weekend alone, and Apple has sold 84 Million iPads so far. So if your numbers are accurate Microsoft is setting the bar very low indeed. Keeping the supply artificially low to create the illusion of demand? Or they really expect weak demand for the Surface?

Edited 2012-10-17 14:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Perfect
by galvanash on Tue 16th Oct 2012 20:27 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

That is the price I said they would go with since day one...

http://www.osnews.com/thread?522834

...even after the silly rumors of $199...

http://www.osnews.com/thread?531070

...and I got modded down for it.

Yes. I'm gloating ;)

In all seriousness though, I don't really understand the objections to the price tag at this point. Very few people have even touched the thing yet, and virtually no one outside of Microsoft has used it for any extended period of time. No one really knows what $499 is getting them yet...

My contention is that Microsoft believes they have made the best hardware they could make - better than anything else on the market, including the iPad. I will obviously reserve judgement until I get to use one, but at this point I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I would really like to see someone (anyone) take on Apple at their own game.

In other words I hope it really is a game changing piece of hardware, if for no other reason than for once Apple didn't make it. If it is then $499 is a good price, if not then it will fail. Miserably.

Either way, my original argument about the pricing still stands. If it isn't worth $499, then it wouldn't be worth $299 either - the price is not the point, it never was. It is either better than an iPad or it isn't, the price really has nothing to do with its success for failure.

The Nexus 7 is a great tablet for $199. I've used it, its very nice for the price. The same can be said about many other tablets. None of them have made any serious inroads in iPad sales, and none of them even garner a second look from most iPad buyers...

The only way Microsoft can win is if they make a better product, as in just plain better. Not cheaper. Not a good comprimise. BETTER.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Perfect
by Fergy on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:26 UTC in reply to "Perfect"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

...and I got modded down for it.

You got a score of 1 which I wouldn't call down modding. But I can understand why someone would mod you down. Long boring obvious comments with badly used bold words. Try the 144 character technique.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Perfect
by galvanash on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Perfect"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Its 140, and I do tend to overdue it. As for bolding, its a bad habit. Im still right though. ps. your post was 200 characters... Hows that?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Perfect
by MollyC on Wed 17th Oct 2012 11:49 UTC in reply to "Perfect"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I only skimmed your post (I read it thoroughly the first time you posted it, but don't feel like doing so again), but it doesn't look like you predicted the $499 price. Looks like you recommened that price, then trashed Microsoft for going with the $199 price instead. Am I reading that wrong?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Perfect
by galvanash on Wed 17th Oct 2012 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Perfect"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Since the $199 thing turned out to be a false rumor, I don't understand the distinction...

I was just joking about that part anyway. What matters is that they got the price right, not that I said they would.

Reply Score: 2

Ballmers Last Hurrah!
by krreagan on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:02 UTC
krreagan
Member since:
2008-04-08

If this thing bombs, Ballmer will be gone from MS. Only a decade or so late!
He has driven MS into the ground. The only thing keeping them afloat is Office and Windows and with Win 8, even that will tank. MS is in for a whole lot of hurt. If you have MS stock... SELL!!! SELL!!! SELL!!!

Reply Score: 0

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:10 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

people should not be complaining about this price right now.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Comment by Luminair
by krreagan on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by lucas_maximus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It looks well made, but the keyboard looks a bit iffy. It is hardly a Piece of shit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by krreagan on Wed 17th Oct 2012 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

This is out of MS's comfort zone and MS has proved time and time again that they cannot perform outside there comfort zone (Zune, WinCE, Windows Phone...).

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by lucas_maximus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

What does this have to do with the quality of the device?

From what I have seen it looks:

* Well made
* Well designed
* Robust

I haven't held one or seen one in person, I doubt you have either. But from what I have seen via videos and promotions it does seem to be well made.

Claiming it is a Pile of Shit, when you haven't used or even held is ignorance.

Edited 2012-10-17 20:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by krreagan on Thu 18th Oct 2012 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

"looks" Well made? a Dell looks well made until you have to use it!
"looks" Well designed? until it gets torn down by a reputable site I'll go on history and MS's history with HW is dubious at best.
Looks: Robust? I can think of many things that keyboard looks like (POS, Crap...) none of which are robust.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by zima on Sat 20th Oct 2012 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

This is out of MS's comfort zone and MS has proved time and time again that they cannot perform outside there comfort zone (Zune, WinCE, Windows Phone...).

Disk operating systems, GUI, office suites, or gaming consoles were once outside MS comfort zone, too. And MS has proved time and time again, with a little doze of persistence, to dominate fields they decide to focus on.

PS. And WinCE is moderately widely deployed - the thing about ~embedded stuff: you don't see it.

Edited 2012-10-20 15:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by Alfman on Sat 20th Oct 2012 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

zima,

"PS. And WinCE is moderately widely deployed - the thing about ~embedded stuff: you don't see it."

...until it crashes.

http://www.techmynd.com/50-plus-blue-screen-of-death-displays-in-pu...

Sorry I couldn't help myself ;)

Many devices I'd have never thought to be running windows until seeing them crash.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Luminair
by zima on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Luminair"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Or until seeing OS/2 crash and reboot... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atm_os2warp.jpg

Or until seeing Linux crash and reboot... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WP10_in_Pittsburgh_17.jpg

Or people cursing their routers or Androids...

Windows might be possibly the most popular OS driving large displays (say, because they are conceptually similar to a desktop computer, easy to grasp that way, easier handed by a typically barely-trained stuff), of course such will be more visible.

And the thing about parent poster - he almost certainly wouldn't be able to speculate even about the likely top 10 embedded OS ...what can he tell about WinCE deployment?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by Fergy on Tue 16th Oct 2012 21:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

people should not be complaining about this price right now.

Very convincing. How did you come up with that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 17th Oct 2012 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

do I really need a reason to not complain about something I don't have?

Reply Score: 2

Windows RT is unmanaged
by truckweb on Tue 16th Oct 2012 22:04 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't forget this : Windows RT is unmanaged...

So it's going to be just as hard for IT to "manage" WinRT device than iOS or Android. It's Surface PRO with x86 Win8 that will be managed by all the usual tools.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/374653/is-microsoft-mismanaging-wi...

Reply Score: 2

Horrible pricing
by ze_jerkface on Wed 17th Oct 2012 02:37 UTC
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

Windows on a tablet but you can't run Windows software so it's basically IE and office light. Oh and that IE can't run plug-ins and only allows "accepted" Flash sites (no indy or naughty stuff).

And with a keyboard it costs more than an iPad.

Any Windows 8 defenders left here? Anyone want to tell me that I was being too harsh on Ballmer or Sinofsky? Gee whiz maybe you Windows 8 defenders should pay attention next time the VAST MAJORITY of Windows bloggers call a version of Windows a POS. Yes Ballmer really is a dumbass and yes he really did put a clueless Steve Jobs wannabe in charge of Windows. You can agree now or later, don't be the last person to figure this out.

Edited 2012-10-17 02:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Horrible pricing
by darknexus on Wed 17th Oct 2012 07:55 UTC in reply to "Horrible pricing"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Oh and that IE can't run plug-ins and only allows "accepted" Flash sites (no indy or naughty stuff).


Apparently it's not enough for them to dictate what we can install, they also want to dictate the web pages we can use. Even Apple hasn't tried to go that far. Next thing you know, IE will only view accepted or signed web sites altogether. Both companies piss me off, but Microsoft is starting to retake their place as the king of the arsehole hill.

Reply Score: 1

kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

The Xbox 360 is not free and there are millons of people willing to pay for it. Same for Win7 PCs.

I guess Ballmer can always stop counting the money from aforementioned Xbox 360 and Win7 sales for a moment, and think that a couple of losers boycott his products. Same for Apple.

The only way to break a monopoly is to make a better product, see Android.

Edited 2012-10-17 14:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

As for their desktops, consumers really have no choice but to buy a desktop with windows pre-installed. Because ms forces consumers to use windows (through their oem deals with hardware manufacturers) they are really doing a disservice to the public because there is millions of consumers who despise windows.


Citation needed*

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-037-OP

(note the no OS option, and you save £91) ... Check your facts please.


Also nobody has a gun pointed at their head and forced to buy a Windows laptop. If you want an alternative there are options out there to buy a system that is made for your needs.

It is like me complaining in the UK most bicycles are sold by Halfords and claiming Halfords are a monopoly.

The fact is that bicycle in Halfords are good enough for what most people want to do (get to work and back and some exercise on weekends).

They don't cater for me who wishes to have an Italian Steel Frame, Italian components and matching coloured parts.

I am a niche market and I pay likewise for my niche cycling interests.

It is not different in the PC world. Either pay the companies that are interested in supporting you extra or follow the crowd.


Not only that, windows is used in many government institutions such as public schools, so taxpayers are indirectly paying for windows and microsoft services.


So? There are these things called budgets, people make a decision on how much that budget should be and what it should be used for.

If you wish to petition your case to your representative please do so, it isn't Microsoft's fault that someone chose to buy their products that was within their budget that was afforded to them.

Maybe you should question your elected representatives rather than ranting about it on OSNEWS.

Edited 2012-10-17 20:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Citation needed*

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-037-OP

(note the no OS option, and you save £91) ... Check your facts please.


Truth be told, no Average Joe is aware of Overclockers. And atleast here in Finland even I can't come up with a single vendor providing systems without Windows pre-installed unless you go for Apple, and then you get OSX instead.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I appreciate your point and it was a somewhat trite example.

I was replying to the notion that these things don't exist ... and if you really cared that much you would maybe do a bit of research before claiming the opposite was true. I literally googled that off the top of my head ... there was no big effort to find the no OS option. I appreciate it maybe different in different countries.

My argument is that people who wish to control the platform they use as much as people on here do, They are a niche and we should expect to be treated as a niche market by the larger players.

You don't have fixed gear bicycle riders complaining about their Japanese NJS components (very fashionable) are expensive ... because they understand that they aren't what the mass market is geared towards.

Edited 2012-10-17 21:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

atleast here in Finland even I can't come up with a single vendor providing systems without Windows pre-installed unless you go for Apple, and then you get OSX instead.

Well, I go to ceneo.pl (possibly the most popular and well-known here catalogue of products and online shops), to "laptops" category (noting that a laptop without an OS is the most popular one), pick "no OS" and "Linux" options, and...
http://www.ceneo.pl/Laptopy;017P8-250094-250095.htm
...get over 400 products. Similar for netbooks or desktops (just picked the example of laptops since they're most popular now, and typically the subject of local conspiracy theories from ~Linux-faithful - before the see the above search on ceneo)

Now, you're seriously telling us that Finland didn't come up with such web service? That it lags in anything-high-tech behind... Poland?

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

zima,

"Well, I go to ceneo.pl (possibly the most popular and well-known here catalogue of products and online shops), to 'laptops' category (noting that a laptop without an OS is the most popular one), pick 'no OS' and 'Linux' options, and..."

I visited the link to verify your claim, but I cannot read it ;) so I'll take you at your word. If it is the case that no-os is the most popular option there, it makes me wonder how many people are not getting what they really want when there isn't a no-os choice.

Heck, not even talking in terms of alternate OS, some people might routinely be overwriting a bundled copy of windows home with a standalone copy of windows professional, because no-os isn't a choice. I'm sure a good chunk of windows sales go to customers who'd rather buy windows licenses separately and reuse it if no-OS systems were easier to buy. I'm really curious as to how often bundled windows licenses are oversold like this.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

If it is the case that no-os is the most popular option there, it makes me wonder how many people are not getting what they really want when there isn't a no-os choice.

Heh, don't count on it. Vast majority of those no-OS or "Linux"* machines end up with Windows installation - at best student MSDNAA license, but typically pirated. Windows is what people overwhelmingly want on a PC, accept that - no-OS or "Linux"* are just means to get a slightly lower price.
(oh yeah, so those people are used to no-crapware Windows installs; even much easier to like Windows that way)

Though I didn't say that no-OS is the most popular option overall, but that one such laptop as at the top of popularity ATM.

*why I'm writing "Linux" you ask? Well, it's often just a smokescreen so that a reputable big PC maker can always say ~"we don't facilitate piracy, all our machines are sold with an operating system" or such.
But it doesn't say how that Linux looks; in one case I've seen, it was just a Knoppix live-DVD thrown into the box; in another, some Linux installation which didn't even boot into X ...and couldn't, since it lacked support for the GFX chip in that laptop.

I visited the link to verify your claim, but I cannot read it so I'll take you at your word.

And what is it with you doubting such ~new info, even when there's a link? ;p (where you can see "Wybrane filtry System operacyjny Bez systemu Linux" in a field at the top, key words similar to EN ones ...better yet: parse whole page through Google Translate, it works bearably)

Edited 2012-10-24 00:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

skpg Member since:
2012-09-21

You don't understand Microsoft's monopoly. You don't understand the scam they sell to the public with the help of their oem partners. The pre-build desktops that you see in retail stores (HP, Toshiba, etc) are practically crippleware because the hardware only responds to Windows, what's worse is some cases it only responds to that licensed version of Windows. Meaning that if you reformat your HP/Dell/Sony desktop it will be already be crippled. Please don't tell me that consumers are getting a bargain buying some desktop at walmart, because you and I know that is corrupt business practices. That's just MS and their oem partners getting a quick buck and that is the truth.

Microsoft is a monopoly not because of their market-share or through the oem deals. Microsoft is a monopoly because of the copyright laws in software.

The copyright laws in software prevents any modification and redistribution of Windows. For example mac os x is made up of parts of bsd. Let's say a linux vendor decides to mix the nt kernel with linux, they would be in violation of a copyright law. If I were to fork windows and make it open source I would go to jail. In the foss world you see forks all the time of linux and bsd. Why can't a software vendor fork windows or use parts of windows, especially since it's practically used everywhere?

So it is the copyright and patent laws that allow microsoft to standardize the desktop market in their favor. Because they have the market-share that attracts developers and hardware manufacturers (this is known as the network effect) the consumers only have one choice if they want to get video game compatibility or if they want to get a certain hardware working, because the other operating systems don't have that support. This is called vendor-lock in because consumers have to use windows in order to get something done.

If the copyright laws did not exist in software, or if it was legal to modify and redistribute windows, this **** wouldn't happen. But copyright and patent laws do exist. I mean it is a crime to copy "the look and feel" of apple products. We all know that apple's litigation history is infamous. Can you imagine what would happen if some competitor use parts parts of the windows source code?


You can believe all you want that there is actually a choice in the operating systems we choose. There is no choice especially for the average consumers, it's only Windows.

Edited 2012-10-18 00:24 UTC

Reply Score: 0

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You don't understand Microsoft's monopoly. You don't understand the scam they sell to the public with the help of their oem partners. The pre-build desktops that you see in retail stores (HP, Toshiba, etc) are practically crippleware because the hardware only responds to Windows,


That is the hardware vendor fault not Windows, My dell Laptop works fine with every OS I can throw at it ... this isn't Microsoft's fault it is the hardware vendor.

what's worse is some cases it only responds to that licensed version of Windows. Meaning that if you reformat your HP/Dell/Sony desktop it will be already be crippled.


Absolute fucking rubbish.

Microsoft is a monopoly not because of their market-share or through the oem deals. Microsoft is a monopoly because of the copyright laws in software.


The same copyright laws that protect open source software. If there wasn't any copyright law, Oracle or IBM would be selling their own proprietary version of linux.

The copyright laws in software prevents any modification and redistribution of Windows. For example mac os x is made up of parts of bsd. Let's say a linux vendor decides to mix the nt kernel with linux, they would be in violation of a copyright law. If I were to fork windows and make it open source I would go to jail. In the foss world you see forks all the time of linux and bsd. Why can't a software vendor fork windows or use parts of windows, especially since it's practically used everywhere?


Because Microsoft like Apple have released it with a particular software license that forbids you from forking it. As the maker of their software it is their right to release it under any license they choose to.

So it is the copyright and patent laws that allow microsoft to standardize the desktop market in their favor. Because they have the market-share that attracts developers and hardware manufacturers (this is known as the network effect) the consumers only have one choice if they want to get video game compatibility or if they want to get a certain hardware working, because the other operating systems don't have that support. This is called vendor-lock in because consumers have to use windows in order to get something done.


Android and iOS also have this effect. This is how markets work. It is ridiculous to argue that this is some how wrong.

If the copyright laws did not exist in software, or if it was legal to modify and redistribute windows, this **** wouldn't happen. But copyright and patent laws do exist. I mean it is a crime to copy "the look and feel" of apple products. We all know that apple's litigation history is infamous. Can you imagine what would happen if some competitor use parts parts of the windows source code?


If copyright law didn't exist there would be no open source software either and there would be no choice.

Reply Score: 3

skpg Member since:
2012-09-21

That is the hardware vendor fault not Windows, My dell Laptop works fine with every OS I can throw at it ... this isn't Microsoft's fault it is the hardware vendor.

Hardware vendors have been doing this for decades. It's practically a scam. If I spend $700 on television it better be working 100%, but if I spend $700 on a PC desktop there is a high probability of it being crippled. That's what a monopoly is they sell shoddy products at inflated prices. Microsoft and their OEM partners sell a scam product. What's worse is that you need a serial key to use windows so it makes a hassle to reinstall windows.

Because Microsoft like Apple have released it with a particular software license that forbids you from forking it. As the maker of their software it is their right to release it under any license they choose to.

A license is permission. It only arises when you have the right to stop someone, and then you grant permission. But the right to stop flows from copyright. Licenses would largely evaporate without copyright law to prop it up. ie people could ignore any “license terms” a software designer tried to impose.

Absolute f--king rubbish..

Oh that's true, because the drivers in a pre-built computer can sometimes only respond to a certain operating system. Not all of them, but some do (HP computers) trust me I know this from experience.

The same copyright laws that protect open source software. If there wasn't any copyright law, Oracle or IBM would be selling their own proprietary version of linux.

BSD licenses is fine with either open source or proprietary. The problem is because software is covered by both patent and copyright restrictions then it becomes a legal nightmare. The one thing that open source software does prove is that copyrights are not necessary for software innovation and in fact that they are counter productive in many ways.

The most obvious example of this is that the internet is built on open source software. There is NO WAY that the internet would function to day if it was not due to open source software. If companies choose to retain full copyright restrictions then there is no way in hell that the internet and world wide web could function as cheaply and as efficiently as it does now.

If copyright law didn't exist there would be no open source software either and there would be no choice..

If copyright law didn't exist free software would be much more popular. If a software developer doesn't want to release their source code, then they don't have to it. They release the files in binary format, nothing wrong with that. But there would be be an incentive for developers to release their source code. Closed source software wouldn't go away and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Edited 2012-10-18 21:42 UTC

Reply Score: 0

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's practically a scam. If I spend $700 on television it better be working 100%, but if I spend $700 on a PC desktop there is a high probability of it being crippled. That's what a monopoly is they sell shoddy products at inflated prices. Microsoft and their OEM partners sell a scam product.

Your TV doesn't really work in most countries, on most broadcast systems and/or local standard of mains power... (that's what the equivalent of an OS & drivers & apps would be, for a TV)

BTW, the Internet runs on Cisco and Juniper switches, on their closed OS. And GPL is a copyright license, it wouldn't work without it.

Reply Score: 2

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

I guess you must be living on the planet Zog where Italian Steel (as used in your bike frame) is top quality instead of the same rubbish that goes into Fiat cars.

Reply Score: 1

Price
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 17th Oct 2012 11:49 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

For everyone complaining about the price of these new MicroSoft tablets I say "wait". In three months when they are not selling well MicroSoft will drop the price.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by rain
by rain on Wed 17th Oct 2012 15:34 UTC
rain
Member since:
2005-07-09

It seems reasonably priced to me given that the build quality is supposed to be excellent. And I think it's this price range that MS should focus on.

It would be a lot more attractive for $100 less since the touch cover is the major selling point at the moment.

I personally wouldn't buy it over an iPad a the moment though. And given that there has been a lot of negative reactions regarding the price, it doesn't seem to be all that appealing in general.
I fail to understand why some people expected it to start at $199 though. Would be rather pointless for MS to make the effort at that price.

Edited 2012-10-17 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

I never thought i'd say this but...
by siraf72 on Wed 17th Oct 2012 18:19 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

I wish MS good luck with this. (part of my soul just died)

For the sake of the industry.

Reply Score: 2

Sure is beautiful...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 17th Oct 2012 22:32 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

"Worse yet, the Surface RT has a paltry 1366x768 resolution, while the iPad 3 has that beautiful (don't try to deny it!) 2048x1536 display."

Sure is a beautiful screen... for those Holy Ghost of Steve Jobs-blessed and Apple-approved advertisements to be forced down your throat.

Edited 2012-10-17 22:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Kicking myself
by quackalist on Thu 18th Oct 2012 00:55 UTC
quackalist
Member since:
2007-08-27

Keep having to kick myself to remember this is the price for the RT Atom, not really windows, version. WTF, not sure how they expect this to run but more so when the real windows surface comes next year...epic fail!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Kicking myself
by WereCatf on Thu 18th Oct 2012 01:36 UTC in reply to "Kicking myself"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Keep having to kick myself to remember this is the price for the RT Atom


Atom? I'm not sure if I am reading your sentence correctly as it's somewhat jumbled up, but this Surface discussed here uses NVIDIA Tegra3 as its CPU.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Kicking myself
by quackalist on Thu 18th Oct 2012 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Kicking myself"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

My mistake, not sure were that came from. Anyway, Surface RT is the version that wont run legacy windows apps and the Surface Pro that arrives in 2013 does so the fundamentals of what I was saying holds, for me anyway. Surface RT comes in roughly at the price I'd consider for Pro. Can understand others might have more leeway but don't see too many having enough to consider RT over an iPad or some other tablet, it brings nothing very much to the market, and though the pro might be desirable for windows users it's cost is going to be so high I fail to see it selling much at all...epic fail.

I might be proved wrong, maybe others will get it right , but I doubt it.

Reply Score: 2

The Empire Strikes Back
by lucas_maximus on Thu 18th Oct 2012 09:01 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18
RE: The Empire Strikes Back
by Gullible Jones on Thu 18th Oct 2012 11:22 UTC in reply to "The Empire Strikes Back"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Wow. I could see people shelling out for the higher end ones, just to get an x86 tablet that ran a desktop version of Windows, so they could actually install stuff on it. But why would anyone want the ARM version?

I am confused.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The Empire Strikes Back
by WereCatf on Thu 18th Oct 2012 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: The Empire Strikes Back"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Wow. I could see people shelling out for the higher end ones, just to get an x86 tablet that ran a desktop version of Windows, so they could actually install stuff on it. But why would anyone want the ARM version?


I believe that many (most?) of these people haven't actually realized that this ARM-version cannot run their old apps and games and will be sorely disappointed when they find that out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The Empire Strikes Back
by lucas_maximus on Thu 18th Oct 2012 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Empire Strikes Back"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

We won't know until later. I suspect those who have bought them do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: The Empire Strikes Back
by Alfman on Thu 18th Oct 2012 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Empire Strikes Back"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"We won't know until later. I suspect those who have bought them do."

Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse: do what?

I might eventually have to buy one myself, but it'll be because it's what my clients are using rather than what I want to use. Developers are in a unique position here, and anyways I suspect that it will be a long time before my clients start demanding metro apps.

Windows 8 OS itself without metro bundled in seems like a decent technical upgrade from 7 for the desktop, but there's not much controversy worth talking about there ;)

I could even see myself springing for a windows 8/linux dual boot ARM tablet if it weren't for this damned no-linux-here policy ms is enforcing against manufacturers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The Empire Strikes Back
by lucas_maximus on Thu 18th Oct 2012 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The Empire Strikes Back"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Do know that it only runs Win RT programs.

People don't expect the iPad to run Mac Programs.

Edited 2012-10-18 18:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: The Empire Strikes Back
by WereCatf on Thu 18th Oct 2012 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The Empire Strikes Back"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

People don't expect the iPad to run Mac Programs.


I'd say that's mostly because an iPad doesn't have the same name as, say, Macbook Air. I've had several people asking how to get this or that game or application on their phone, because "it clearly says it needs this windows and I have windows on my phone, see?!" while waving their CD or DVD in the air. I may have just met the really obtuse ones, but some luddites just don't see the difference between one Windows and another Windows. Apple has better naming-scheme here, with similar names that are easy enough to remember, but distinctive enough to tell them apart.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: The Empire Strikes Back
by lucas_maximus on Thu 18th Oct 2012 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The Empire Strikes Back"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

But are Luddites going to be pre-ordering on Microsoft's website?

Edited 2012-10-18 19:45 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: The Empire Strikes Back
by quackalist on Fri 19th Oct 2012 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The Empire Strikes Back"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Imagine it more to do with most iPad buyers weren't Mac users and wouldn't have known, had little preconception, what to expect.

Possible Win RT users are another matter. Unless spelt out in BIG letters, dayglo even, don't discount the possibility large hordes of Windows users will assume any Windows tablet is Windows, full stop. After all, it does look like Win 8...

Reply Score: 2

IPAD is an oversized phone!!
by davems on Sun 21st Oct 2012 01:22 UTC
davems
Member since:
2012-10-21

LETS REMEMBER, the IPAD is an oversized IPhone. Its the same OS. It is primarily designed for content/media consumption. Sure you can say the IPAD can create documents, but if you have ever used an IPAD to create documents, than you know your settling with a sub-par experience of document creation, it’s un-natural and awkward at best. What Microsoft did with Surface is a re-imagined OS, that is meant for not only content/media consumption, but also TRUE content creation as well. It has up to 64GB Storage, quad-core CPU and It includes a full version of the Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Excel and PowerPoint: worth $150 and you get it free). You also get a mail client, SkyDrive (one of the best cloud services), a full App store, lots of includes apps, a browser, unlimited FREE Music streaming (over 30 million songs, more than iTunes), a built in kick-stand (to watch movies and work more naturally when at a desk/table), a full USB port, MicroSD Card slot. (You don’t need to buy accessories to transfer files, photos, music documents, just use a USB stick and/or microSD card). The Surface is of course a full touch friendly device with dynamic informative attractive live tiles, (not static dumb icons like with IOS). Lets also point out that the Surface has a full keyboard and mouse pad that acts as a cover when not in use. Now, with the Microsoft Surface you can watch movies, listen to music (for free), take pictures, TOP notch security, encryption, video calls, download apps, surf the web, check email, create word, excel and PowerPoint documents just as you have in the past, socialize online, Tweet, Facebook, print, play games, and without compromise create documents using Office and a keyboard/mouse. So lets be clear, The Microsoft Surface is a no compromise Tablet. Its completely mobile, thin and light. In fact, for most people The Surface RT can replace a laptop. What the Surface brings is a mobile touch friendly tablet, that also allows you to work the way you would traditionally with a keyboard/mouse when you want to and when it makes the most sense. I am confident, once people try one out the decision to get one will be a no brainer!!! The Microsoft Surface RT gives you value for your money. And for those people who want to run legacy Windows x86 apps (like businesses, power users, etc…) The Surface pro will answer all their needs!!! If your objective, and once people play with one, everyone will see the Surface as the best Tablet for your money!!! (and by the way, You know Microsoft is going to back this 200% and your investment is protected). People said the Xbox couldn’t displace the play station and the now the Xbox is the #1 gaming system. The same will happen with Surface (and Winodws 8 / RT devices)

Reply Score: 1