Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 00:39 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Efforts are split between models in which keyboards detach from screens, ones in which the keys remain attached but can be hidden behind displays, and traditional fixed clamshell designs." None of these really float my boat. They work with clunky connectors and weird hinges, while I'd much rather have Surface's nice magnetic connection. On top of that, Surface just looks way better than this stuff. Pretty clear why Microsoft felt the need to make their own hardware.
Thread beginning with comment 533643
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
piss poor design
by Bit_Rapist on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 03:35 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

The reason why all of these models are showing up that are a mix between a traditional PC and a tablet are because Windows 8 is broken from a design standpoint.

You can't make a great piece of hardware when the operating system it is meant to run is crap and the developers themselves do not know WTF it is supposed to be!

Is it a PC? Yes. Is it a Tablet OS? YES! Is it a frankenstein joke? Oh YES INDEED.

For the first time ever I have zero interest in the latest version of windows.

Reply Score: 10

RE: piss poor design
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 06:29 in reply to "piss poor design"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Sad but true. Windows 8 absolutely sucks a big one with a traditional keyboard-and-mouse setup, and I would imagine it would be even worse with a typical laptop trackpad-and-keyboard interface, so everyone is busy trying to fling shit at the fan to see what sticks and doesn't come back to splash right back in their faces. This is not innovation; this is companies desperately trying to make something work that just doesn't, and it will probably never work as well as a traditional desktop for anyone who needs real power, no matter how much you try to change and mangle the physical interface in an attempt to try to make it fit.

For a company that spent so much money on R&D to come up with a GUI that, for the most part, is extremely easy to figure out and understand even for an idiot and complete newcomer to computers, it is amazing that they allowed this garbage to get to the heads of their upper management and start forcing this crap down millions of computer users' throats. This is a pure marketing gimmick--it only has the potential (key word there) to benefit a small group of users that buy a specialty/mobile form factor touchscreen device. To everyone else, it's a big flip of the bird.

It might be causing some very short-term innovation between companies right now, specifically for mobile touchscreen-based devices, but as I see it in the long term we all lose. Anyone who wants real power, at least. Windows 8--just like Windows Vista and ME before it--is a disgrace.

Edited 2012-09-03 06:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: piss poor design
by bassbeast on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 10:00 in reply to "RE: piss poor design"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

The reason how this got past usability testing is simple friend...the X86 PC is flatline and frankly its gonna STAY flatline because once we hit multicores PCs went way past good enough and are into insanely overpowered. This means that the PC will be like a washer and dryer, only replaced when it dies.

Meanwhile the ARM tablet is undergoing its own MHz race just as PCs did in the 90s and MSFT has pretty much ZERO percentage of that market, same goes for ARM cellphones. So Ballmer is throwing the Hail Mary and praying to every Deity in the book that he can gain some share.

Whether it will work or not I guess will depend on how much money Ballmer is willing to flush, if he sells iPad specced hardware at Kindle prices? he might be able to buy some share and hope it gets made up on the appstore. I think it will bomb on the X86 though, most likely it'll be like Vista where the OEMs offer you a "Windows 8 system" with Win 7 and a DVD in the bottom of the box nobody uses.

But I do feel sorry for the OEMs though, knowing just like Vista MSFT won't let them sell Win 7 PCs until the sales take a dive like with Vista and in a bad economy having 6 months of no sales is gonna seriously hurt.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: piss poor design
by WorknMan on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 16:25 in reply to "RE: piss poor design"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This is not innovation; this is companies desperately trying to make something work that just doesn't, and it will probably never work as well as a traditional desktop for anyone who needs real power, no matter how much you try to change and mangle the physical interface in an attempt to try to make it fit.


Well, that's the cool thing about Windows 8... if you need 'real power', just press Win+D, and you're off to the races ;)

Of course, most people (probably 90% of them), don't need all those bells and whistles, so Metro will probably do fine for them, which is what MS is counting on. Of course, I have no idea if tech tards will take to Metro or not... only time will tell. Sure it's different, but then so was iOS and Android.

As for Windows 8 'classic' desktop, it's got some features that Win7 doesn't, such as native USB 3.0 support, taskbars on multiple monitors, hyper-v virtualization, improved task manager, native ISO mounting, etc. Plus, it runs faster and on less memory. It's not a huge improvement, but for $40, I plan on taking the plunge.

Edited 2012-09-03 16:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: piss poor design
by Fergy on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 19:53 in reply to "piss poor design"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

For the first time ever I have zero interest in the latest version of windows.

What did you like about win98SE winME winXP-SP0 and Vista-SP0 that you were interested in?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: piss poor design
by Bit_Rapist on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 20:03 in reply to "RE: piss poor design"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

98SE I was interested in running a newer version of DirectX that required it (can't remember which ver, I think 7 or 8)

WinME I skipped I was already on Windows 2000 but I was interested in the changes and it was the last of the Win9X series.

Windows XP I was excited about a single OS for consumer and pros built on the NT kernel

Vista I was excited about Aero and a load of other changes. Yes it was a let down. Windows 7 redeemed my feelings on it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: piss poor design
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 3rd Sep 2012 21:06 in reply to "RE: piss poor design"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

What did you like about win98SE winME winXP-SP0 and Vista-SP0 that you were interested in?

I'm not to one you were responding to, but those are two easy answers.

1. Windows 98 was Win9x refined, done right, with more hardware drivers and stability without adding too much bloat. It was just a good Windows release for the time, and an improvement over its predecessors. Simple as that.

2. Ever use Windows ME? I was unfortunate at the time to buy a PC at the time, and it came with that version of the OS pre-installed. After you've used that incredibly bloated, slow, unstable disaster for a few weeks (let alone months), you'll be begging for a change. Hell, I even paid for a damn XP "preview" release and then immediately went out and bought an upgrade license when it was finally released--Windows ME was just that bad. It was slow and all it could do well is crash.

Reply Parent Score: 2