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

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#91

Post by tallanvor »

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...

So starting with OSX, Apple has introduced 9 versions and Microsoft has introduced 4. Now, granted, you can't actually have upgraded from 10.0 to 10.9 because of the dropped hardware support, but it would be interesting to compare the cost of upgrading through all the versions.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#92

Post by wazoox »

bitwize wrote: post #43
alyx wrote: post #8

I own a Surface and disagree with everything in this article. The Surface does have quirks, but as a v1 device from a company that has NEVER designed a commercial PC let alone a tablet, I think it is nothing short of fantastic tech. I just sold my Couch-MacBook over the weekend because the Surface satisfies every single casual at-home PC scenario I have.

The Surface does have quirks, but as a v1 device from a company that has NEVER designed a commercial PC Not true. In the 1980s Microsoft attempted to standardize the 8-bit home computer market, and developed the MSX architecture, exemplars of which were built and sold by a few Japanese companies. The MSX did not see much traction in the United States but was popular in Japan and Russia.

In 1987 (IIRC) Microsoft even tried to sell PC-compatible under its own brand. I think it was a very short-lived experience (6 months or so).

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#93

Post by geon »

GuiA wrote: post #80
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.

Also, "the vast majority of everyday users" want a toy.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#94

Post by Mordor »

Maybe this underlies the Samsung Note's success - moving the pointer to the screen (via the stylus). The keyboard is a real problem: how to precisely compose text? Not sure what the answer is to this one, but I don't think anyone's truly cracked it. Any ideas?

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#95

Post by bruceboughton »

The supposed differentiator for Surface is Office. Why then is there not a single screenshot of Office on their product website? [1]

I eventually found an URL in a footnote (not even linked): http://office.com/officeRT which is incredibly sparse on information.

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/Surface/en-GB

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#97

Post by tluyben2 »

bitwize wrote: post #43
alyx wrote: post #8

I own a Surface and disagree with everything in this article. The Surface does have quirks, but as a v1 device from a company that has NEVER designed a commercial PC let alone a tablet, I think it is nothing short of fantastic tech. I just sold my Couch-MacBook over the weekend because the Surface satisfies every single casual at-home PC scenario I have.

The Surface does have quirks, but as a v1 device from a company that has NEVER designed a commercial PC Not true. In the 1980s Microsoft attempted to standardize the 8-bit home computer market, and developed the MSX architecture, exemplars of which were built and sold by a few Japanese companies. The MSX did not see much traction in the United States but was popular in Japan and Russia.

Also in Europe; in Spain and the Netherlands you can still find quite a few of them even now. I don't think MS designed the hardware though; they made the MSX Basic (which I like and program for fun still), but the specs where by ASCII corp Japan and where 'interpreted' within the confines of the standard by the mostly Japanese MSX creators (like Sony, Hitachi, Sharp etc). I'm not 100% sure but I cannot find any information about MS actually working on the hardware themselves although being in the standards body.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#98

Post by tluyben2 »

alyx wrote: post #8

I own a Surface and disagree with everything in this article. The Surface does have quirks, but as a v1 device from a company that has NEVER designed a commercial PC let alone a tablet, I think it is nothing short of fantastic tech. I just sold my Couch-MacBook over the weekend because the Surface satisfies every single casual at-home PC scenario I have.

Not to say this is not true at all, however can't that be said for the iPads and Androids as well? I'm curious; I see a Macbook is something different, but other tablets fall in that category as well or not?

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#99

Post by greedo »

rlu wrote: post #83
gisenberg wrote: post #81

I waited in line for ~4 hours to pick up a Surface on launch day and ended up returning it a little over a week later. This review touched on performance, but it really was abysmal. Nothing was quite as painful as watching other people use the device; swipe gestures and touch points were frequently missed, the swipe-down gesture necessary to close or dock a metro app lagged behind by several seconds and took literall…

Were you honestly unable to type faster than 10wpm after using it for a week? I find that....odd to believe (not saying you're lying - I just find it strange). How fast can you type normally? On my regular desktop keyboard I type at an average of 80wpm which I think is ok. On my touchcover I can type at an average of like 65wpm. So sure, slower than my desktop keyboard but not frustrating by any means. I'd say that I…

You're not comparing the iPad in a fair manner. If you combine the iPad with a keyboard, it does just as well in typing speed as the Surface with a keyboard, and at a cheaper price.

Re: Why Is the Surface So Bad?

#100

Post by jarjoura »

vondur wrote: post #79
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 peop…

Check out this article. LOL, 10.0 also suffered from a mixture of poorly blended UIs. Brushed metal, pin-stripes, and old Carbon hybrid UIs with tiny fonts.

http://veerle-v2.duoh.com/blog/comments/mac_os_x_105_leopard...

Post reply on HN