Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is the Surface So Bad?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#61

Post by sukuriant »

jarjoura wrote: post #49

Here's how I see it playing out, Microsoft will be successful with the Surface if they take it seriously and update it often and fast. They have a lot of catching up to do and it's a seriously great start to something different and unique. I suspect it will move in the direction of how people use it and want it to work. When Apple brought OS X out to the world for the first time, it was extremely slow, basically unus…

I was going to come on to argue that you were wrong here about the Windows XP / OS X timing. I thought OS X came out years later; but, I was very wrong. Wikipedia says:

OS X Initial Release: March 24, 2001

Windows XP Initial Release: October 25, 2001

It certainly has been a very long time...

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#62

Post by potatolicious »

danudey wrote: post #58
woodpanel wrote: post #53

Why is this article so full of errors? However, I've tested the RT and I woudn't buy it. But the RT is just a reduced version of what the pro version will be: Something that aims to be a laptop that you can work on. After testing it I am definetly going to give the pro a shot. Not as an iPad replacement as the iPad was never something to work with. But as a laptop replacement. Because... - it gets rid of the dead wei…

Removing the keyboard is great, but removing the keyboard and then replacing it with a keyboard in a floppy foldable cover? That seems a little counter-intuitive. I mean, it's nice that you can not take the cover with you if you don't want to, but that would just require replacing it with some cover or another, so I may as well keep the keyboard.

I love the touchcover concept actually. The point of removing the keyboard and replacing it with a floppy foldable cover is that the floppy foldable cover is really light and really thin compared to the keyboard that used to be there.

The second part is that convertibles/transformer tablets historically have handled keyboards crappily. Either you attach it to a folding swivel that's both bulky, heavy, and prone to breakage, or you make the two units entirely separate, in which case transportation/using the unit without the keyboard is awkward.

With the touch cover the keyboard just disappears when you don't need it. It needs neither a complicated mechanism nor do you need to remember to put the detached keyboard in your bag. Fold it over. Bam.

Responding to previous poster though:

> "But the RT is just a reduced version of what the pro version will be: Something that aims to be a laptop that you can work on."

I'm actually of the opinion right now that the RT is the more significant device. Having played with the RT now, and seeing the specs on the Pro, I think the Pro is too awkward to be a market fit. It's substantially heavier, has in all likelihood poorer battery life, and is thick. Also, it has a spinning fan in your hands.

All are acceptable compromises if you can really use it as a laptop replacement - but the touch cover's trackpad is frankly not good enough for that use. So what you've ended up with is a thicker, heavier, louder, warmer, shorter lasting version of the RT that will run non-Metro apps in ways that are nearly unusable.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#63

Post by mrich »

sukuriant wrote: post #61
jarjoura wrote: post #49

Here's how I see it playing out, Microsoft will be successful with the Surface if they take it seriously and update it often and fast. They have a lot of catching up to do and it's a seriously great start to something different and unique. I suspect it will move in the direction of how people use it and want it to work. When Apple brought OS X out to the world for the first time, it was extremely slow, basically unus…

I was going to come on to argue that you were wrong here about the Windows XP / OS X timing. I thought OS X came out years later; but, I was very wrong. Wikipedia says: OS X Initial Release: March 24, 2001 Windows XP Initial Release: October 25, 2001 It certainly has been a very long time...

But it does not make much sense to compare these versions - Windows started being a modern OS with Win 2000 and arguably already Windows 95. These were the releases that won them the desktop dominance. That's probably why you are feeling Windows is "older".

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#64

Post by Someone »

MortenK wrote: post #28

Microsoft should probably have made a clear divide between tablet and desktop OS. Windows RT tablets running only the interface formerly known as Metro, and simply an incremental upgrade to the much loved Windows 7 for desktops. Mixing the interfaces gives a non-satisfactory and confusing experience on both desktop and tablet devices. An exception could be devices that are a bit more of a laptop/tablet hybrid than th…

"They are in it for years to come, so it would be odd if we don't see a much better implementation over the coming 2-3 years."

I agree; I think the product (which I haven't seen in real life yet) has a future. However, I don't see how that would affect the review of today's product. They didn't promise free hardware upgrades for two years, did they?

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#65

Post by phaus »

firefoxman1 wrote: post #3

When I first got an HP Touchpad, the touchstone stand, and the keyboard I understood what the "post-PC" era really was. It was perfect: physical keyboard for productivity, yet a touchscreen with a tablet interface, and the mouse had finally seen its end. The Asus transformer was the next big step, I think. Again, keyboard and touchscreen, but this time a 19 hour battery. If it allowed dual booting it would be perfect…

I love Asus, and I really wanted to love the Transformer Prime, but I just can't use that keyboard. I don't think I have freakishly huge hands, but I can't fit my fingers on the home row without overlapping.

I'm going to take a look at the Atom-powered Vivo Tab that runs the full version of Windows 8 when it comes out, but I suspect that the keyboard may still be too small.

Samsung's convertible tablet is 11.6", which has already proven itself to be large enough for a full size keyboard, when its done properly.

I wish Asus, or someone else, would come out with a convertible that's as thin, light, and attractive as the Zenbook Prime, but with a screen that's 11-13" and 1080p, with an i5, 8GB of ram, a wacom digitizer, and a quality keyboard.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#66

Post by trhtrsh »

sukuriant wrote: post #61
jarjoura wrote: post #49

Here's how I see it playing out, Microsoft will be successful with the Surface if they take it seriously and update it often and fast. They have a lot of catching up to do and it's a seriously great start to something different and unique. I suspect it will move in the direction of how people use it and want it to work. When Apple brought OS X out to the world for the first time, it was extremely slow, basically unus…

I was going to come on to argue that you were wrong here about the Windows XP / OS X timing. I thought OS X came out years later; but, I was very wrong. Wikipedia says: OS X Initial Release: March 24, 2001 Windows XP Initial Release: October 25, 2001 It certainly has been a very long time...

Win2K was marketed to businesses as the last version of NT before consumer-pro unification. WinXP picked up consumers from Win98 who skipped WinME.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#67

Post by zmonkeyz »

woodpanel wrote: post #53

Why is this article so full of errors? However, I've tested the RT and I woudn't buy it. But the RT is just a reduced version of what the pro version will be: Something that aims to be a laptop that you can work on. After testing it I am definetly going to give the pro a shot. Not as an iPad replacement as the iPad was never something to work with. But as a laptop replacement. Because... - it gets rid of the dead wei…

When you start it up Microsoft even refers to it as a PC. It should be obvious to people that Microsoft sees this as the future of PCs and don't want them to think of it as a "tablet".

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#68

Post by DrStalker »

evilduck wrote: post #52
therobot24 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm curious if there's any reasoning to 300 grams. I don't have an iPad, but i've used one, and it seemed fine to me - i guess over a long period it could become uncomfortable.

I read my iPad2 in bed pretty frequently, it's just heavy enough that resting the weight of the device on a single edge on your chest will become unpleasant rather quickly.

As an extra datapoint, a Kindle (170 grams) is trivial to lightly with a few fingers. It's no substitute for a tablet, but when all I want to do is read a book I love it so much more than any heavier, more capable device.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#69

Post by DrStalker »

clauretano wrote: post #4
Shivetya wrote: post #2

I wonder if the performance would seem better if Microsoft employed a similar trick that iOS uses, that being putting up a screen shot of the app while it loads. I am not sure if Apple still employs this trick but I do remember it being used and how it affected perceived performance.

Yes, that trick is still used on iOS. Windows Phone and the Windows-8-style-UI or whatever they call it today use lots of drawn out animations to mask load times, but it isn't enough on the Surface. You end up wasting quite a bit of time watching loading spinners.

That would explain why they designed all-new spinners with dots twirling in circles or moving along a line in pretty patterns.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#70

Post by codinghorror »

jarjoura wrote: post #49

Here's how I see it playing out, Microsoft will be successful with the Surface if they take it seriously and update it often and fast. They have a lot of catching up to do and it's a seriously great start to something different and unique. I suspect it will move in the direction of how people use it and want it to work. When Apple brought OS X out to the world for the first time, it was extremely slow, basically unus…

I agree. The tech, despite this article, is really solid and actually innovative -- it just needs more polish and iteration. If Microsoft can show us that they're willing to rev quickly and fix and improve things, it could be pretty amazing.

First order of business, the absysmal default Mail app. That is just painfully awful. If they move quickly to update it to non-terribad status, that will be evidence that they can make this work.

Post reply on HN