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

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#71

Post by btbuilder »

I spent 15 minutes playing with a Surface at the MS store. I found that the typing cover was certainly much better than the touch cover. The typing cover is a very decent keyboard with even noticable mouse button clicks on the trackpad. It is certainly not just "slightly better". I didn't like the touch cover much but I noticed I was already getting used to it.

I tried to reproduce the typing speed problem in Word and it is definitely fixed. Even when I mashed the keyboard at max speed Word kept up. I did manage to get Powerpoint to slow down by downloading a presentation with a bitmap image in the background. Typing over the bitmap image was not realtime but still usable.

Certainly considering recommending this to someone who just want a super-mobile MS Office machine.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#72

Post by gurkendoktor »

mrich wrote: post #63
sukuriant wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

And because you still see people using XP from time to time, but how many % of the tech population have ever seen OS X 10.0? I got into Macs seven years ago, and I only know the 10.3 installer because I'd intentionally bought an "oldtimer Mac" later on (iMac G4). Everything before that is a web of myths to me.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#73

Post by gurkendoktor »

bencxr wrote: post #50
BlackNapoleon wrote: post #13

I don't know WHY its so bad, I just know that based on MSFT's commercials, that it IS bad. They don't even show anyone using the damn thing. Its just a bunch of choreography.

Personally, this is fine with me. I don't tend to trust commercials where people "use the thing", e.g. Apple's Siri commercial. It is just too easy to show off a few "happy path" scenarios in 30 seconds.

You can never trust commercials, but at least you know whether the vendor is filling a gap that you care about.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#74

Post by BenSS »

I develop for iOS and chugging that koolaid, but Surface really doesn't deserve such a scathing article. There's a definite lack of polish and kludgey details, but I'd rather have surface over an android tablet right now.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#75

Post by rsl7 »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #72
mrich wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

And because you still see people using XP from time to time, but how many % of the tech population have ever seen OS X 10.0? I got into Macs seven years ago , and I only know the 10.3 installer because I'd intentionally bought an "oldtimer Mac" later on (iMac G4). Everything before that is a web of myths to me.

Enough of them do. When OS X 10.0 was released I went to a powerbook users group install party and installed that sucker on my graphite iBook DV. I still have my Public Beta disc.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#76

Post by ww520 »

mrich wrote: post #63
sukuriant wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Windows NT was much older, from the early 90's, which was the basis for Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and Win7. The subsequent releases were mere upgrade and fixes of the original OS.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#77

Post by krichman »

The iPad is locked-down enough that it's basically a toy for reading the internet and doing mail. If the Surface enables a different model of tablet computing, there's no reason why it shouldn't be a success. It's surely going to be rough around the edges to start with, but that doesn't mean people will miss the appeal entirely.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#78

Post by krichman »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #72
mrich wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

And because you still see people using XP from time to time, but how many % of the tech population have ever seen OS X 10.0? I got into Macs seven years ago , and I only know the 10.3 installer because I'd intentionally bought an "oldtimer Mac" later on (iMac G4). Everything before that is a web of myths to me.

IMO you still see people using XP because that was the peak. It was certainly better than Vista, I cannot give an unbiased review of Win 7.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#79

Post by vondur »

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…

Mac OSX was never hideous to look at. The interface may have been slow, but the multi-tasking on it was awesome at the time. I remember being able to play DVD's and browse the web and download large files at the time and the system never blinked, and no frames were ever dropped on the DVD playback. Regarding the Surface, the hardware is nice, and the software can fortunately be fixed. The question is will enough people buy it?

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#80

Post by GuiA »

krichman wrote: post #77

The iPad is locked-down enough that it's basically a toy for reading the internet and doing mail. If the Surface enables a different model of tablet computing, there's no reason why it shouldn't be a success. It's surely going to be rough around the edges to start with, but that doesn't mean people will miss the appeal entirely.

What you call a toy covers the needs of the vast majority of "everyday" users.

Regardless of your feelings on the matter, whether it's pertinent to call it a toy or not is left as an exercise to the reader.

Post reply on HN