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

Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 255 posts

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#161

Post by fumar »

benihana wrote: post #144
Todd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 touc…

> Why does Apple get a pass on this? Here's why: Last November when the iPad Mini and the iPad 4 launched, Apple sold 3 million iPads over the weekend. Surface has sold about 1.7 million devices total since it launched. http://bgr.com/2013/07/31/microsoft-surface-sales-2013/ It's hard to argue with success. > As a consequence, this is one area where MS is ahead of Apple The numbers seem to disagree with you. The reas…

"The reason apple doesn't put touch on their Macbooks is cause no one wants it"...

The reason they have not added touch input to OS X, is because its not design for touch. I am sure, Apple will find another input method for their non-mobile hardware. Perhaps something similar to MYO or Leap Motion (or a touchscreen).

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#162

Post by [deleted] »

twoodfin wrote: post #142
jfoutz wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rosetta worked pretty well.

Emulating an x86 on an ARM like the Tegra 4 would probably result in a pretty unsatisfying experience. Apple was doing the opposite: Emulating a processor with worse single threaded performance and (arguably) a simpler ISA. The alternative is a full port of Win32, which I imagine Microsoft considered and rejected. Even after they incurred all the time and development cost, ISVs would still have to at least recompile.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#163

Post by martin1b »

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.

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#164

Post by stefap2 »

phaus wrote: post #75

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.

Maybe the power cover is solid.

Power Cover Extend the battery life of your Surface. Click in Power Cover and get that extra time you need to make it through that last meeting or the rest of the flight. It’s like a keyboard and battery in one.

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#165

Post by untog »

rbanffy wrote: post #89
enko wrote: post #24

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!!

> 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.

It's very easy to build binaries for Windows that run on both platforms if you're using their approved tools.

It's all the legacy apps that are the problem.

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#166

Post by JoelSutherland »

dangrossman wrote: post #63
bhauer wrote: post #14

As a Surface Pro owner [1], I like: * 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.…

> I hope this is compatible with my Surface Pro 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…

The Haswell Airs came out in June and the Windows Haswell Ultrabooks were for sale beginning in August. The gap was only about 3-4 months.

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#167

Post by bcoates »

twoodfin wrote: post #142
jfoutz wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rosetta worked pretty well.

Emulating an x86 on an ARM like the Tegra 4 would probably result in a pretty unsatisfying experience. Apple was doing the opposite: Emulating a processor with worse single threaded performance and (arguably) a simpler ISA. The alternative is a full port of Win32, which I imagine Microsoft considered and rejected. Even after they incurred all the time and development cost, ISVs would still have to at least recompile.

I think it has a nearly-full port of Win32, it's apparently not hard to disable the signing requirement and run cross-compiled Win32 ARM binaries and turn the Surface RT into a useful computer.

Not much commercial software but the regular open-source windows stack works.

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#168

Post by calvin_c »

macavity23 wrote: post #112
criley2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've misread the problem. 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 balk…

You're actually agreeing with the parent, who stated the problem as 'two different tablets, with the same name , which can not run each others' software'.

Yes, but the parent also said "MS cannot make decisions. That's what will kill them, long term. Just choose one!!"

The reply just said that two tablets as fine if they would just kill the confusing naming scheme.

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#169

Post by drivebyacct2 »

bhauer wrote: post #14

As a Surface Pro owner [1], I like: * 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.…

>* Windows RT needs help. Remove its artificial limitations.

Sigh, you're not the only one that wants this...

Re: Microsoft’s Hardware, Round 2: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2

#170

Post by drivebyacct2 »

ciniglio wrote: post #152
manojlds wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which can not run each others' software? Windows Store apps run on both of them.

I don't believe this is true. Most windows store apps run on both of them, but I think there are some, e.g. graphics, API's that your app could access that would limit it to x86 only

Absolutely false.
Post reply on HN