The thing I don't get about this one is the screen. Hardware's really nice - it's distinct and doesn't feel like another iPad knock off, and the type cover is also really nice - better than any iPad keyboard I've used.
Then they put a low resolution screen on it. And priced it the same as an iPad. Doesn't make sense - so close, yet so far away.
Yes, you are definitely fighting a losing battle. It has been used as an intransitive verb as an alteration of founder since around 1592 according to Merriam-Webster. You're about 421 years late to the party.
<div class="content" style="padding-right:5px;padding-left:22px;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:20px;">probably alteration of founder
<div style="margin-top:5px;">First Known Use: 1592</div>
</div>
That was good! I bow to your superior resource. But even though centuries late, I am right that it was probably conceived in error. Now "butt naked" is another matter isn't it? What does your Webster's say about that alteration?
People may have thought MS Office was essential initially when the iPad started selling into enterprise, but Enterprise, government, schools and institutions got several years of experience without MS Office and learned that they could work just fine without it. Now, with iOS7 and iWork in the cloud and on the web, MS Office will shortly become even more redundant.
The barn door was open for too many years and Microsoft still thinks they can herd the customers back under their roof... I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Microsoft just thinks that since they control essentially 90% of the desktops/laptops that they think they want Microsoft products for smartphones and tablets.
Oops. I guess they were wrong.
I think it's also because Microsoft put all their eggs in that basket: PCs running MS Office. When it came time to offer a tablet experience, what did they do? Turn it into a laptop running MS Office. What else could they do? That is the limit of their imagination.
So you'd just rather have it that Apple have a monopoly on tablets?
Microsoft had their chance. They were unchallenged in tablet computing between 1995 and 2010. You didn't complain about their monopoly on tablets. Why is that, hmm?
Microsoft had their chance. They were unchallenged in tablet computing between 1995 and 2010. You didn't complain about their monopoly on tablets. Why is that, hmm?
First they didn't make the tablets and second it wasn't much of a market. The vast majority of people don't even know that tablets existed before the iPad, that's not much of a monopoly.
First they didn't make the tablets and second it wasn't much of a market. The vast majority of people don't even know that tablets existed before the iPad, that's not much of a monopoly.
More like they simply didn't care for them. Microsoft's tablets still ran a Windows OS, and was essentially a laptop with a stylus and missing the keyboard, or could be rotated around. This actually made them harder to use, because styluses were slow, their touchscreens were unresponsive, and they were simply too bulky and heavy to hold for an extended period of time.
Either way, there wasn't enough differentiation between the 2 to merit getting both.
More like they simply didn't care for them. Microsoft's tablets still ran a Windows OS, and was essentially a laptop with a stylus and missing the keyboard, or could be rotated around. This actually made them harder to use, because styluses were slow, their touchscreens were unresponsive, and they were simply too bulky and heavy to hold for an extended period of time.
Either way, there wasn't enough differentiation between the 2 to merit getting both.
The few that knew about them didn't care but I know that the overwhelmingly majority of people that have an iPad think that's it's the first tablet in existence.
Then again, some people thought Apple didn't stand a chance in the already crowded cell phone space. I don't fault Microsoft at all for trying. They have to respond. You can't sit idly by while someone steals your lunch. Microsoft continually responds too late.
IMO, it wasn't that Microsoft was late, but that their tablet offering continues to miss the mark with regards to why so many people found the ipad desirable to use in the first place.
Let me see....I use a tablet when I get home from work, and your selling point is that I can run office on it? Really? Your definition of fun is being able to hammer out a thesis in bed?
IMO, it wasn't that Microsoft was late, but that their tablet offering continues to miss the mark with regards to why so many people found the ipad desirable to use in the first place.
Let me see....I use a tablet when I get home from work, and your selling point is that I can run office on it? Really? Your definition of fun is being able to hammer out a thesis in bed?
You're absolutely correct, this is a perfect example when less is more. MS has a bad habit of over thinking things and while they're standing there rubbing their chin Apple has passed them by.
You're absolutely correct, this is a perfect example when less is more. MS has a bad habit of over thinking things and while they're standing there rubbing their chin Apple has passed them by.
I don't think MS was "over thinking" but not thinking at all when they try to cram an existing OS into a different form factor with "no compromises".
Attention editors: It is 'FOUNDERS' not 'FLOUNDERS.' Flounders are fish. Founder is a verb that describes a sinking ship. Use your spare time to re-read that 8th grade grammar text.
As has already been covered in the thread, you're completely wrong.
But...but...it can have two windows open at once to do real multitasking! That stoopid iPad is so worthless since it can't do that. Apparently most consumers are just sheeple that can't realize the obvious superiority of Microsoft's tablet!
But... but.. the problem is, you can't find apps to do multitask on Windows RT.
I can't even imagine how depressing the gang all look at a Microsoft BBQ. Latest rumour round the pit is that slates will next debut inside cereal boxes.
Comments
I guess because a word has only existed for ~400 years, it's unacceptable.
This is not a balloon, by the way. That's 1792 and newer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
"I could care less" when you mean "I couldn't care less" gets me irritated.
If you could care less, that means you at least care a bit.
If you read between the lines so to speak, it means the same exact thing though.
Zuned ....
Then they put a low resolution screen on it. And priced it the same as an iPad. Doesn't make sense - so close, yet so far away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
People may have thought MS Office was essential initially when the iPad started selling into enterprise, but Enterprise, government, schools and institutions got several years of experience without MS Office and learned that they could work just fine without it. Now, with iOS7 and iWork in the cloud and on the web, MS Office will shortly become even more redundant.
The barn door was open for too many years and Microsoft still thinks they can herd the customers back under their roof... I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Microsoft just thinks that since they control essentially 90% of the desktops/laptops that they think they want Microsoft products for smartphones and tablets.
Oops. I guess they were wrong.
I think it's also because Microsoft put all their eggs in that basket: PCs running MS Office. When it came time to offer a tablet experience, what did they do? Turn it into a laptop running MS Office. What else could they do? That is the limit of their imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So you'd just rather have it that Apple have a monopoly on tablets?
Microsoft had their chance. They were unchallenged in tablet computing between 1995 and 2010. You didn't complain about their monopoly on tablets. Why is that, hmm?
First they didn't make the tablets and second it wasn't much of a market. The vast majority of people don't even know that tablets existed before the iPad, that's not much of a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
First they didn't make the tablets and second it wasn't much of a market. The vast majority of people don't even know that tablets existed before the iPad, that's not much of a monopoly.
More like they simply didn't care for them. Microsoft's tablets still ran a Windows OS, and was essentially a laptop with a stylus and missing the keyboard, or could be rotated around. This actually made them harder to use, because styluses were slow, their touchscreens were unresponsive, and they were simply too bulky and heavy to hold for an extended period of time.
Either way, there wasn't enough differentiation between the 2 to merit getting both.
The few that knew about them didn't care but I know that the overwhelmingly majority of people that have an iPad think that's it's the first tablet in existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63
Then again, some people thought Apple didn't stand a chance in the already crowded cell phone space. I don't fault Microsoft at all for trying. They have to respond. You can't sit idly by while someone steals your lunch. Microsoft continually responds too late.
IMO, it wasn't that Microsoft was late, but that their tablet offering continues to miss the mark with regards to why so many people found the ipad desirable to use in the first place.
Let me see....I use a tablet when I get home from work, and your selling point is that I can run office on it? Really? Your definition of fun is being able to hammer out a thesis in bed?
You're absolutely correct, this is a perfect example when less is more. MS has a bad habit of over thinking things and while they're standing there rubbing their chin Apple has passed them by.
I don't think MS was "over thinking" but not thinking at all when they try to cram an existing OS into a different form factor with "no compromises".
Use your spare time to re-read that 8th grade grammar text.
As has already been covered in the thread, you're completely wrong.
Ugh, you obviously didn't read all the comments arguing that, either way is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atsysusa
Attention editors: It is 'FOUNDERS' not 'FLOUNDERS.' Flounders are fish. Founder is a verb that describes a sinking ship.
Use your spare time to re-read that 8th grade grammar text.
As I told the other guy, you're more than 400 years late to the party whining about this.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flounder
intransitive verb2flounder
floun·deredfloun·der·ing
Definition of FLOUNDER
1
: to struggle to move or obtain footing : thrash about wildly
2
: to proceed or act clumsily or ineffectually
Origin of FLOUNDER
probably alteration of founder
First Known Use: 1592
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones
But...but...it can have two windows open at once to do real multitasking! That stoopid iPad is so worthless since it can't do that. Apparently most consumers are just sheeple that can't realize the obvious superiority of Microsoft's tablet!
But... but.. the problem is, you can't find apps to do multitask on Windows RT.
I can't even imagine how depressing the gang all look at a Microsoft BBQ. Latest rumour round the pit is that slates will next debut inside cereal boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
Remember, "it's never too late to for a leopard to change horses in mid-stream," and "it's as heavy as a concrete elephant!" (both used for emphasis!)
He was a catcher for the Yankees who went on to manage the Mets.