Dear Microsoft,
Could I just have that display please?
Thanks.
Microsoft Surface Studio
251–260 of 576 posts
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#252I'm not sure why you need the world's thinnest LCD for a desktop, it's not like you'll be mounting it on a wall or something. By the way, that presenter is a pretty good actor, but he was trying way too hard in a way that was distracting. The way he called out someone in the audience at one point made it seem like he has standup comedy experience and was trying to connect with the audience but it made no sense.
> presenter is a pretty good actor That's not an actor by the way. It's Panos Panay, who leads Microsoft's devices team.
I'm sure he speaks exactly like he did in this press conference when he's at home with his family!
Acting != make believe. The dude was hamming it up to the point that he seemed like a caricature of a product announcement.
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#253I can't but feel sad that Microsoft somehow is dropping the ball on mobile despite them having been, briefly, in a prime position to succeed. They've executed well with their "One platform"-strategy. UWP is great and with the new composition API their finally moving into being able to compete in the modern software arena. Meanwhile on the hardware side Panos is basically doing what Apple should have been doing if the…
UWP is mostly a validation that Microsoft employs brilliant engineers. They took all the knowledge of their platforms over the years and condensed it into a unified story. For that, UWP works.
However, the same problem that plagues the Mac App Store, UWP code is sandboxed in weird ways that make it hard to just recompile your existing IP into the new environment. Plus Microsoft developer relations pushed C# as the defacto way to write apps targeting the platform, something that doesn't scale when you also need to support Android and iOS.
As far as mobile's concerned, it was continuously mismanaged, release after release.
* First they paid Seattle contractors to rewrite top-tier iOS apps for the original Silverlight C# version of WP and then dumped the resulting code onto the companies hoping they would continue the effort. I took a look at that code at the startup I was at at the time, and it was a mess, full of proprietary dlls that we couldn't even inspect.
* Second, they moved the kernel to Windows NT-lite from CE, meaning all the early adopters essentially got fucked over and it crushed early momentum.
* Third, Microsoft would go a year before announcing relatively inconsequential updates. (Oh that's nice that the same software will run on 512mb devices, is that what you spent the entire year working on?)
* Fourth, updates never seemed to hit devices, and the only way to get updates was with actual firmware. Android solved this problem by moving most of the interesting bits to the Play store.
Ultimately for a platform in 3rd place, Microsoft never gave the impression they were busting their butts to catch up. Everything seemed to move at a glacial pace and felt like run by a tiny greenfield team.
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think a lot of people care about PC/phone integration? I don't see it outside of "contacts and email" which is already fully integrated everywhere thanks to the cloud. People don't buy Macs because they work well with an iPhone as far as I can tell. They buy Macs for all sorts of other reasons, but that doesn't seem to be one of them. Every corporate office in the world is running Windows. I'm pretty sure peop…
"Every corporate office in the world is running Windows." While many companies do use Windows, many others do not, including some very large ones. You think they are using Windows at Apple? That's the world's most valuable company and they have 70000 employees. What about Google? It's another huge company with tens of thousands of employees and you have to beg for permission to run Windows there, and very few do so.…
"Outside of that zone it is by no means universal."
I'd say that outside of your two examples, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Fortune 500 company that doesn't have >90% of its corporate fleet (not servers) being Windows boxes.
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#255$2,999 and the best GPU option is a last-gen mobile card? The default 965M is a crappy budget card (half the performance of the 980M), and if you want the 980M you have to pick the $4,199 configuration. And hybrid drives!? This thing starts at $2,199 and you can't even get a full SSD? I know 2D designers probably won't mind the GPU, but they could definitely benefit from a true SSD. Hell, the recently announced Razer…
Would be cool if you could connect a real machine to the display and touchscreen, would that be possible with the DisplayPort?
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#256I can't but feel sad that Microsoft somehow is dropping the ball on mobile despite them having been, briefly, in a prime position to succeed. They've executed well with their "One platform"-strategy. UWP is great and with the new composition API their finally moving into being able to compete in the modern software arena. Meanwhile on the hardware side Panos is basically doing what Apple should have been doing if the…
Isn't the Surface "mobile"? I know you mean smartphones and tablets, but if they're capable of making a portable tactile device with a fully functional OS they should be able to one day easily port that to a screen with smaller dimensions.
They already have that in Continuum: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3065895/windows/windows-conti... although I'm not sure it has a future given the shaky status of Win10 phones.
As it stands right now, I can fire up Visual Studio and write a UWP app that'll run on phone, tablet, and desktop.
The problem is that hardly anyone is using Windows Phones, and the smartphone market is one that MS hasn't had much luck with. Maybe the rumored Surface Phone will help if it ever materializes, but I'm skeptical.
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#257Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I must be missing the value proposition here The screen.
Then sell the screen itself. Why chain it to mediocre, non-upgradeable hardware?
Perhaps because this machine is basically a very big platform for professional input methods. If you have no need of a stylus and a large working space for media with flexible positioning factor...
Then you're not the target market.
What's more, when we're talking about the professional space it's like... it's quite normal to NOT have hyper-upgradable boxes with cutting edge hardware that isn't well supported by the current crop of editing tools. Cutting edge hardware is the product of Dentists and Software Engineers who fancy themselves a member of that space even though they're really not. Not unlike how professional photographers almost never ride the latest model release.
It seems like a lot of people here are thinking of this as a recreational gaming box for rich people. Surface machines in general perform poorly there.
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an Apple (Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, PowerBook, PowerMac G5) user for 15 years, of photo processing & inDesign layout, I agree. XCode & iOS development is going to keep me on Apple for now, though, but the Linux subsystem for Windows is really appealing. The BSD Unix environment is the whole reason I went with Apple in the first place. OS X is basically a Unix workstation & perfected anything the Linux desktop wanted t…
> the Linux subsystem for Windows is really appealing In theory. To anyone who feels that way, please try it out for yourself before making a leap. I thought it would let me develop Ruby on Rails under Windows like I could do on Linux or macOS. I discovered a whole bunch of unimplemented features that prevented this. After a couple of months of commenting on bug reports and watching and trying, I gave up. I'll check…
The biggest issue I have had with their subsystem is that of the file system (NTFS). The fact that I can't have long paths and can't soft link seem ridiculous.
Re: Microsoft Surface Studio
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
A slightly different example that infuriates me about macOS. How do I toggle the visibility of hidden files in Finder? To be honest I don't know if there is a shortcut for this in Windows, but what infuriates me is the inconsistency between Finder and the native macOS file browser dialog which allows you to press Cmd+Shift+., why can't the same shortcut be available in Finder?
> press Cmd+Shift+., why can't the same shortcut be available in Finder? FYI, I'd never heard of this shortcut before but just tried it in the Finder and it worked just fine (to toggle visibility of invisible files).
Which version of macOS are you on?