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

191–200 of 255 posts

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

#191

Post by bcoates »

acqq wrote: post #176
bcoates wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's apparently not hard to disable the signing requirement and run cross-compiled Win32 ARM binaries Link please?

This forum http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2130 appears to be ground zero for that sort of thing. I don't have an RT handy to test it on.

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

#192

Post by moron4hire »

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 don't think it's a feasibility issue, because a fair bit of Win32 had already been ported to ARM from the Windows CE days. I had .NET apps that ran on Windows XP and Windows CE from the same binary. As long as you stuck to the .NET micro framework subset, it worked great and was actually quite performant.

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

#193

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.…

> * 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?

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

#194

Post by edandersen »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #190

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 mo…

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.

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

#195

Post by RexRollman »

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…

Agree. I don't want touch on a laptop. I see no need to mar the screen of my computer with debris and fingerprints.

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

#196

Post by bhauer »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #193
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.…

> * 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?

No, not on screen clarity (though color accuracy competitiveness is still uncertain). I would personally prefer a 250+ DPI display. But retiring the abomination known as "1366x768" is long overdue. So as you say, the progression is definitely better.

All considered, I'd much prefer to sink R&D into a 250+ DPI large form-factor desktop display than cram even more pixels into my Surface. The monitors I stare at for hours on end each day are 3x 30" LCDs and their pixel density, and the resulting relative clarity (or lack thereof), leave a great deal to be desired.

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

#197

Post by SimonPStevens »

edandersen wrote: post #194
SimonPStevens wrote: post #190

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 mo…

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.

"A wasted opportunity" - completely. I wasn't actually aware there was already a full ARM .net runtime, that just makes it even more stupid.

Remove that signature check and I would probably have brought an RT for every member of my family, confident that the apps would appear fairly quickly as they got ported to ARM.

As it is the RT is irrelevant with little prospect of the number of useful apps increasing, and the pro is too pricey to justify. I keep considering it, but always end up sticking with a laptop at half the price.

I say all this as a Microsoft fan in the main. The surface concept is so close to my ideal device. It's so so close to being exactly what I've been waiting for, but yet somehow manages to entirely miss the mark just through the presences of a little software lock.

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

#198

Post by MBCook »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #190

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 mo…

> 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?

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

#199

Post by MBCook »

moron4hire wrote: post #185

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 u…

It's quite clear that the Surface (formerly RT) was designed to compete with the iPad, and the Surface Pro (formerly just Surface) was designed to be a hybrid/laptop replacement.

Unfortunately, Microsoft managed to make both products look nearly identical and use the same name for both. The little I heard about the Surface was from people who bought an RT thinking it was a normal Windows computer and returned it.

I'm glad they're working to clear up the confusion with better naming and a slightly different look.

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

#200

Post by MBCook »

Todd wrote: post #86
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!!

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…

> So Apple has the challenge of bringing their user-level of their OS offerings closer together (along with the hardware)

This is the assumption I don't agree with. Why do we need one OS to run all our devices? Ubuntu Unity is an interesting idea, but is that really where computing should head.

I don't see this as Apple "getting a pass", I think they mad e the right decision. It was certainly correct in '07 (for hardware reasons), and I think it still holds up as correct today.

Post reply on HN