danvm

ericthehalfbee said:

AI2xxx said:

That article claiming the iPad Pro outperforms the Surface Pro 4 is simply false. Then there's the comparison of software and ecosystem. iOS is not a viable alternative to Windows.

Windows on a tablet is a joke, and iOS is vastly superior. Android is already garbage for tablet optimized Apps but even Windows tops it as the worst tablet OS around. 

iPad Pro / iOS are very good, but not necessarily better than Windows for some tasks.  For example, for the Pen has an eraser, which is great when taking notes.  Side by side applications is far better in Windows.  Windows has a file manager, which is an advantage when working with lot of files.  And when you add the keyboard, trackpad is better than navigating with the touchscreen.

liquidmark said:

danvm said:

I don't think the results between the entry or high end rMBP 13" would be different.  Like I have posted many times, considering PC World tests, GPU made the difference.  They didn't lie, they just pointed out a weakness in the rMBP.  Do you want a 13" notebook with GPU?  Go MS.  Want a 15" notebook with GPU?  Go Apple. 

Don't sit there and compare a mid-range GPU-based laptop to an entry level integrated one and then make the claim that it was a fair or equal comparison.

I think MS already knew it wasn't fair, and went directly to point out the rMBP 13" lack of GPU, and how it was a big advantage for the Surface Book.  Can you blame them?  And I have noticed that people in the internet is doing the same comparison, rMBP 13" vs SB.  Are you mad at them too?

tmay said:

danvm said:

The sales numbers for Mac are nice until you compare it to the Lenovo, which ships close to 3x per quarter over Apple, even with the slowdown.  And these number are from Gartner and IDC, since I haven't seen specific number from Apple or Lenovo.

If the 1-to-1 comparison is going to be made, I suppose it has to be to a similar device, so it can't be an iPad.  Based in specs, it's more similar to the Macbook and the Macbook Air 11".  Too bad Apple, neither MS release specific numbers for those devices, so a comparison can be made.

From what I read, Zune was a great device.  I never had the chance to use one, since I was an iPod user, and still have my 30GB somewhere.  This is one of the device I'll add to my list of great products that failed. 

That championing attitude you mention was in both sides, for Zune and iPod, and attitude that still today with fanboys in both sides, while adding Google to the list.

And the experience of someone thinking you were not an informed consumer because you went for the iPad Pro, can apply to someone considering Surface Pro or other devices.  There are that kind of people in both sides, Apple and MS. 

"The sales numbers for Mac are nice until you compare it to Lenovo"

Logical fallacy; Apple makes 50% of the profit in the PC industry on it's meager share .

http://www.dailytech.com/Lenovo+Once+Again+The+Top+Global+PC+Maker+Apple+Takes+50+of+PC+Profits/article36693.htm

Yes, I already knew that.  But in my conversation with @liquidmark I was referring devices sales, not profit.  But thanks for point out the profit of Apple Mac line. 

tenly said:

nemoeac said:

Tenly may want to continue this engagement with you, but I'm done.  I've wasted a lot of time trying to make you see things from a wider viewpoint but you just don't get it and I'm not sure you ever will.

Continue to visit forums like this one.  Do more listening and less arguing.  Realize that there are many gaps in your knowledge, and in time - maybe you will actually learn something.

As for your very last sentence.   Through this entire thread, I never once claimed that there was any fault with the Surface tablets.

Good luck Tenly.  He's all yours.

Ha ha!  Well said nemoeac!  I agree with 99% of what you said and I admire your patience.  He obviously has a deep rooted need to defend Microsoft - probably an employee.  It's clear to me that he doesn't want to understand reality.  He's not worth me wasting any more of my time on either.

I'll start with clarifying that I'm not an Apple employee.  My posts have been from a MBA, while I have other Apple devices.  At the same time, my only device from MS is the Xbox.  Since you asked, are you an Apple employee?  For some reason you feel the obligation to defend Apple and critisize MS.  

If you read my post, you may see I agree with many of you and @nemoeac points about redundancy.  But you have to consider that an arena of that size may already have redundancy for servers and network components, and with all of this, it failed.  How do you know what they did, what kind of infrastructure or recovery plan the arena have in place?  Do any of you had physical access to the network o have access to the recovery plan documents?  I don't think so.  And still for some reason, you blame MS from the wifi failure.  Can the NFL and MS do more?  Of course.  But remember that redundancy doesn't means 100% of availability.  I means reduce downtime in case of failure, and that's what happen.  They went hardwire while they fix the cabling issue that brought down wifi for NE.  

All my posts are based on what I heard from the live game and from I have read in different websites.  So maybe I'm missing something or just "I don't want to understand reality".  

nemoeac said:

danvm said:

I find interesting how you still answer the "dumb" guy posts.  

I understand the importance of redundancy.  But we are talking about the yesterday event.  If you read about the problem, you'll understood that the backend was operational, so there was no need to switch to the redundant system.  That's the reason the workaround was to use hardwire, while the Denver bench had no problems at all.  More servers would not do anything in this specific case.  


First of all, I don't have to make excuses for no one.  Second, MS do not need to mange stadiums networks if it wasn't part of the agreement.  It means that the IT department for the colosseum is responsible for the network.  If you ask me, those are the people responsible of making my devices connect to the network, and sadly, yesterday they had a serious problem, while the Surface Pros were operational.  Again, the Surface Pro neither MS had nothing to do with yesterday problem (at least from what I have read in the news).  Sometime bad things have to happen before good things start to appear.  I hope the league make some guidelines so this don't happen again.  

One more thing, I have been very respectful in my posts.  Calling me "dumb" and that "I don't have to capacity to understand" is completely unnecessary.  I'll hope your next posts are more respectful.  

Tenly said that there should have been redundancies in the system and then went on to explain what spme of the redundancies should have been - network, servers, etc. He was speaking about the design of the system as whole - and then you jumped in claiming that the servers had nothing to do with the failure.  That's a completely irrelevant point and does not change the fact that the system should include redundancies for possible server faults

Like I posted before, I work IT and know the importance of redundant systems, and I agree with what Tenly said about that.  My post is based in the what happened in the game.  The backend was running, the network was working for Denver and NE via ethernet network.  I'm just pointing out that switching to the redundant servers would not had solved the problem.  BTW, there is a big chance an arena that host a big league team as the Broncos have a very robust network, which includes redundant systems.  

You obviously know a little about computers and technology - but not enough to be jumping in and arguing nonsense with people that know a lot more.  Tenly sounds (mostly) like he knows what he's talking about - and I have been building resilient systems for large enterprises for the past 15 years.  Perhaps "dumb" was the wrong word.  Maybe "childish" would have fit better because it honestly seems like you know how to build a bridge with Lego blocks and you think that qualifies you to jump out of the car and argue design parameters with the architect leading the construction of a real life bridge over the highway.  You don't realize how much there is that you don't know - in this case about enterprise systems - and you're not willing to listen when more knowledgeable people try to fill in some of the gaps in your knowledge.

I'm looking forward to learn from you...

Two examples just from your precious message:

First: You say "there was no need to switch to the redundant system" which would be true if there was a single redundant system which is obviously what you imagined.  In reality, there would have been redundancies with each component of the system - but only in the largest disaster would they ever be activated as a whole.  Examples of the redundancies that should have been in place:
- a box of spare Surface tables in case the main ones broke
- redundant networks wired and wireless that could be activated if necessary
- redundant access points, switches and routers
- redundant servers
When a problem is discovered, the defective component of the system should be replaced by its redundant counterpart - so in this case, it would have meant activating the standby network  -  but if the problem were with the servers, you'd cut over to the standby servers.  The system could even be smart enough to cut over automatically when certain types of failures are discovered.

First, I didn't imagined nothing.  I know they have redundancy at different levels and layers.  BTW,  there is nothing new for me to learn from your post.  You don't have to be an expert to know this.  

Secondly:  you refer to the network as if there can obviously only be 1 network and in this case that it is clearly in the hands of the colliseum staff.  You also imply that it's the same network that your device your connect to had you been at the game.  Both wrong.   You can have dozens of networks in a given area - some connector to the Internet, some not.  If I had been Microsoft, I would definitely have set up my own, dedicated network for this system - to ensure that I'm not competing for bandwidth with other systems and so that i can control its configuration and positioning and ensure it meets the needs of the system.  It would also be managed by my own people so that problems are less likely to occur - and if they did occur, I could cut over immediately to my redundant network.

The first two lines are assumptions from you part, and both are wrong.  And second, Have you consider the possibility that the arena already have configured the kind of network you mention in your post?  You are not the only person that know about this kind of infrastructure.  

Back to the point, they connect the SP using cable and it worked without issues.  So it looks like they had a plan that worked while they fixed the cabling issue that brought down the wireless in the NE side. They didn't not have to use a redundant network, since they were already connected to the network via cable.  Now you may understand why I mentioned that adding redundant servers, while it's a must for this kind of environment, wasn't a solution to the problem.  

BTW, I didn't learn nothing from your second point.  I already knew that.  

But instead of acknowledging that the system could have been designed better - you've decided to argue and incorrectly claim that there was nothing that Microsoft could have done to avoid this embarrassment.

No, I didn't say that.  I mentioned that the NFL should check the guidelines for networks in the arenas.  Obviously MS should be part of that since they use their devices.  

So....dumb may not be the right word to describe you and your posts...but what is?  Ignorant?  It may be accurate, but it sounds more offensive than dumb.  Stupid?  That's like dumb, but an order of magnitude worse.  Dense!  That's it.  Dense works.  And that's not for being wrong - it's for refusing to listen when we tried to explain WHY you were wrong.  I don't blame you in any way for not knowing.  It's obviously not your job to know any of this.  But I do think that it was wrong for you to be so dismissive and to argue as much as you have with those of us that obviously know a little more on the topic.

I'm not too good with name calling.  On the contrary, I'm very respectful in my posts because I know I'm talking with many professionals I don't even know.  Looks like this is not the case.  

Why is it so hard for you to admit that Microsoft could have done more?  It seems like your defending them blindly.  

No, I don't need to defend nobody, be it MS, Apple, Amazon or whatever company exist.  

It's not the first time they've messed up and won't be the last.  For me - it was nice to see something in the news other than Apple for a change.  First Nest, now Microsoft!  Don't worry, I have no doubt that something minor about Apple will appear and be blown completely out of proportion soon - and it will draw attention away from the Micrososft NFL F*** up!

Every company have it's list of issues, including Apple, MS, Google or Amazon.  And on Sunday it was the NFL and the Sports Authority Field at Mile High IT department. Don't forget that Surface Pros were working all the time, even when there was no wireless in the NE side.