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.
Thread beginning with comment 530487
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Morgan on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:08 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:27 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:21 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 20:24 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by moondevil on Fri 10th Aug 2012 07:03 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 Parent Score: 3