Great picture Rogifan! That sums things up pretty nicely.
(1) The Surface is dumb, awkward and makes no sense.
(2) Who wants some kind of frankenstein type hybrid device that doesn't even know if it's a laptop or a tablet? And the real funny part is that it's worse at both things!
(3) And I still think that the colors of those keyboards are puke worthy. Are they marketing it to 12 year old girls? Judging by that awful Glee-like TV ad, I think that they just might be. Who in their right mind watches Glee by the way?
1 - How is the Surface dumb, awkward and makes no sense? What is it with you guys. Are you not capable of explaining yourselves...
Now if you're referring to the RT then I agree with you to a certain point. I don't like the RT because it runs on an ARM processor which means that I wouldn't be able to run legacy Windows apps. I have a hard time seeing the point in the RT but I'm waiting until the Pro is released because that is a real tablet. One that's definitely not dumb, awkward or one that makes no sense.
2 - Really? Frankenstein? Again, if you're talking about the Surface then I agree about not knowing whether it's a tablet or a laptop (correction: ultrabook) due to the fact that it runs on an ARM processor.
3 - As for the ad. It's far better than what Apple did with the latest iPod Touch. It's just an ad with iPod's bouncing everywhere with music playing, big whoop! I love the new iPod Touch but the ad for it is just lame. Microsoft actually worked hard at trying to make an ad for the Surface while Apple failed at making an ad that properly demonstrates the product.
That may well be, but its one of the most confusing UIs I've ever seen. Bright garish colors, clashing with random square boxes and sliding tile bands, it's ridiculous. Every time I try to focus on a desktop screen, my eyes ache ... When I look away its like one of this American Flag optical illusions where you stare at the inverse colors and it appears correct when you look at a blank wall.
It's just a jumble of confusing ideas trying to mask the same old flimsy underpinnings. It looks like a bunch of software geeks and sales guys came up with it based on what they thought looked hip to the youngsters, and did absolutely no consumer testing.
1 - How is the Surface dumb, awkward and makes no sense? What is it with you guys. Are you not capable of explaining yourselves...
Now if you're referring to the RT then I agree with you to a certain point. I don't like the RT because it runs on an ARM processor which means that I wouldn't be able to run legacy Windows apps. I have a hard time seeing the point in the RT but I'm waiting until the Pro is released because that is a real tablet. One that's definitely not dumb, awkward or one that makes no sense.
2 - Really? Frankenstein? Again, if you're talking about the Surface then I agree about not knowing whether it's a tablet or a laptop (correction: ultrabook) due to the fact that it runs on an ARM processor.
3 - As for the ad. It's far better than what Apple did with the latest iPod Touch. It's just an ad with iPod's bouncing everywhere with music playing, big whoop! I love the new iPod Touch but the ad for it is just lame. Microsoft actually worked hard at trying to make an ad for the Surface while Apple failed at making an ad that properly demonstrates the product.
Why would anybody want to run full blown windows on the surface. Because you can run Aftereffects, Illustrator, Pagemaker, or maybe Maya and Realflow ????
To just write an email reading books or surf a little in the web, there is certainly no need to have the full windows on this tablet. Thus I give if at all only the ARM based device al certain chance to get Microsoft some revenue. But for that to happen they will have to work hard on their ecosystem.
1 - How is the Surface dumb, awkward and makes no sense? What is it with you guys. Are you not capable of explaining yourselves...
Now if you're referring to the RT then I agree with you to a certain point. I don't like the RT because it runs on an ARM processor which means that I wouldn't be able to run legacy Windows apps. I have a hard time seeing the point in the RT but I'm waiting until the Pro is released because that is a real tablet. One that's definitely not dumb, awkward or one that makes no sense.
2 - Really? Frankenstein? Again, if you're talking about the Surface then I agree about not knowing whether it's a tablet or a laptop (correction: ultrabook) due to the fact that it runs on an ARM processor.
3 - As for the ad. It's far better than what Apple did with the latest iPod Touch. It's just an ad with iPod's bouncing everywhere with music playing, big whoop! I love the new iPod Touch but the ad for it is just lame. Microsoft actually worked hard at trying to make an ad for the Surface while Apple failed at making an ad that properly demonstrates the product.
Yes, I was referring to the Surface RT in my post.
As for the ad, everybody knows what an iPod Touch is, Apple doesn't need an ad that shows it off in detail. Also, plenty of kids use iPod Touches. An ad with colorful iPod Touches bouncing around and music playing fits that product and their intended demographic just fine. And plenty of kids and other people will be getting iPod Touches for Christmas this year.
The MS surface ad, the Glee type ad, the one with all of the people snapping on keyboards and closing kickstands on the tablet with the added sound fx doesn't really say much about the product. People don't know what the Surface is, and they still don't know much after watching that ad. It also seems to target a young crowd, which is not good marketing, IMO.
1 - Well it isn't..
2 - If you make a product that is the same thing but smaller, that's not innovation. There's nothing new about making the same thing smaller and if that means that most of the tablets around today are just bigger versions of another product then yes the tablet is not innovative. If there are features in the OS itself that make the tablet worth using then that's an exception to be made. What I'm trying to say is that if there's something in the iPad that the iPod Touch doesn't do (I mean something really good here) then the iPad would have some worth to it but since it's pretty much a bigger iPod Touch then I can't see anything that makes the iPad innovative.
3 - I don't recall much of that but remember that the iPad is a really successful tablet so the more successful it is the more popularity and criticism it's going to get, but now that you mention that I guess you could say that the Playbook is a bigger version but I haven't used a BlackBerry Storm or Palm Pre so I can't confirm that but if it is just the same thing but in a bigger product then I can't see where the innovation is.
See... I don't quite agree (surprise)
Microsoft had tablets for over a decade. But as others have said... Microsoft just shoehorned Windows XP into a thick heavy tablet. It was mostly a usability failure (a non-touch OS on a touch device) and definitely a commercial failure (based of the percentage of tablet PCs vs standard PCs)
I will absolutely give Bill Gates credit for his vision... but his execution simply fell short.
Now for the iPad...
You're right... at the most basic level, the iPad can be considered "just a big iPod Touch"
But guess what... the iPod Touch was also Apple's creation... and it was running an OS that was completely designed for touch!
So yeah... Apple basically made a bigger version of the iPod Touch... but you're completely forgetting the key to it all... iOS.
On the other hand... Microsoft basically took a laptop with an OS designed for a mouse and keyboard... and removed the mouse and keyboard to make a tablet PC all those years ago. :no: And that just wasn't the best idea to ever come out of Redmond.
Now... you gotta give Apple some credit... the iPad does operate a little differently at the software level. You can make apps have a different layout on the iPad than on the iPhone. Apple got that right from the start.
But think back to the first Android tablets... they were running Android 2.2 Froyo... LITERALLY a phone OS. Even Google thought it was a bad idea... and told OEMs to stop doing that. Google didn't wake up until many months later with Honeycomb... but things didn't really start to make sense until Ice Cream Sandwich and later Jelly Bean. Kudos to them for finally getting it right.
You're right... Surface RT is a curious beast. I'm not sure where exactly it fits. But... it looks curiously similar to Windows Phone... their phone OS.
The interface reminds me of an OS that one might see on some cheap plastic fake tablet at Toys R Us. It's a joke.
I don't know about that. I can see the point that it works better via touch, until you actually run something, but the colours make it inviting. OSX could do with some colours. It's rather drab in my opinion. Moreover, Microsoft has resolution independence which the Mac badly needs. You almost have to run OSX at a lower resolution just to see things properly, especially on Mac Minis attached to large screens.
The point is that MS is moving in the right direction with Windows 8. OSX is great but it seems to be stagnant. Everything is going into iOS which makes sense except that the consumer phone market is really fickle.
With all the top people "leaving" MS, it will be impossible for the board of directors to ask for Ballmer's resignation (i.e., fire him). There's nobody around to replace him. So this is just Ballmer protecting his job and juicy salary.
Ballmer has an 11 figure fortune, and does not need the salary. He IS a very smart guy, and he does love microsoft, but there are just too many constraints at MS to innovate these days.
Microsoft getting hammered in premarket trading down almost 4% basically giving up all the gains made so far this year. Ouch.
The problem with the Surface is Microsoft never shows it being used without the kickstand or the touch cover. You never see it being used in portrait mode, which makes me wonder how well it works outside of landscape mode. Basically Microsoft is giving off the impression that you need a keyboard and trackpad to make this thing work. If that's the case why wouldn't someone just buy a thin and light laptop?
Well, Devon, it's nice of you to register to present your alternate version of reality (I didn't actually count your posts, but given the count and the frequency in this thread, it seems you have only one purpose here) but, in this universe, the one where we actually live, all the signs, including Sinofsky's firing, point to the surface joining that pantheon of Microsoft products that include Bob, the Zune and the Kin. It's not clear if you are a shill or just an utterly misguided true believer in all things Microsoft, but it's been a while since we've had anyone post so much seemingly earnest BS in a single thread.
Microsoft getting hammered in premarket trading down almost 4% basically giving up all the gains made so far this year. Ouch.
The problem with the Surface is Microsoft never shows it being used without the kickstand or the touch cover. You never see it being used in portrait mode, which makes me wonder how well it works outside of landscape mode. Basically Microsoft is giving off the impression that you need a keyboard and trackpad to make this thing work. If that's the case why wouldn't someone just buy a thin and light laptop?
Actually, in the ads I've seen, you don't see it "being used" at all, just a lot of people tossing it around, snapping on their keyboards and popping out their kickstands. Apparently, that's enough fun that once you're done with that, you don't need to do anything else.
IMO, the reason that Sinofsky is gone is not because the surface RT a failure...
The Surface RT was just a placeholder to give Microsoft time to release the Surface Pro.
IMO, Sinofsky is gone because Microsoft realizes the Surface Pro is (will be) a failure, because: 1) MS cannot build the Surface Pro with competitive features, price, flexibility to an UltraBook 2) Legacy Windows apps, including Office, are unusable with a touch UI (even with a stylus) 3) MS has alienated it's former hardware partners by competing with them
There is no compelling need for the Surface Pro as a tablet!
Given that, there is no compelling need for the bifurcated UI -- that is the raison d'être for Windows 8!
Ballmer has allowed Sinofsky to maneuver Microsoft into a "no win" situation vis-a-vis its major products. (iWork and other offerings have demonstrated that there are acceptable touch-tablet alternatives for many Office users).
…the iPad wasn't innovative at all, it just created the tablet industry…
Recreated. Gotta give someone else credit for creation.
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
1 - Well it isn't..
I love this part of the gig. *ahem* "Prove it. Now."
Nearly three years of evidence laid out there for you. Prove. It.
I'll give you an easy starting point: why does every tablet made since the introduction of the iPad look* and operate identically to the iPad?
*Except, of course, for the ones that were legally forced to be different and are therefore different for the SOLE PURPOSE of not copying the iPad.
2 - If you make a product that is the same thing but smaller, that's not innovation.
What does this have to do with the iPad or Windows 8?
There's nothing new about making the same thing smaller
Tell that to every smaller version of every product ever made. You're losing yourself in your lies and are beginning to just throw words together.
…and if that means that most of the tablets around today are just bigger versions of another product then yes the tablet is not innovative.
Got it, so zero modern Windows tablets are innovative because they are absolutely nothing more than bigger versions of Windows Phone 7.
Interestingly, the iPad is the opposite. The iPhone/iPod touch are smaller versions of the iPad. Not the other way around.
If there are features in the OS itself that make the tablet worth using then that's an exception to be made.
So once again, Windows 8 is in no way innovative while the iPad is.
What I'm trying to say is that if there's something in the iPad that the iPod Touch doesn't do (I mean something really good here) then the iPad would have some worth to it…
Since the iPad has tens of millions of uses that the iPod touch cannot fulfill, I think we're done here.
…but since it's pretty much a bigger iPod Touch…
Fate, meet seal. Flavor seal. Doesn't expire as long as it's not opened again.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Actually, in the ads I've seen, you don't see it "being used" at all, just a lot of people tossing it around, snapping on their keyboards and popping out their kickstands.
The businessmen (with their scarily-crossed legs) almost got around to using it… but then it cut away. Probably to save Microsoft the embarrassment of showing people trying to use a product with a KICKSTAND on their legs.
I don't know many people who let their bicycles ride them.
IMO, the reason that Sinofsky is gone is not because the surface RT a failure...
The Surface RT was just a placeholder to give Microsoft time to release the Surface Pro.
IMO, Sinofsky is gone because Microsoft realizes the Surface Pro is (will be) a failure, because:
1) MS cannot build the Surface Pro with competitive features, price, flexibility to an UltraBook
2) Legacy Windows apps, including Office, are unusable with a touch UI (even with a stylus)
3) MS has alienated it's former hardware partners by competing with them
There is no compelling need for the Surface Pro as a tablet!
Given that, there is no compelling need for the bifurcated UI -- that is the raison d'être for Windows 8!
Ballmer has allowed Sinofsky to maneuver Microsoft into a "no win" situation vis-a-vis it major products. (iWork and other offerings have demonstrated that there are acceptable touch-tablet alternatives for many Office users).
I agree, but point 3 (which is the most relevant to the Windows (hence Sinofsky) part of the business) is not restricted to the Surfaces, but to Windows 8 in general -- the touch part of the interface does not work with the legacy part, and vice versa (the stylus does make it a little better, but not enough).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Great picture Rogifan! That sums things up pretty nicely.
(1) The Surface is dumb, awkward and makes no sense.
(2) Who wants some kind of frankenstein type hybrid device that doesn't even know if it's a laptop or a tablet? And the real funny part is that it's worse at both things!
(3) And I still think that the colors of those keyboards are puke worthy. Are they marketing it to 12 year old girls? Judging by that awful Glee-like TV ad, I think that they just might be. Who in their right mind watches Glee by the way?
1 - How is the Surface dumb, awkward and makes no sense? What is it with you guys. Are you not capable of explaining yourselves...
Now if you're referring to the RT then I agree with you to a certain point. I don't like the RT because it runs on an ARM processor which means that I wouldn't be able to run legacy Windows apps. I have a hard time seeing the point in the RT but I'm waiting until the Pro is released because that is a real tablet. One that's definitely not dumb, awkward or one that makes no sense.
2 - Really? Frankenstein? Again, if you're talking about the Surface then I agree about not knowing whether it's a tablet or a laptop (correction: ultrabook) due to the fact that it runs on an ARM processor.
3 - As for the ad. It's far better than what Apple did with the latest iPod Touch. It's just an ad with iPod's bouncing everywhere with music playing, big whoop! I love the new iPod Touch but the ad for it is just lame. Microsoft actually worked hard at trying to make an ad for the Surface while Apple failed at making an ad that properly demonstrates the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Now this is very unfair!
You completely omitted the mindbendingly innovative kickstand. - It makes all the difference!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
That may well be, but its one of the most confusing UIs I've ever seen. Bright garish colors, clashing with random square boxes and sliding tile bands, it's ridiculous. Every time I try to focus on a desktop screen, my eyes ache ... When I look away its like one of this American Flag optical illusions where you stare at the inverse colors and it appears correct when you look at a blank wall.
It's just a jumble of confusing ideas trying to mask the same old flimsy underpinnings. It looks like a bunch of software geeks and sales guys came up with it based on what they thought looked hip to the youngsters, and did absolutely no consumer testing.
I think it looks great.
That background is ugly though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
1 - How is the Surface dumb, awkward and makes no sense? What is it with you guys. Are you not capable of explaining yourselves...
Now if you're referring to the RT then I agree with you to a certain point. I don't like the RT because it runs on an ARM processor which means that I wouldn't be able to run legacy Windows apps. I have a hard time seeing the point in the RT but I'm waiting until the Pro is released because that is a real tablet. One that's definitely not dumb, awkward or one that makes no sense.
2 - Really? Frankenstein? Again, if you're talking about the Surface then I agree about not knowing whether it's a tablet or a laptop (correction: ultrabook) due to the fact that it runs on an ARM processor.
3 - As for the ad. It's far better than what Apple did with the latest iPod Touch. It's just an ad with iPod's bouncing everywhere with music playing, big whoop! I love the new iPod Touch but the ad for it is just lame. Microsoft actually worked hard at trying to make an ad for the Surface while Apple failed at making an ad that properly demonstrates the product.
Why would anybody want to run full blown windows on the surface. Because you can run Aftereffects, Illustrator, Pagemaker, or maybe Maya and Realflow ????
To just write an email reading books or surf a little in the web, there is certainly no need to have the full windows on this tablet. Thus I give if at all only the ARM based device al certain chance to get Microsoft some revenue. But for that to happen they will have to work hard on their ecosystem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
1 - How is the Surface dumb, awkward and makes no sense? What is it with you guys. Are you not capable of explaining yourselves...
Now if you're referring to the RT then I agree with you to a certain point. I don't like the RT because it runs on an ARM processor which means that I wouldn't be able to run legacy Windows apps. I have a hard time seeing the point in the RT but I'm waiting until the Pro is released because that is a real tablet. One that's definitely not dumb, awkward or one that makes no sense.
2 - Really? Frankenstein? Again, if you're talking about the Surface then I agree about not knowing whether it's a tablet or a laptop (correction: ultrabook) due to the fact that it runs on an ARM processor.
3 - As for the ad. It's far better than what Apple did with the latest iPod Touch. It's just an ad with iPod's bouncing everywhere with music playing, big whoop! I love the new iPod Touch but the ad for it is just lame. Microsoft actually worked hard at trying to make an ad for the Surface while Apple failed at making an ad that properly demonstrates the product.
Yes, I was referring to the Surface RT in my post.
As for the ad, everybody knows what an iPod Touch is, Apple doesn't need an ad that shows it off in detail. Also, plenty of kids use iPod Touches. An ad with colorful iPod Touches bouncing around and music playing fits that product and their intended demographic just fine. And plenty of kids and other people will be getting iPod Touches for Christmas this year.
The MS surface ad, the Glee type ad, the one with all of the people snapping on keyboards and closing kickstands on the tablet with the added sound fx doesn't really say much about the product. People don't know what the Surface is, and they still don't know much after watching that ad. It also seems to target a young crowd, which is not good marketing, IMO.
See... I don't quite agree (surprise)
Microsoft had tablets for over a decade. But as others have said... Microsoft just shoehorned Windows XP into a thick heavy tablet. It was mostly a usability failure (a non-touch OS on a touch device) and definitely a commercial failure (based of the percentage of tablet PCs vs standard PCs)
I will absolutely give Bill Gates credit for his vision... but his execution simply fell short.
Now for the iPad...
You're right... at the most basic level, the iPad can be considered "just a big iPod Touch"
But guess what... the iPod Touch was also Apple's creation... and it was running an OS that was completely designed for touch!
So yeah... Apple basically made a bigger version of the iPod Touch... but you're completely forgetting the key to it all... iOS.
On the other hand... Microsoft basically took a laptop with an OS designed for a mouse and keyboard... and removed the mouse and keyboard to make a tablet PC all those years ago. :no: And that just wasn't the best idea to ever come out of Redmond.
Now... you gotta give Apple some credit... the iPad does operate a little differently at the software level. You can make apps have a different layout on the iPad than on the iPhone. Apple got that right from the start.
But think back to the first Android tablets... they were running Android 2.2 Froyo... LITERALLY a phone OS. Even Google thought it was a bad idea... and told OEMs to stop doing that. Google didn't wake up until many months later with Honeycomb... but things didn't really start to make sense until Ice Cream Sandwich and later Jelly Bean. Kudos to them for finally getting it right.
You're right... Surface RT is a curious beast. I'm not sure where exactly it fits. But... it looks curiously similar to Windows Phone... their phone OS.
Hmmmm... where have we seen that idea before?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
What is it with you guys. Are you not capable of explaining yourselves...
Time, Devon.
It's our most important currency...
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
The interface reminds me of an OS that one might see on some cheap plastic fake tablet at Toys R Us. It's a joke.
I don't know about that. I can see the point that it works better via touch, until you actually run something, but the colours make it inviting. OSX could do with some colours. It's rather drab in my opinion. Moreover, Microsoft has resolution independence which the Mac badly needs. You almost have to run OSX at a lower resolution just to see things properly, especially on Mac Minis attached to large screens.
The point is that MS is moving in the right direction with Windows 8. OSX is great but it seems to be stagnant. Everything is going into iOS which makes sense except that the consumer phone market is really fickle.
philip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don108
With all the top people "leaving" MS, it will be impossible for the board of directors to ask for Ballmer's resignation (i.e., fire him). There's nobody around to replace him. So this is just Ballmer protecting his job and juicy salary.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Ballmer has an 11 figure fortune, and does not need the salary. He IS a very smart guy, and he does love microsoft, but there are just too many constraints at MS to innovate these days.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
The problem with the Surface is Microsoft never shows it being used without the kickstand or the touch cover. You never see it being used in portrait mode, which makes me wonder how well it works outside of landscape mode. Basically Microsoft is giving off the impression that you need a keyboard and trackpad to make this thing work. If that's the case why wouldn't someone just buy a thin and light laptop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
[nonsense followed by more nonsense]
Well, Devon, it's nice of you to register to present your alternate version of reality (I didn't actually count your posts, but given the count and the frequency in this thread, it seems you have only one purpose here) but, in this universe, the one where we actually live, all the signs, including Sinofsky's firing, point to the surface joining that pantheon of Microsoft products that include Bob, the Zune and the Kin. It's not clear if you are a shill or just an utterly misguided true believer in all things Microsoft, but it's been a while since we've had anyone post so much seemingly earnest BS in a single thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Microsoft getting hammered in premarket trading down almost 4% basically giving up all the gains made so far this year. Ouch.
The problem with the Surface is Microsoft never shows it being used without the kickstand or the touch cover. You never see it being used in portrait mode, which makes me wonder how well it works outside of landscape mode. Basically Microsoft is giving off the impression that you need a keyboard and trackpad to make this thing work. If that's the case why wouldn't someone just buy a thin and light laptop?
Actually, in the ads I've seen, you don't see it "being used" at all, just a lot of people tossing it around, snapping on their keyboards and popping out their kickstands. Apparently, that's enough fun that once you're done with that, you don't need to do anything else.
The Surface RT was just a placeholder to give Microsoft time to release the Surface Pro.
IMO, Sinofsky is gone because Microsoft realizes the Surface Pro is (will be) a failure, because:
1) MS cannot build the Surface Pro with competitive features, price, flexibility to an UltraBook
2) Legacy Windows apps, including Office, are unusable with a touch UI (even with a stylus)
3) MS has alienated it's former hardware partners by competing with them
There is no compelling need for the Surface Pro as a tablet!
Given that, there is no compelling need for the bifurcated UI -- that is the raison d'être for Windows 8!
Ballmer has allowed Sinofsky to maneuver Microsoft into a "no win" situation vis-a-vis its major products. (iWork and other offerings have demonstrated that there are acceptable touch-tablet alternatives for many Office users).
When MS announced the Surface, I posted what I thought would be the rollout schedule:
1) late 2012 -- Surface RT released
2) early 2013 -- Surface Pro released
3) July 2013 -- Sinofsky released
The timing was a little off, but 2 out of 3 isn't bad...
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
That doesn't mean Windows 8's a disaster..
No, but since it already is in its own right…
Originally Posted by Slurpy
…the iPad wasn't innovative at all, it just created the tablet industry…
Recreated. Gotta give someone else credit for creation.
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
1 - Well it isn't..
I love this part of the gig. *ahem* "Prove it. Now."
Nearly three years of evidence laid out there for you. Prove. It.
I'll give you an easy starting point: why does every tablet made since the introduction of the iPad look* and operate identically to the iPad?
*Except, of course, for the ones that were legally forced to be different and are therefore different for the SOLE PURPOSE of not copying the iPad.
2 - If you make a product that is the same thing but smaller, that's not innovation.
What does this have to do with the iPad or Windows 8?
There's nothing new about making the same thing smaller
Tell that to every smaller version of every product ever made. You're losing yourself in your lies and are beginning to just throw words together.
…and if that means that most of the tablets around today are just bigger versions of another product then yes the tablet is not innovative.
Got it, so zero modern Windows tablets are innovative because they are absolutely nothing more than bigger versions of Windows Phone 7.
Interestingly, the iPad is the opposite. The iPhone/iPod touch are smaller versions of the iPad. Not the other way around.
If there are features in the OS itself that make the tablet worth using then that's an exception to be made.
So once again, Windows 8 is in no way innovative while the iPad is.
What I'm trying to say is that if there's something in the iPad that the iPod Touch doesn't do (I mean something really good here) then the iPad would have some worth to it…
Since the iPad has tens of millions of uses that the iPod touch cannot fulfill, I think we're done here.
…but since it's pretty much a bigger iPod Touch…
Fate, meet seal. Flavor seal. Doesn't expire as long as it's not opened again.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Actually, in the ads I've seen, you don't see it "being used" at all, just a lot of people tossing it around, snapping on their keyboards and popping out their kickstands.
The businessmen (with their scarily-crossed legs) almost got around to using it… but then it cut away. Probably to save Microsoft the embarrassment of showing people trying to use a product with a KICKSTAND on their legs.
I don't know many people who let their bicycles ride them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
IMO, the reason that Sinofsky is gone is not because the surface RT a failure...
The Surface RT was just a placeholder to give Microsoft time to release the Surface Pro.
IMO, Sinofsky is gone because Microsoft realizes the Surface Pro is (will be) a failure, because:
1) MS cannot build the Surface Pro with competitive features, price, flexibility to an UltraBook
2) Legacy Windows apps, including Office, are unusable with a touch UI (even with a stylus)
3) MS has alienated it's former hardware partners by competing with them
There is no compelling need for the Surface Pro as a tablet!
Given that, there is no compelling need for the bifurcated UI -- that is the raison d'être for Windows 8!
Ballmer has allowed Sinofsky to maneuver Microsoft into a "no win" situation vis-a-vis it major products. (iWork and other offerings have demonstrated that there are acceptable touch-tablet alternatives for many Office users).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I agree, but point 3 (which is the most relevant to the Windows (hence Sinofsky) part of the business) is not restricted to the Surfaces, but to Windows 8 in general -- the touch part of the interface does not work with the legacy part, and vice versa (the stylus does make it a little better, but not enough).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }