* Surface 2 loses the low-density screen. I enjoy that low-density has been deprecated.
* The names are right. Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2. No "Surface with Windows RT 8.1" nonsense.
* Haswell, yes please. Longer battery life may assuage some popular criticism.
* Backlit type cover. I hope this is compatible with my Surface Pro.
* Two-position kick stand. I will be envious of this.
* Surface 2 is smaller than Surface RT.
* More memory in the Pro 2.
* Docking station. Depending on the price of that and whether it's compatible with my Surface Pro, I may pick one up. However, I'd prefer to have an inductive charging plate as I have with my Nokia phone. I love the idea of just dropping wireless devices on a plate with no cables, no alignment, no fuss.
I am disappointed by:
* I personally would have preferred a Surface 2 Pro that leveraged Haswell to reduce the form factor to roughly the same as the original Surface RT. But I've never actually drained my Pro's battery, so I'd take lighter-weight versus increased battery lifespan. I'm usually near an AC outlet when I am out and about.
* I would have liked a purely x86 lineup. Bay Trail Atom (or Haswell i3) on the low-end, Haswell i5 on the high-end.
* Windows RT needs help. Remove its artificial limitations.
Overall, I am fairly satisfied. I may want to replace my wife's netbook with a 2 Pro.
I think all of the products are surprisingly compelling, but the naming has arguably become an even bigger and more glaring issue.
The original Surface lineup was very compelling. The only real issue with it was the majorly confusing marketing message with having two products with a major qualitative difference sharing essentially the same name.
It kind of pains me that rather than learning from their $900 million mistake, they've essentially doubled down on it and somehow managed to create two products with even more similar sounding names. I think that they're once again going to confuse some people about the respective capabilities of each machine with this naming scheme.
Everything's compatible with the SP. Only the original Surface is missing the extra contacts on bottom for some of the new hardware.
Myself, I'll be picking up the Power Cover when that shows up (I'm expecting 2014), but not replacing the tablet. 8ish hours of battery life is plenty for me.
I'll save the big money for a real laptop when the rest of the PC makers finally put some Haswell-based stuff on store shelves this holiday season. That it's taken them over a year since the MBA is pathetic.
The only thing that keeps me from using SP2 as a desktop replacement is the GPU. I still like to do some casual gaming every once in a while, and Intel's integrated graphics are too far behind nVidia/ATI's discrete offerings in other ultrabooks.
> * Surface 2 loses the low-density screen. I enjoy that low-density has been deprecated.
The 1.5X screen of the Surface 2 is definitely better than its old 1X screen, but will that be competitive with the 2X screens in other tablets (Android and Apple) at the same or lower price points?
Dear Microsoft: Out of ARM and x86, choose one. Just choose one. For the love of god, choose ONE.
Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software? It is inconceivable, and for good reason.
MS cannot make decisions. That's what will kill them, long term. Just choose one!!
Apple DOES have an X86 ecosystem AND an ARM ecosystem. They do not cross streams and customers are not confused, and Apple can successfully grow application ecosystems across two very different architectures.
So what is Microsoft doing wrong?
It's very simple, and I cannot believe they haven't already done this. I'm thinking that the naming scheme for their ARM platform is why they're balking, since they've stupidly named their ARM ecosystem "Windows Phone".
Apple succeeds by maintaining separation between the ecosystems, and that's where MS is failing.
MS needs to realign:
Surface means x86 tablet. Period. End of story. It's a high end tablet for those who need more than an iDevice, who want a full laptop in a tablet shell. Surface means quality. Surface means x86, and it means desktop compatible.
Windows Phone, including Windows Phone Tablet (Surface RT) means ARM. Period. The WP8 ecosystem and it's tablet arm should be the branding covering the ARM ecosystem.
I'm thinking that the name "Windows Phone" for the ecosystem is what dissuaded them from trying to attach the tablet to that ecosystem.
Why does Apple get a pass on this? They have just taken the alternative approach of fracturing their OS and hardware. It's natural because of where they started (iPod -> iPhone -> iPad), so this isn't a criticism.
As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple (even if MS is having difficulties reconciling the tablet vs. desktop experience). MS has touch on the desktop. When is Apple going to have touch on Mac Books?
I know SJ said vertical touch screens don't work. They will continue to say so until they add touch. Undoubtedly, they'll do it well, and it will be well integrated with the OS. But they'll continue to say it doesn't work...until it does. Similar to the movement to flat with nary a mention of Metro.
So Apple has the challenge of bringing their user-level of their OS offerings closer together (along with the hardware), whereas MS has the challenge of dealing with the Metro/Desktop schism and the x86/ARM dichotomy. Same coin, different sides.
> Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software?
Apple actually managed two very smooth transition/coexistence periods, from 68K to PPC and from PPC to x86, when it was easy to build binaries that ran on both platforms.
Actually Windows 8 can run anything Windows RT can run. The opposite isn't true however, since there's no way to write a desktop (x86/Win32) application for Windows RT.
I used to agree with you, however their strategy makes a lot of sense when you realize that the desktop is just going to disappear from Windows all together. I think that in the future it'll literally just be treated like any other app, and you'll be able to download 'nix desktop apps alongside the Windows desktop app. Honestly with what they're doing with Hyper-V, this is becoming more and more plausible.
Very nice. Pretty much everything I read was a net positive for the product, the only quibble might be the price but of all the things you can change in the future that is easiest to change :-).
I was intrigued by the music keyboard, not because I think the Surface is the instrument of the future, but because I think there is a market for a device which can easily customize its input experience like that. I have thought for a while that future test equipment from Tektronix or Agilent might look like that but with a scope control panel and a dock for attaching probes.
Like the 2 position kickstand, the one we got at work to do testing on that was annoying. I bet Surface 3 touts an infinitely adjustable one :-).
I think the ARM/x86 messaging is pretty spot on as well, Microsoft is playing the "its just windows" card pretty hard and dropping the RT moniker was smart too. Most consumers could care less about instruction set architecture. And what happens when Apple makes an Air with the A7 ? Will Apple have the 2 x 2 matrix (iOS/MacOS)(ARM/x86)? and Microsoft the 1 x 2 matrix (Windows)(ARM/x86) ? I'd think the latter long term is easier to message and less confusing for customers. If they go all Ubuntu like and create a Win 8.1 phone experience then there product / os vector is 1x3 (Windows)(phone/tablet/laptop).
That said, for me it reinforces the notion that this is the year of the Linux desktop. I recently had the experience of using a USB serial cable that worked under Linux but not under Windows 7. That was one of the signs for me that perhaps Windows was ceding the development workstation business (or at least not paying attention to it). That should be good news for folks like System76.
There is a simple change Microsoft need to make to the Surface RT to make it viable.
Fix app compatibility.
Start by removing the artificial restriction on desktop apps. Currently desktop apps are restricted to those signed by Microsoft. If they were to remove this restriction there's a whole load of apps that could be recompiled to target ARM and work on the RT desktop. Companies and open source devs would be far more willing to spend a small amount of time porting existing code bases to ARM than re-writing whole apps for 'Metro style'.
On top of that, Microsoft already have a platform compatibility layer in .Net. And they clearly already have a ARM version of the .Net runtime as you can build Metro apps targeting .Net. It seems absolutely crazy that they don't make use of this already existing compatibility layer that could allow all existing .Net apps to run on RT desktop without change. This would make the surface RT a far more interesting proposition for companies looking to deploy their internal homegrown enterprise apps to windows tablets.
This change would re-position the RT from it's current state as a underwhelming curiosity who's main competitor is IPads and Android tablets which have a wider range of apps (and are significantly cheaper in the case of some Android brands) to a true low-mid end laptop alternative with decent app support at a similar price point. The Surface pro stays as it is as a high end laptop alternative.
> Start by removing the artificial restriction on desktop apps.
I would say the desktop is the biggest problem with Surface RT. It's clear they wanted an iPad, but ended up tacking on the desktop because Windows 8 couldn't operate in Metro-only mode (some settings, etc not available) and Office wasn't ready.
Fix that. Drop the desktop so there is no more confusion on the RT. You want the desktop? You want the pro. You want simple, reliable, easy to use? You want the RT. You had the vision, you knew what you were going for, complete it. I think the market might reward you. Either way at least you don't have the desktop sitting around reminding your users they bought a 'fake' computer.
I'll also say that making the RT tablet a different color is a serious plus. The fact that Microsoft was selling two totally different tablets aimed at different markets with different price points using the same name, marketing, and look was crazy. If customers can't tell which product is which, how you do expect them to choose?
Windows RT already has a full version of the .NET 4.5 Runtime for ARM. If you disable the Microsoft signature check, existing .NET apps do just run. A wasted opportunity - they don't want competition for their new App Store.. I wouldn't be surprised if RT was actually sold at a loss hoping to make up sales via apps like Xbox or razor blades.
As it happens I bought a second hand Surface Pro from ebay and it arrived today. Moving to it from a laptop thats a couple of years old, the Surface Pro is absolutely blowing me away. Faster than my old laptop, also acts as a tablet, using desktop applications via touch actually works, the pen is brilliant. The 128gb will be fine for me, because I've got used to living within about 120Gb.
The docking station looks fantastic. We've finally reached the day when we can plug in the tablet when we get home and instantly transform it into a full-blown desktop PC!
Too bad the 512GB/8GB model will probably cost an arm and a leg, making it more economical for most people to simply buy two computers. But once the price comes down a bit, I can see this becoming a true drop-in replacement for the majority of Windows desktops and laptops out there.
There are some problems with comparing a Windows Surface Pro tablet to an iPad. The availability of programs is such that you're not going to use the iPad for content creation, and you're probably not going to use the Surface for gaming. The Surface is not a pick-up-and-go sort of device.
It's a laptop with a mutli-touch display.
I'm building a program right now for Windows 8, on Dell hardware[1]. I've gotten quite used to the OS by now, and as long as you have a touch display, it doesn't really deserve the criticism I've read. I remember hearing the same thing about Windows XP and Windows Vista and Windows 7.
The thing that I like the most about using Windows 8 is that all of my software just, like, works. A little bit of that is luck: if I had written any programs that had heavy use of keyboard shortcuts, it wouldn't work without a blutooth keyboard. If I had written any programs that expected the screen to never resize, that too would break. But those are pretty bad programming habits to begin with. My programs don't look great, but that is a temporary problem.
And I can program for it with the same tools that I'm using for Windows 7 (hell, I can program on it). I don't have to wait for someone to make a something-to-something-else translator to use my favorite language to write programs like I do on iOS or Android. I don't have to wait for someone to make a decent text editor on iOS or Android. I don't have to wait for someone to write decent source control software for iOS or Android. I have it all, already. I can do whatever I want.
Hell, if I want to install Linux on the thing, I could. Of course, it's probably not going to play nicely with the touch screen, but that is a different issue. The Surface Pro is just a PC.
[1] The Dell hardware isn't great, but it has a regular, ol', USB port on it, which makes it amazing. I've played with the Surface Pro at a Staples and found it to be better than this Dell device in every way.
The Surface Pro 2 could make for a really interesting developer machine. Plug it into external keyboard/monitor when you're at your desk, then just pick it up and take it on the road when you want to. I'm tempted, but part of me can't shake the idea that I'd be replacing my laptop with a tablet, even know I know that's not quite true.
Also: Windows. I used to use it, but I've been working in OS X exclusively for a few years now, and going back to the Windows Command Prompt might kill me.
Better performance might help this sell, but the second I saw the "Surface Music Kit," I got excited.
As a DJ, I need to carry around an expensive laptop to perform. The iPad does not have any impressive apps to DJ (at least not professionally), so I'd be VERY interested if they focused on the niche music market here. Surface 2 + Kinect/Leap + superb DJing app + Spotify-esque music supply = very happy musicians.
Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is going to spend the time to develop a quality DJing app.
You do not need an app, if you get Surface Pro 2. I have been running Ableton Live 9 on it. It runs without any problems, I usually hook it up to my APC 40 and microKorg.
I have a friend who is a dj and has been struggling to get his music apps to work properly on his Surface; he ended up having to disable to a bunch of stuff to get it to work glitch free. So I would definitely wait to see how other people get on with the new models before jumping in.
Also, Traktor DJ and a Kontrol S2 is definitely a pro level setup for iPad...
It depends on what type of DJ you are I guess. Looking at your 'ultimate equation' it sounds like you might be a wedding DJ so Traktor isn't really your bag.
Why, oh why is there no version with 3G/LTE? That is by far the biggest bummer, imho. For people that are on the road a lot that makes such a difference, and pretty much all other tablets offer that option, so it seems really lame to not have that. Also, if I spent $1800 for a Surface Pro in the best configuration, I really would expect it to have the same connectivity as a iPad mini... Other than that, this seems like the perfect device (the Pro version).
Most of the issues that I had with Surface Pro seems to have been resolved by this update:
- Gets pretty hot - new haswell processors seem to be doing better
- Short battery life of 5 hrs - 75% improvement brings it to around 8-9 hrs, which is a typical work day and that's a great improvement
Overall Surface Pro hardware has always been top class, and I think this version might be the one to buy.
Microsoft should never have released Windows RT. The one reason, and the one biggest reason that people use Windows is backwards compatibility... By breaking that, they essentially undermined their own monopoly power, and now everyone is developing to be platform-agnostic.
And let's face it - no one has actually liked MS products in a decade, they've simply put up with them. Now that people aren't forced to use MS products, they don't. It doesn't matter whether or not the Surface 2 is any good, MS killed the only thing going for them...
Was it the device itself that caused such poor sales? I assumed all along it was a marketing/image problem which remains unsolved. Has relentlessness by a company ever overcome this issue in the past?
WinRT's consistent support for keyboard/mouse sets it apart from touch-oriented Android. Wireless handheld keyboard/mouse is hard to get right, but touchscreen without touching is harder. WinRT could be great on TVs.
But MS would worry about cannibalizing their XBox sales.
Surface RT owner here (freebie). LOVE the interface. Love the hardware (nice solid feel and excellent touch recognition). Wish kickstand would have 2 positions.. It's slower than a pro but I can deal with that. Crappy cameras, but not a show stopper.
My main beef why I can't recommend it is compatibility. If that was addressed, the number of apps would skyrocket and I'd be a huge fan.
You would think since MSFT is late to this market, putting in a low-medium cost, highly functional tablet to reverse the trend to apple and google would allow them to catch up quickly. The pro price is currently on par to an Ipad. Hopefully CEO #3 will do that.
Still no keyboard that can be used without a table. Most people spend less than $700 on a laptop. Not many people are going to spend more than that on a device that was intentionally rendered less capable so Microsoft could sell gimicky keyboard covers. Microsoft knows how to make nice hardware. All they need to do is create a true hybrid device that sets the example for the industry.
Why is there a photo of an external monitor with 3840x2160 and nothing is mentioned about it? Is it because it's just a hypothetical display that could be connected via the Mini DisplayPort, had it existed?
> Another cover that's totally out of left field is the "Surface Music Kit," a Touch Cover with a mixing deck instead of a keyboard. All the new Touch Covers are pressure sensitive, so for the Music kit, the harder you hit the Touch Cover, the louder the sound plays.
I'm not a music person but pressure-sensitive controls seems like the next frontier for touch devices (that, and Kinect-type cam interfaces)...I was going to say, "the iPad will likely fall behind here"...but it looks like third-party vendors are adding pressure-capability via Bluetooth: http://www.tuaw.com/2013/08/20/wacom-unveils-pressure-sensit...
[+] [-] bhauer|12 years ago|reply
* Surface 2 loses the low-density screen. I enjoy that low-density has been deprecated.
* The names are right. Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2. No "Surface with Windows RT 8.1" nonsense.
* Haswell, yes please. Longer battery life may assuage some popular criticism.
* Backlit type cover. I hope this is compatible with my Surface Pro.
* Two-position kick stand. I will be envious of this.
* Surface 2 is smaller than Surface RT.
* More memory in the Pro 2.
* Docking station. Depending on the price of that and whether it's compatible with my Surface Pro, I may pick one up. However, I'd prefer to have an inductive charging plate as I have with my Nokia phone. I love the idea of just dropping wireless devices on a plate with no cables, no alignment, no fuss.
I am disappointed by:
* I personally would have preferred a Surface 2 Pro that leveraged Haswell to reduce the form factor to roughly the same as the original Surface RT. But I've never actually drained my Pro's battery, so I'd take lighter-weight versus increased battery lifespan. I'm usually near an AC outlet when I am out and about.
* I would have liked a purely x86 lineup. Bay Trail Atom (or Haswell i3) on the low-end, Haswell i5 on the high-end.
* Windows RT needs help. Remove its artificial limitations.
Overall, I am fairly satisfied. I may want to replace my wife's netbook with a 2 Pro.
[1] http://tiamat.tsotech.com/microsoft
[+] [-] throwaway420|12 years ago|reply
The original Surface lineup was very compelling. The only real issue with it was the majorly confusing marketing message with having two products with a major qualitative difference sharing essentially the same name.
It kind of pains me that rather than learning from their $900 million mistake, they've essentially doubled down on it and somehow managed to create two products with even more similar sounding names. I think that they're once again going to confuse some people about the respective capabilities of each machine with this naming scheme.
[+] [-] dangrossman|12 years ago|reply
Everything's compatible with the SP. Only the original Surface is missing the extra contacts on bottom for some of the new hardware.
Myself, I'll be picking up the Power Cover when that shows up (I'm expecting 2014), but not replacing the tablet. 8ish hours of battery life is plenty for me.
I'll save the big money for a real laptop when the rest of the PC makers finally put some Haswell-based stuff on store shelves this holiday season. That it's taken them over a year since the MBA is pathetic.
The only thing that keeps me from using SP2 as a desktop replacement is the GPU. I still like to do some casual gaming every once in a while, and Intel's integrated graphics are too far behind nVidia/ATI's discrete offerings in other ultrabooks.
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|12 years ago|reply
The 1.5X screen of the Surface 2 is definitely better than its old 1X screen, but will that be competitive with the 2X screens in other tablets (Android and Apple) at the same or lower price points?
[+] [-] mikeevans|12 years ago|reply
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1mz20e/hi_im_panos_pan...
[+] [-] alyx|12 years ago|reply
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/presskits/surface/surfac...
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] enko|12 years ago|reply
Can you imagine Apple, or anyone else, deliberately releasing two different tablets, with the same name, which can not run each others' software? It is inconceivable, and for good reason.
MS cannot make decisions. That's what will kill them, long term. Just choose one!!
[+] [-] criley2|12 years ago|reply
Apple DOES have an X86 ecosystem AND an ARM ecosystem. They do not cross streams and customers are not confused, and Apple can successfully grow application ecosystems across two very different architectures.
So what is Microsoft doing wrong?
It's very simple, and I cannot believe they haven't already done this. I'm thinking that the naming scheme for their ARM platform is why they're balking, since they've stupidly named their ARM ecosystem "Windows Phone".
Apple succeeds by maintaining separation between the ecosystems, and that's where MS is failing.
MS needs to realign:
Surface means x86 tablet. Period. End of story. It's a high end tablet for those who need more than an iDevice, who want a full laptop in a tablet shell. Surface means quality. Surface means x86, and it means desktop compatible.
Windows Phone, including Windows Phone Tablet (Surface RT) means ARM. Period. The WP8 ecosystem and it's tablet arm should be the branding covering the ARM ecosystem.
I'm thinking that the name "Windows Phone" for the ecosystem is what dissuaded them from trying to attach the tablet to that ecosystem.
[+] [-] Todd|12 years ago|reply
As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple (even if MS is having difficulties reconciling the tablet vs. desktop experience). MS has touch on the desktop. When is Apple going to have touch on Mac Books?
I know SJ said vertical touch screens don't work. They will continue to say so until they add touch. Undoubtedly, they'll do it well, and it will be well integrated with the OS. But they'll continue to say it doesn't work...until it does. Similar to the movement to flat with nary a mention of Metro.
So Apple has the challenge of bringing their user-level of their OS offerings closer together (along with the hardware), whereas MS has the challenge of dealing with the Metro/Desktop schism and the x86/ARM dichotomy. Same coin, different sides.
[+] [-] rbanffy|12 years ago|reply
Apple actually managed two very smooth transition/coexistence periods, from 68K to PPC and from PPC to x86, when it was easy to build binaries that ran on both platforms.
[+] [-] jfoutz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manojlds|12 years ago|reply
Windows Store apps run on both of them.
[+] [-] Metrop0218|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MLR|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cptskippy|12 years ago|reply
Actually Windows 8 can run anything Windows RT can run. The opposite isn't true however, since there's no way to write a desktop (x86/Win32) application for Windows RT.
[+] [-] alyx|12 years ago|reply
They have clearly made some sort of a bet on ARM, if it doesn't pan out they will drop it soon enough.
[+] [-] gum_ina_package|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
I was intrigued by the music keyboard, not because I think the Surface is the instrument of the future, but because I think there is a market for a device which can easily customize its input experience like that. I have thought for a while that future test equipment from Tektronix or Agilent might look like that but with a scope control panel and a dock for attaching probes.
Like the 2 position kickstand, the one we got at work to do testing on that was annoying. I bet Surface 3 touts an infinitely adjustable one :-).
I think the ARM/x86 messaging is pretty spot on as well, Microsoft is playing the "its just windows" card pretty hard and dropping the RT moniker was smart too. Most consumers could care less about instruction set architecture. And what happens when Apple makes an Air with the A7 ? Will Apple have the 2 x 2 matrix (iOS/MacOS)(ARM/x86)? and Microsoft the 1 x 2 matrix (Windows)(ARM/x86) ? I'd think the latter long term is easier to message and less confusing for customers. If they go all Ubuntu like and create a Win 8.1 phone experience then there product / os vector is 1x3 (Windows)(phone/tablet/laptop).
That said, for me it reinforces the notion that this is the year of the Linux desktop. I recently had the experience of using a USB serial cable that worked under Linux but not under Windows 7. That was one of the signs for me that perhaps Windows was ceding the development workstation business (or at least not paying attention to it). That should be good news for folks like System76.
[+] [-] SimonPStevens|12 years ago|reply
Fix app compatibility.
Start by removing the artificial restriction on desktop apps. Currently desktop apps are restricted to those signed by Microsoft. If they were to remove this restriction there's a whole load of apps that could be recompiled to target ARM and work on the RT desktop. Companies and open source devs would be far more willing to spend a small amount of time porting existing code bases to ARM than re-writing whole apps for 'Metro style'.
On top of that, Microsoft already have a platform compatibility layer in .Net. And they clearly already have a ARM version of the .Net runtime as you can build Metro apps targeting .Net. It seems absolutely crazy that they don't make use of this already existing compatibility layer that could allow all existing .Net apps to run on RT desktop without change. This would make the surface RT a far more interesting proposition for companies looking to deploy their internal homegrown enterprise apps to windows tablets.
This change would re-position the RT from it's current state as a underwhelming curiosity who's main competitor is IPads and Android tablets which have a wider range of apps (and are significantly cheaper in the case of some Android brands) to a true low-mid end laptop alternative with decent app support at a similar price point. The Surface pro stays as it is as a high end laptop alternative.
[+] [-] MBCook|12 years ago|reply
I would say the desktop is the biggest problem with Surface RT. It's clear they wanted an iPad, but ended up tacking on the desktop because Windows 8 couldn't operate in Metro-only mode (some settings, etc not available) and Office wasn't ready.
Fix that. Drop the desktop so there is no more confusion on the RT. You want the desktop? You want the pro. You want simple, reliable, easy to use? You want the RT. You had the vision, you knew what you were going for, complete it. I think the market might reward you. Either way at least you don't have the desktop sitting around reminding your users they bought a 'fake' computer.
I'll also say that making the RT tablet a different color is a serious plus. The fact that Microsoft was selling two totally different tablets aimed at different markets with different price points using the same name, marketing, and look was crazy. If customers can't tell which product is which, how you do expect them to choose?
[+] [-] edandersen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twotwotwo|12 years ago|reply
App revenue is a small slice of profits even for Apple, and for the third-place player it's more important to attract devs than control their store.
[+] [-] codeulike|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JonFish85|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pingu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kijin|12 years ago|reply
Too bad the 512GB/8GB model will probably cost an arm and a leg, making it more economical for most people to simply buy two computers. But once the price comes down a bit, I can see this becoming a true drop-in replacement for the majority of Windows desktops and laptops out there.
[+] [-] moron4hire|12 years ago|reply
It's a laptop with a mutli-touch display.
I'm building a program right now for Windows 8, on Dell hardware[1]. I've gotten quite used to the OS by now, and as long as you have a touch display, it doesn't really deserve the criticism I've read. I remember hearing the same thing about Windows XP and Windows Vista and Windows 7.
The thing that I like the most about using Windows 8 is that all of my software just, like, works. A little bit of that is luck: if I had written any programs that had heavy use of keyboard shortcuts, it wouldn't work without a blutooth keyboard. If I had written any programs that expected the screen to never resize, that too would break. But those are pretty bad programming habits to begin with. My programs don't look great, but that is a temporary problem.
And I can program for it with the same tools that I'm using for Windows 7 (hell, I can program on it). I don't have to wait for someone to make a something-to-something-else translator to use my favorite language to write programs like I do on iOS or Android. I don't have to wait for someone to make a decent text editor on iOS or Android. I don't have to wait for someone to write decent source control software for iOS or Android. I have it all, already. I can do whatever I want.
Hell, if I want to install Linux on the thing, I could. Of course, it's probably not going to play nicely with the touch screen, but that is a different issue. The Surface Pro is just a PC.
[1] The Dell hardware isn't great, but it has a regular, ol', USB port on it, which makes it amazing. I've played with the Surface Pro at a Staples and found it to be better than this Dell device in every way.
[+] [-] untog|12 years ago|reply
Also: Windows. I used to use it, but I've been working in OS X exclusively for a few years now, and going back to the Windows Command Prompt might kill me.
[+] [-] philliphaydon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonydiv|12 years ago|reply
As a DJ, I need to carry around an expensive laptop to perform. The iPad does not have any impressive apps to DJ (at least not professionally), so I'd be VERY interested if they focused on the niche music market here. Surface 2 + Kinect/Leap + superb DJing app + Spotify-esque music supply = very happy musicians.
Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is going to spend the time to develop a quality DJing app.
[+] [-] saturdaysaint|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fumar|12 years ago|reply
Fruity Loops is now available in the app store for both devices. http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/app/fl-studio-groove...
[+] [-] 33degrees|12 years ago|reply
Also, Traktor DJ and a Kontrol S2 is definitely a pro level setup for iPad...
[+] [-] sleepybrett|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] math0ne|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidacoder|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RyJones|12 years ago|reply
I've bought (and given away) four iPads with Verizon LTE. Exactly 0 people activated it.
This is old data, but in line with newer data I've seen WRT iPad activation rates: http://tabletquest.com/2011/02/disappointing-apple-ipad-3g-a...
[+] [-] IanDrake|12 years ago|reply
2) It would cost money to add the device to your Mobile account
3) You can just use the mobile hotspot feature on your phone and connect through that. Its easy on my Nokia 928.
Hell, half the time I have my wife's iphone connected to my phone via WIFI because she has AT&T (for work reasons) and they suck most places we go.
[+] [-] motdiem|12 years ago|reply
Not sure it's a worthwile tradeoff for everyone though.
[+] [-] harigov|12 years ago|reply
- Gets pretty hot - new haswell processors seem to be doing better - Short battery life of 5 hrs - 75% improvement brings it to around 8-9 hrs, which is a typical work day and that's a great improvement
Overall Surface Pro hardware has always been top class, and I think this version might be the one to buy.
[+] [-] Mikeb85|12 years ago|reply
And let's face it - no one has actually liked MS products in a decade, they've simply put up with them. Now that people aren't forced to use MS products, they don't. It doesn't matter whether or not the Surface 2 is any good, MS killed the only thing going for them...
[+] [-] methodin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pxtl|12 years ago|reply
A Windows-powered answer to the MK808/Ouya/VitaStation and similar products, bundled with a nice wireless keyboard/mouse remote gizmo - something like this: http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/itemdetails/57Y6678/460/4C2830F...
WinRT's consistent support for keyboard/mouse sets it apart from touch-oriented Android. Wireless handheld keyboard/mouse is hard to get right, but touchscreen without touching is harder. WinRT could be great on TVs.
But MS would worry about cannibalizing their XBox sales.
[+] [-] martin1b|12 years ago|reply
My main beef why I can't recommend it is compatibility. If that was addressed, the number of apps would skyrocket and I'd be a huge fan.
You would think since MSFT is late to this market, putting in a low-medium cost, highly functional tablet to reverse the trend to apple and google would allow them to catch up quickly. The pro price is currently on par to an Ipad. Hopefully CEO #3 will do that.
[+] [-] __abc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phaus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shurcooL|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
I'm not a music person but pressure-sensitive controls seems like the next frontier for touch devices (that, and Kinect-type cam interfaces)...I was going to say, "the iPad will likely fall behind here"...but it looks like third-party vendors are adding pressure-capability via Bluetooth: http://www.tuaw.com/2013/08/20/wacom-unveils-pressure-sensit...