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

211–220 of 255 posts

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

#211

Post by gum_ina_package »

mikevm wrote: post #60
gum_ina_package wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a college student studying engineering. I can say that replacing my laptop with my Surface Pro has been amazing. I'm virtually 100% paperless, with all my notes being taken with OneNote (seriously amazing!) and textbooks saved as PDFs. It's also awesome that the Pro has enough power for me to do real dev work on it. So make the switch! You won't be disappointed!

I'm a student also, but I've been using the iPad for this. I don't take any notes on the iPad itself because the courses I need to take notes on are mathematical, so I simply write on paper and then when I come back home I scan it and append the scans to an evergrowing PDF file that is synced to my iPad. I'm looking for a replacement for my iPad 2, but I can't settle on anything because all the non-iPad tablets have…

I find that reading textbooks on the widescreen isn't all that bad actually. As far as writing math equations, like someone else mentioned, Windows has a dedicated equation writing tool that works really quite well. Otherwise, just plugin the keyboard and use LaTeX.

Personally, I have to draw/annotate circuit diagrams and the Surface Pro is so far superior to paper it's not even funny. I couldn't imagine switching back - taking notes with a full laptop/keyboard just seems archaic to me.

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

#212

Post by darth_static »

throwaway420 wrote: post #121
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 think all of the products are surprisingly compelling, but the naming has arguably become an even bigger and more glaring issue. The original Surface lineup was very compelling. The only real issue with it was the majorly confusing marketing message with having two products with a major qualitative difference sharing essentially the same name. It kind of pains me that rather than learning from their $900 million mi…

You could argue the same point regarding Apple's naming of their Macbook line prior to the discontinuing of the original Macbook moniker. Even now, the difference between the standard and the advanced Macbook line (purely on naming) are the words "Air" and "Pro".

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

#214

Post by twotwotwo »

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…

There's a harder change, too: give up on an Apple-style 30%-cut closed marketplace.

App revenue is a small slice of profits even for Apple, and for the third-place player it's more important to attract devs than control their store.

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

#215

Post by wvenable »

MBCook wrote: post #198
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. Yo…

> Fix that. Drop the desktop so there is no more confusion on the RT.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. This is a finished product, everything is right there and done. Why should it be crippled to be more like the iPad? The one thing the market doesn't need is another iPad clone. For once Microsoft changing little is their chance to be different!

If they can make Metro so awesome that nobody bothers to load the desktop, that's a win. Tablet users will (and should) spend most of their time in Metro. Removing the desktop to force the hand is a bad as crippling the desktop is now. Having the desktop there when you need it could be major selling feature!

Microsoft should do more than just remove the restrictions on desktop apps, they should be actively courting software developers (both commercial and open source) to port the most used software. Especially critical business software.

I understand your point about wanting to reduce the confusion between the versions. But the real market for the Surface (Pro or RT) is not the same as the iPad market. It could be, maybe in the future, but not now. Right now Microsoft needs customers and they need to leverage what they have. Metro/WinRT is playing their competitors game and they're already coming from behind. People who want to work, even a little bit, could benefit a lot from an RT tablet that supports metro and desktop equally. I've tried to work on my Nexus 7 and it's very difficult and I don't need much -- ARM ports of a few open source tools would get me a long way.

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

#216

Post by throwaway420 »

darth_static wrote: post #212
throwaway420 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all of the products are surprisingly compelling, but the naming has arguably become an even bigger and more glaring issue. The original Surface lineup was very compelling. The only real issue with it was the majorly confusing marketing message with having two products with a major qualitative difference sharing essentially the same name. It kind of pains me that rather than learning from their $900 million mi…

You could argue the same point regarding Apple's naming of their Macbook line prior to the discontinuing of the original Macbook moniker. Even now, the difference between the standard and the advanced Macbook line (purely on naming) are the words "Air" and "Pro".

I disagree with your point as I don't see any kind of major qualitative difference between an Air and Pro. Both are very similar computers that run essentially the same software - one just operates faster than the other. That's a quantitative difference.

As far as I understand it, a Surface and Surface Pro run completely different types of software. Windows RT cannot run normal Windows Apps. I would view this as a major qualitative difference in the type of machine it is and such a similar naming strategy is confusing and not warranted.

I think they're both actually looking like pretty good machines yet again and both have their uses, but I think the message about what they are is going to be confusing to the marketplace because of the naming. I don't work in branding for a big corporation, so maybe my opinions are wrong. But Microsoft ended up with a warehouse full of unsold Surface RT's last time and I think that this is a big part of the reason why.

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

#217

Post by pedalpete »

maximilianburke wrote: post #207
MBCook wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yo…

The name is also terrible. Pro vs RT makes it sound like one is picking a trim level of car. It makes it seem like they're both the same with minor differences on the surface. But they're not. They're quite different. Call one the Work, and one the Play. The Work gets the desktop, full Windows 8, full Office, Visual Studio, etc., the Play gets Metro and enough support to not be completely useless but also enough to c…

Play vs. Work probably isn't the right dividing line between the two devices. The RT is more than just work, hence the 'Pro' moniker does fit well with that device. The problem with just calling it Surface 2 is that people won't get the difference.

We used to complain about Microsoft's multiple versions of Windows with "Home", "Media Centre", "Professional", but strangely, now we seem to be asking to go back to that realm.

Does Surface 2 Lite work? Essentially, that is what it is, it doesn't have all the features of the Pro, and it's lighter.

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

#218

Post by nwh »

fumar wrote: post #161
benihana wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

There's a better reason. Touch doesn't work for a vertical screen at all, it makes your arms hurt.

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

#219

Post by MBCook »

wvenable wrote: post #215
MBCook wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yo…

> Fix that. Drop the desktop so there is no more confusion on the RT. I don't understand this line of reasoning. This is a finished product, everything is right there and done. Why should it be crippled to be more like the iPad? The one thing the market doesn't need is another iPad clone. For once Microsoft changing little is their chance to be different! If they can make Metro so awesome that nobody bothers to load…

> Removing the desktop to force the hand is a bad as crippling the desktop is now. Having the desktop there when you need it could be major selling feature!

If the desktop is crippled, there is no reason to keep it. Keeping it around lets Microsoft continue to use it as a crutch. "Well it's OK you can't do that, in Metro, just go to the desktop."

I don't think this would make another iPad clone, it still has a lot to offer. It would just be enforcing the ease of use and manageability of a Metro-only computer. That's one of the reasons the iPad is so popular, it's easy to use and manage. That's not a bad feature to copy.

> Especially critical business software.

This is the thing I found the oddest about Surface RT. In order to avoid canabalizing laptop/Surface Pro sales, they prevent the RT from joining a domain. I'm sure there are tons of businesses that would like an iPad style device with iPad style battery life and a sub-iPad price that could be secured with their domain. Instead they went consumer-only, and businesses had to buy the heavier, hotter, more expensive Pro.

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

#220

Post by MBCook »

pedalpete wrote: post #217
maximilianburke wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name is also terrible. Pro vs RT makes it sound like one is picking a trim level of car. It makes it seem like they're both the same with minor differences on the surface. But they're not. They're quite different. Call one the Work, and one the Play. The Work gets the desktop, full Windows 8, full Office, Visual Studio, etc., the Play gets Metro and enough support to not be completely useless but also enough to c…

Play vs. Work probably isn't the right dividing line between the two devices. The RT is more than just work, hence the 'Pro' moniker does fit well with that device. The problem with just calling it Surface 2 is that people won't get the difference. We used to complain about Microsoft's multiple versions of Windows with "Home", "Media Centre", "Professional", but strangely, now we seem to be asking to go back to that…

Home/pro would have worked well. It would be nice to have a different name for the ARM stuff though, to avoid confusion.
Post reply on HN