As I look at the extremely tight packaging on the Surface tablet, it makes me wonder if they can really keep an i5 or i7 chip cool enough to run well. The first presenter seemed so nervous that it was as if his job was on the line. He didn't do a great job, especially when his unit froze.
The guy who focused so much on the kickstand was just strange. He kept stressing how important the kickstand was to the device. It was as if the whole thing wouldn't work without the kickstand.
In a way this was the one chance for the hardware guys to get some credit instead of the software guys. Though I have read recently that over 50% of the X boxes had hardware failures. That sounds terrible. If that carries over to the Surface tablets then this absolutely will be another nail in the coffin for Microsoft.
Is this just a ploy by Microsoft management to force their hardware partners to improve their products and innovate? I don't know. It is some type of ploy but to what end? I think they'll dump this off on an OEM or sell the rights to make it in a year.
I bought a spare computer in 2009 with Vista. It had two hardware failures under the first month of the warranty. I can document being on the telephone with HP tech support for at least forty hours that year. Some of it was related to hardware and some of it was related to Vista. If Microsoft can't get it's software working better than that, no amount of cool hardware will help them.
Microsoft is still a growing company. People shouldn't forget that. Eventually they'll anger enough people with their crappy Windows software that people will seek alternatives. I had to work on Windows today and hated it. Everything I wanted to do just took longer to accomplish. It's just yucky. Eew. Bad vibes all around.
If they can fit i7's into MacBook Airs, I'm sure they can fit it into a much thicker tablet. Though, we need to remember the xbox.
They new "slim" xbox gets a 55% failure rate because the discs aren't held in place correctly (slightly moving the console makes a disk smoothie). Microsoft make bad hardware choices and the original xbox is a prime example of this. The heat sync is too small so it caused the RRoD. But the reason the heat sync is too small is so they could fit in a very cheap and chunky DVD ROM Drive (unlike Sony and Nintendo who used much smaller slot loading drives). It boggles the mind how their hasn't been class action against Microsoft yet for the console when it is inherently faulty by design.
It was Vista that made me switch to the Macintosh, actually, and I'm glad I did. Best damn computer's i've ever owned. I'm hoping that where I currently work brings in a "bring your own device" policy. I'm forced to do graphics and software development work on a cheap and tatty Fujitsu Lifebook A computer (worst screen possible, Intel GMA Graphics, 1st Gen Core i3 Processor!) - but the IT Manager thinks these are brilliant development machines and anything more powerful is just a waste of money (cue canned laughter). Sorry for the tangent but I needed a little outlet for a mini-rant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vigilant007
It kind of amuses me that the very best that Microsoft's internal development team can do for a new UI is a bunch of colored boxes with text in it. I am not sure why on earth anyone would think that a giant colored box is good UI but I am personally shocked at the stark laziness of the UI.
I was at my pub a few months back, and a Microsoft session apparently let out near by. A drunk Microsoft advocate of some kind was giving me a hard time for doing some work on my iPad saying that people who used Apple products when working in the tech space (which I do) were "Hypocrits" because Apple products were "consumption" devices and that the giant colored boxes were "Post Modern" compared to Apple's "Modern" UI. It's amusing to me that certain people will swallow the marketing diatribe that Microsoft puts out, and claim it's correct. I am sure someone will claim the same thing with Apple, and thats all well and good. One man's junk is another mans treasure. But lets look at the facts. The only reason why Microsoft is making Windows 8 a tablet OS is because adoption of Windows Phone for developers was so tragically low that they knew they couldn't get developers to back up a derivative of that on a tablet. So what do they do? They know that if they forced all of their desktop developers to make applications for the next version of Windows that just happened to be a tablet os they would have more of a fighting chance. Thats fantastic, except that Windows 8 is now a HORRIBLE desktop UI.
I go to quite a few Microsoft development workshops. Not because I like their desktop software, but because it's the reality of the server world, and frankly thats fine. Most of the people who present at Microsoft development user group meetings are using Mac's running Mac OS X. They show their Visual Studio demonstrations in either VMWare Fusion or Parallels. Nope, not Boot Camp.
All of my Java and .Net developers are so disgusted with what Windows 8 means long term that most of them (over 60%) have bought Mac's to use with plans to use Visual Studio in a VM.
The cold hard reality of the software development world that I personally work and live in? We are all hired guns who will write software where there is volume. Rub us the wrong way and we'll leave. For most of history that meant that most developers used Windows. I never thought I'd see the day when my developers would laugh saying that they hope to never be called "Metro Engineers".
Maybe this is biased from the people I know. But this is a fact. More and more people are using Mac's in the Windows development world.
Will Microsoft Surface succeed to a certain degree? Personally? I don't think it will be any more successful then the Lumia 900 or 800. I hope it is though. The more competition there is the better it is for the end user.
Can I just kiss you?
You took the words right out of my mouth!
The OS for the phone I think works well (big icons on a small screen with clear text) but for the desktop and tablet - oh my no. I have a HP TX2000 tablet computer I use for sketching, I put Windows 8 on it I just had to remove it after a few days. It drove me insane! I'd rather use Windows 7 with slightly bigger UI elements.
I am seeing more and more people move the Mac in the professional market. My brother in law bought a MacBook Air and runs Windows 7 in a VM for the handfull of programs that only runs on Windows. Outside of that he uses MacOS. This is a man who sells Windows equipment to multi-million £ businesses. Ironic, don't you think?
The 100GbE CFP ethernet optical transceiver module offers the greatest faceplate density (in terms of Gbps per faceplate aperature-module pitch area) for MSA-specified pluggable optical modules up to now.
It was Vista that made me switch to the Macintosh, actually, and I'm glad I did. Best damn computer's i've ever owned. I'm hoping that where I currently work brings in a "bring your own device" policy. I'm forced to do graphics and software development work on a cheap and tatty Fujitsu Lifebook A computer (worst screen possible, Intel GMA Graphics, 1st Gen Core i3 Processor!) - but the IT Manager thinks these are brilliant development machines and anything more powerful is just a waste of money (cue canned laughter). Sorry for the tangent but I needed a little outlet for a mini-rant.
Nevertheless, from the techniques perspective, the CFP port density probably is going to be restricted by thermal constraints upon power dissipation, which might usually end up being more than 25 W for first-generation 100GbE CFP ethernet optical transceiver modules.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
As I look at the extremely tight packaging on the Surface tablet, it makes me wonder if they can really keep an i5 or i7 chip cool enough to run well. The first presenter seemed so nervous that it was as if his job was on the line. He didn't do a great job, especially when his unit froze.
The guy who focused so much on the kickstand was just strange. He kept stressing how important the kickstand was to the device. It was as if the whole thing wouldn't work without the kickstand.
In a way this was the one chance for the hardware guys to get some credit instead of the software guys. Though I have read recently that over 50% of the X boxes had hardware failures. That sounds terrible. If that carries over to the Surface tablets then this absolutely will be another nail in the coffin for Microsoft.
Is this just a ploy by Microsoft management to force their hardware partners to improve their products and innovate? I don't know. It is some type of ploy but to what end? I think they'll dump this off on an OEM or sell the rights to make it in a year.
I bought a spare computer in 2009 with Vista. It had two hardware failures under the first month of the warranty. I can document being on the telephone with HP tech support for at least forty hours that year. Some of it was related to hardware and some of it was related to Vista. If Microsoft can't get it's software working better than that, no amount of cool hardware will help them.
Microsoft is still a growing company. People shouldn't forget that. Eventually they'll anger enough people with their crappy Windows software that people will seek alternatives. I had to work on Windows today and hated it. Everything I wanted to do just took longer to accomplish. It's just yucky. Eew. Bad vibes all around.
If they can fit i7's into MacBook Airs, I'm sure they can fit it into a much thicker tablet. Though, we need to remember the xbox.
They new "slim" xbox gets a 55% failure rate because the discs aren't held in place correctly (slightly moving the console makes a disk smoothie). Microsoft make bad hardware choices and the original xbox is a prime example of this. The heat sync is too small so it caused the RRoD. But the reason the heat sync is too small is so they could fit in a very cheap and chunky DVD ROM Drive (unlike Sony and Nintendo who used much smaller slot loading drives). It boggles the mind how their hasn't been class action against Microsoft yet for the console when it is inherently faulty by design.
It was Vista that made me switch to the Macintosh, actually, and I'm glad I did. Best damn computer's i've ever owned. I'm hoping that where I currently work brings in a "bring your own device" policy. I'm forced to do graphics and software development work on a cheap and tatty Fujitsu Lifebook A computer (worst screen possible, Intel GMA Graphics, 1st Gen Core i3 Processor!) - but the IT Manager thinks these are brilliant development machines and anything more powerful is just a waste of money (cue canned laughter). Sorry for the tangent but I needed a little outlet for a mini-rant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vigilant007
It kind of amuses me that the very best that Microsoft's internal development team can do for a new UI is a bunch of colored boxes with text in it. I am not sure why on earth anyone would think that a giant colored box is good UI but I am personally shocked at the stark laziness of the UI.
I was at my pub a few months back, and a Microsoft session apparently let out near by. A drunk Microsoft advocate of some kind was giving me a hard time for doing some work on my iPad saying that people who used Apple products when working in the tech space (which I do) were "Hypocrits" because Apple products were "consumption" devices and that the giant colored boxes were "Post Modern" compared to Apple's "Modern" UI. It's amusing to me that certain people will swallow the marketing diatribe that Microsoft puts out, and claim it's correct. I am sure someone will claim the same thing with Apple, and thats all well and good. One man's junk is another mans treasure. But lets look at the facts. The only reason why Microsoft is making Windows 8 a tablet OS is because adoption of Windows Phone for developers was so tragically low that they knew they couldn't get developers to back up a derivative of that on a tablet. So what do they do? They know that if they forced all of their desktop developers to make applications for the next version of Windows that just happened to be a tablet os they would have more of a fighting chance. Thats fantastic, except that Windows 8 is now a HORRIBLE desktop UI.
I go to quite a few Microsoft development workshops. Not because I like their desktop software, but because it's the reality of the server world, and frankly thats fine. Most of the people who present at Microsoft development user group meetings are using Mac's running Mac OS X. They show their Visual Studio demonstrations in either VMWare Fusion or Parallels. Nope, not Boot Camp.
All of my Java and .Net developers are so disgusted with what Windows 8 means long term that most of them (over 60%) have bought Mac's to use with plans to use Visual Studio in a VM.
The cold hard reality of the software development world that I personally work and live in? We are all hired guns who will write software where there is volume. Rub us the wrong way and we'll leave. For most of history that meant that most developers used Windows. I never thought I'd see the day when my developers would laugh saying that they hope to never be called "Metro Engineers".
Maybe this is biased from the people I know. But this is a fact. More and more people are using Mac's in the Windows development world.
Will Microsoft Surface succeed to a certain degree? Personally? I don't think it will be any more successful then the Lumia 900 or 800. I hope it is though. The more competition there is the better it is for the end user.
Can I just kiss you?
You took the words right out of my mouth!
The OS for the phone I think works well (big icons on a small screen with clear text) but for the desktop and tablet - oh my no. I have a HP TX2000 tablet computer I use for sketching, I put Windows 8 on it I just had to remove it after a few days. It drove me insane! I'd rather use Windows 7 with slightly bigger UI elements.
I am seeing more and more people move the Mac in the professional market. My brother in law bought a MacBook Air and runs Windows 7 in a VM for the handfull of programs that only runs on Windows. Outside of that he uses MacOS. This is a man who sells Windows equipment to multi-million £ businesses. Ironic, don't you think?
The 100GbE CFP ethernet optical transceiver module offers the greatest faceplate density (in terms of Gbps per faceplate aperature-module pitch area) for MSA-specified pluggable optical modules up to now.
It was Vista that made me switch to the Macintosh, actually, and I'm glad I did. Best damn computer's i've ever owned. I'm hoping that where I currently work brings in a "bring your own device" policy. I'm forced to do graphics and software development work on a cheap and tatty Fujitsu Lifebook A computer (worst screen possible, Intel GMA Graphics, 1st Gen Core i3 Processor!) - but the IT Manager thinks these are brilliant development machines and anything more powerful is just a waste of money (cue canned laughter). Sorry for the tangent but I needed a little outlet for a mini-rant.
Nevertheless, from the techniques perspective, the CFP port density probably is going to be restricted by thermal constraints upon power dissipation, which might usually end up being more than 25 W for first-generation 100GbE CFP ethernet optical transceiver modules.