You are assuming that keeping data in sync, running updates, paying for software licenses, etc. on two different devices come for free. A small laptop is not really a competitor - the cheap ones have really shitty screens, really shitty CPUs in them, no SSD, and crappy battery life.
The price for the hardware in a surface pro is in the ball-park. If your needs will fit the device (and I think you'd be surprised at just how many people in the business world are covered by this sort of device), then it is decent value. The vast majority of desktop machines sold to businesses run Word, Excel, Outlook and maybe project and a couple of legacy Windows apps from ~2000 or earlier. Maybe a terminal session.
An iPad has enough CPU power to cover that easily, but it isn't x86/x64 Windows so the apps won't run on it.
Comparing specs for most people is largely irrelevant now in terms of processor, expansion, GPU, etc. In the business world you're looking for a decent amount of memory, maybe SSD and a display that doesn't suck. Bases which the Surface Pro easily covers. Trading the additional portability benefits for some higher-on-paper spec or marginally cheaper machine (say $200-300, depreciated over 3-5 years - or a real world business cost of say 30c per day) is just not worth it.
TLDR: rather than migrate the Windows desktop to an OpenGL/D3d surface, and scale it to whatever size is required on user demand, they've decided to half-ass it. I've used Windows 8 and 8.1 scaling, and it sucks. Old legacy apps are the major reason people want Windows tablets.
People buy x64 based WINDOWS tablets so they have the ability to run WINDOWS applications. if i was willing to give up the ability to run win32 apps, i wouldn't bother with a surface pro. Being able to run win32 is the Surface Pro's major selling point. The fact that I can run win32 desktop apps better using VMware view on an iPad or Android tablet (or a Surface, if i was to run View client on it) is a major problem.
Wasn't expecting them to be designed for touch. But using non-touch apps on a Windows tablet is the major selling point of a Windows tablet. And, i've run Windows apps on an iPad via VMware view. It is less annoying due to having pinch to zoom enabled, which Windows classic desktop running natively on a Windows 8 machine does not have. And no, loading up magnifier every time i want to zoom in to click a widget is not comparable to pinch-zooming...
If I'm happy to forego legacy win32 app capability, there's no reason to bother with a Surface Pro - it's overpriced, overweight and has comparatively little software available.
Well, yes. There's no other selling point to buy a Surface Pro over any other tablet for the average joe. The major selling point is that you can use your existing windows apps.
Thats the theory. In reality (and yes, I've tried it both ways), assuming you have network connectivity, VMWare View on an iPad kicks the shit out of trying to run win32 applications natively on a Surface Pro. Because you can zoom.
I'm well aware of the macbook pricing, i own one. I said reasonable because it is in the ballpark for a high-res screen, 12" form factor and core i series CPU. I consider reasonable to be within say 10-15% either way. The Surface runs Windows natively so if you need windows that is a plus the Macbook does not have going for it. A windows license is extra. Surface RT, now that pricing was taking the piss. No native win32, inferior hardware to ipad, more expensive...
Why? Because if you go on a trip, you don't want to be carrying around 2 sets of cables, chargers, etc. You'll have to sync data between devices, two data plans (unless you tether one to the other, which is a crap way of working also). The whole selling point of the device is that you can do away with all that crap. The convenience over 3 years of ownership is surely worth a few hundred bucks if it comes down to price.
Pretty much that. 8 GB is enough to run a couple of VMs anyway - but if you want to run much more than that you'll likely run out of storage, kill your battery, etc. Get a server, and just use the tablet for what it is good at - displaying content processed elsewhere on the network.
Also: I've been running Windows 8 on various things since release as well. Many touch enabled laptops, tablets, etc. The Surface 2 in particular I had for a week (and mentioned that as basis for comparison as we're talking about the surface 3 here), but I've also evaluated HP elitepads, touch enabled elitebooks, Lenovo Helix (my favorite Windows tablet so far), Samsung Windows based tablet, Panasonic Toughpad, etc, etc.
All of the windows apps I want Windows for are win32 and the widgets are un-usably small on 1920x1080 on a 10" screen. Try using Outlook 2010 for example.
The on screen keyboard pops up sometimes, sometimes does not, somtimes covers the win32 application I am trying to use.
The metro side of Windows 8 is good enough for touch, but the fact is that very few people want a windows tablet in order to run the apps available in the Metro UI. They want to run office and other enterprise apps. And currently there's no touch version of office, and the vast majority of the enterprise apps are Win32.
if microsoft at least implemented unpinch to zoom when in the desktop, things would be a lot better. But they didn't. I do get unpinch to zoom on an iPad running a windows desktop via VMware View.
Ironically - if you want to run Win32 applications on a tablet, the best touch-friendly experience is currently View running on an iPad.
Microsoft missed the boat massively on that. Microsoft: if you are listening - ADD THE ABILITY TO ZOOM INTO THE CLASSIC DESKTOP
Yup. those were the problems i noticed too - erratic touch keyboard behavior, unusable win32 application widgets at 1920x1080 on a 10" screen, etc. The 3:2 aspect is a plus though for a table tin my opinion - 16x9 form factor tablet just feel awkward and unwieldy - it isn't tall enough when used in landscape mode and isn't wide enough and feels too tall when used in portrait. 3:2 or 4:3 is a much better compromise for something that feels good to hold and has decent screen area.
The surface I used was an extended evaluation unit for work. I could have kept it for work use for "free" (work paid), but gave it back and went back to the ipad (primary work uses being VMware View, ssh, mail, etc.).
Because the componentry in a laptop costs more? You've typically got more ports, more storage, ram expansion, etc. And because Windows resolution independence sucks hard anyway. I'll bet they didn't show this 12" screen running any of the legacy windows apps you'll specifically want WINDOWS to run. Only windows 8 exclusive stuff...
Hitting win32 application widgets on 10" @ 1920x1080 on a surface 2 is bad enough. 2560x1440 on 12" will be even worse.
Depends what you're doing. Despite what the internets would have you believe, intel HD is fine for 4k display if you don't plan on running 3d applications.
Surfing the web, watching videos, listening to music: you can do all of that on an iPad 1. How is this a selling point for an $800 tablet again? The whole point of a Windows tablet (@ $800 price point) for most people is that you can use it to do actual work. If you're needing to pull out your laptop or go to your desktop for that, the device is missing the mark.
After using a surface pro 2 for a week, i reckon Windows 8 actually works better with mouse and keyboard than touch by a long shot. The problem is the apps. There aren't any for touch that actually do anything productive. Shitty little app store type stuff isn't the reason I'm going to buy a Windows tablet. I'm going to buy a windows tablet because i want to do business stuff on an AD domain. If i wanted to run mobile app type stuff i'd just buy an iPad or Android tablet for half the price.
You do realize you're getting a full blown intel core CPU here. This isn't in the same league as some cheap low power ARM cpu, it's much more powerful. You could realistically use one as a desktop replacement.
... good to see that others have finally followed apple's lead (and google's with the chromebook) and realised that 16x9 isn't the be all and end all, and closer-to-square aspect can actually fit more content. It's not just about movies.
Pricing is reasonable, still totally NOT sold on the kick-stand idea, have run a surface 2 for a week and did not like. Would much prefer the ability to run it like an ipad with a touch cover on a desk, rather than vertical like a pc monitor or laptop.
That said, i think the biggest bugbear is going to be Windows 8. It doesn't work very well with touch either. Yes, as I said above I've run a surface 2 for a week and did not like. Will be interesting to see whether it can have other OSes loaded onto it, but really the other other available tablet OS with software support is android. And if you're going down that path you're competing with some very cheap hardware.
So summary: Linux sucks because OpenBSD forked OpenSSL. In other news, fruit consumption linked to the price of gas.
Re:Linux really does have serious issues
on
Linux Sucks (Video)
·
· Score: 2
A typical linux distro may have 10,000 packages. This is not necessarily a plus, or a "solution" to the application problem. If there are say 80 half-assed attempts at an application which each implement perhaps 65% of what I actually want to do, I spend hours and hours just looking for an application to get my job done rather than... you know... just actually doing what I set out to use my computer for.
I'd much rather take maybe 2-3 applications for a particular job that actually fucking work properly and have a complete feature set, than 80 different apps with their own quirks and different subset of features that I actually need.
Re:Linux really does have serious issues
on
Linux Sucks (Video)
·
· Score: 1
If you have a published ABI and a debugger, you simply trace where the code crashed, and if it is in the driver, you push it back on the author and say "fix your shit" unless THEY can prove there is a bug in the kernel. That all drivers in Linux are in kernel space and can cause kernel panics is another issue which could be solved for a large number of drivers by pushing them to user space... as Windows has done since Vista (for video drivers for example. modern windows vista+ video driver crash = black screen while the driver is reloaded, system stays up).
Re:Linux really does have serious issues
on
Linux Sucks (Video)
·
· Score: 1
I think you misunderstand the concept of a stable ABI. A service pack won't break it. Windows can use many classes of drivers between Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1. Why? Because Microsoft published an ABI and do their best to prevent breakage.
"We don't want to be held back" is a fucking cop out. FreeBSD both ensure ABI compatibility within a major release (not for drivers, but user software) and on the driver front can (could? "project evil") make use of Windows NDIS network drivers. By way of a compatibility shim.
Of course there's the argument that some people do not want binary drivers at all. Good luck with that. We've been there for the past 20 years, and the problem isn't getting any better.
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming that keeping data in sync, running updates, paying for software licenses, etc. on two different devices come for free. A small laptop is not really a competitor - the cheap ones have really shitty screens, really shitty CPUs in them, no SSD, and crappy battery life.
The price for the hardware in a surface pro is in the ball-park. If your needs will fit the device (and I think you'd be surprised at just how many people in the business world are covered by this sort of device), then it is decent value. The vast majority of desktop machines sold to businesses run Word, Excel, Outlook and maybe project and a couple of legacy Windows apps from ~2000 or earlier. Maybe a terminal session.
An iPad has enough CPU power to cover that easily, but it isn't x86/x64 Windows so the apps won't run on it.
Comparing specs for most people is largely irrelevant now in terms of processor, expansion, GPU, etc. In the business world you're looking for a decent amount of memory, maybe SSD and a display that doesn't suck. Bases which the Surface Pro easily covers. Trading the additional portability benefits for some higher-on-paper spec or marginally cheaper machine (say $200-300, depreciated over 3-5 years - or a real world business cost of say 30c per day) is just not worth it.
TLDR: rather than migrate the Windows desktop to an OpenGL/D3d surface, and scale it to whatever size is required on user demand, they've decided to half-ass it. I've used Windows 8 and 8.1 scaling, and it sucks. Old legacy apps are the major reason people want Windows tablets.
People buy x64 based WINDOWS tablets so they have the ability to run WINDOWS applications. if i was willing to give up the ability to run win32 apps, i wouldn't bother with a surface pro. Being able to run win32 is the Surface Pro's major selling point. The fact that I can run win32 desktop apps better using VMware view on an iPad or Android tablet (or a Surface, if i was to run View client on it) is a major problem.
Wasn't expecting them to be designed for touch. But using non-touch apps on a Windows tablet is the major selling point of a Windows tablet. And, i've run Windows apps on an iPad via VMware view. It is less annoying due to having pinch to zoom enabled, which Windows classic desktop running natively on a Windows 8 machine does not have. And no, loading up magnifier every time i want to zoom in to click a widget is not comparable to pinch-zooming...
If I'm happy to forego legacy win32 app capability, there's no reason to bother with a Surface Pro - it's overpriced, overweight and has comparatively little software available.
This is why it is a flop, thus far.
It doesn't work with most of the apps I have tried. Resolution independence in Windows is abysmal.
Well, yes. There's no other selling point to buy a Surface Pro over any other tablet for the average joe. The major selling point is that you can use your existing windows apps.
Thats the theory. In reality (and yes, I've tried it both ways), assuming you have network connectivity, VMWare View on an iPad kicks the shit out of trying to run win32 applications natively on a Surface Pro. Because you can zoom.
I'm well aware of the macbook pricing, i own one. I said reasonable because it is in the ballpark for a high-res screen, 12" form factor and core i series CPU. I consider reasonable to be within say 10-15% either way. The Surface runs Windows natively so if you need windows that is a plus the Macbook does not have going for it. A windows license is extra. Surface RT, now that pricing was taking the piss. No native win32, inferior hardware to ipad, more expensive...
Why? Because if you go on a trip, you don't want to be carrying around 2 sets of cables, chargers, etc. You'll have to sync data between devices, two data plans (unless you tether one to the other, which is a crap way of working also). The whole selling point of the device is that you can do away with all that crap. The convenience over 3 years of ownership is surely worth a few hundred bucks if it comes down to price.
And comes with OS X instead of Windows 8.
Pretty much that. 8 GB is enough to run a couple of VMs anyway - but if you want to run much more than that you'll likely run out of storage, kill your battery, etc. Get a server, and just use the tablet for what it is good at - displaying content processed elsewhere on the network.
It should have been out 2-5 years ago (Windows 7 was originally touted as being touch friendly also, prior to release).
Also: I've been running Windows 8 on various things since release as well. Many touch enabled laptops, tablets, etc. The Surface 2 in particular I had for a week (and mentioned that as basis for comparison as we're talking about the surface 3 here), but I've also evaluated HP elitepads, touch enabled elitebooks, Lenovo Helix (my favorite Windows tablet so far), Samsung Windows based tablet, Panasonic Toughpad, etc, etc.
All of the windows apps I want Windows for are win32 and the widgets are un-usably small on 1920x1080 on a 10" screen. Try using Outlook 2010 for example.
The on screen keyboard pops up sometimes, sometimes does not, somtimes covers the win32 application I am trying to use.
The metro side of Windows 8 is good enough for touch, but the fact is that very few people want a windows tablet in order to run the apps available in the Metro UI. They want to run office and other enterprise apps. And currently there's no touch version of office, and the vast majority of the enterprise apps are Win32.
if microsoft at least implemented unpinch to zoom when in the desktop, things would be a lot better. But they didn't. I do get unpinch to zoom on an iPad running a windows desktop via VMware View.
Ironically - if you want to run Win32 applications on a tablet, the best touch-friendly experience is currently View running on an iPad.
Microsoft missed the boat massively on that. Microsoft: if you are listening - ADD THE ABILITY TO ZOOM INTO THE CLASSIC DESKTOP
Yup. those were the problems i noticed too - erratic touch keyboard behavior, unusable win32 application widgets at 1920x1080 on a 10" screen, etc. The 3:2 aspect is a plus though for a table tin my opinion - 16x9 form factor tablet just feel awkward and unwieldy - it isn't tall enough when used in landscape mode and isn't wide enough and feels too tall when used in portrait. 3:2 or 4:3 is a much better compromise for something that feels good to hold and has decent screen area.
The surface I used was an extended evaluation unit for work. I could have kept it for work use for "free" (work paid), but gave it back and went back to the ipad (primary work uses being VMware View, ssh, mail, etc.).
Because the componentry in a laptop costs more? You've typically got more ports, more storage, ram expansion, etc. And because Windows resolution independence sucks hard anyway. I'll bet they didn't show this 12" screen running any of the legacy windows apps you'll specifically want WINDOWS to run. Only windows 8 exclusive stuff...
Hitting win32 application widgets on 10" @ 1920x1080 on a surface 2 is bad enough. 2560x1440 on 12" will be even worse.
Depends what you're doing. Despite what the internets would have you believe, intel HD is fine for 4k display if you don't plan on running 3d applications.
Surfing the web, watching videos, listening to music: you can do all of that on an iPad 1. How is this a selling point for an $800 tablet again? The whole point of a Windows tablet (@ $800 price point) for most people is that you can use it to do actual work. If you're needing to pull out your laptop or go to your desktop for that, the device is missing the mark.
After using a surface pro 2 for a week, i reckon Windows 8 actually works better with mouse and keyboard than touch by a long shot. The problem is the apps. There aren't any for touch that actually do anything productive. Shitty little app store type stuff isn't the reason I'm going to buy a Windows tablet. I'm going to buy a windows tablet because i want to do business stuff on an AD domain. If i wanted to run mobile app type stuff i'd just buy an iPad or Android tablet for half the price.
You do realize you're getting a full blown intel core CPU here. This isn't in the same league as some cheap low power ARM cpu, it's much more powerful. You could realistically use one as a desktop replacement.
Pricing is reasonable, still totally NOT sold on the kick-stand idea, have run a surface 2 for a week and did not like. Would much prefer the ability to run it like an ipad with a touch cover on a desk, rather than vertical like a pc monitor or laptop.
That said, i think the biggest bugbear is going to be Windows 8. It doesn't work very well with touch either. Yes, as I said above I've run a surface 2 for a week and did not like. Will be interesting to see whether it can have other OSes loaded onto it, but really the other other available tablet OS with software support is android. And if you're going down that path you're competing with some very cheap hardware.
So summary: Linux sucks because OpenBSD forked OpenSSL. In other news, fruit consumption linked to the price of gas.
A typical linux distro may have 10,000 packages. This is not necessarily a plus, or a "solution" to the application problem. If there are say 80 half-assed attempts at an application which each implement perhaps 65% of what I actually want to do, I spend hours and hours just looking for an application to get my job done rather than... you know... just actually doing what I set out to use my computer for.
I'd much rather take maybe 2-3 applications for a particular job that actually fucking work properly and have a complete feature set, than 80 different apps with their own quirks and different subset of features that I actually need.
If you have a published ABI and a debugger, you simply trace where the code crashed, and if it is in the driver, you push it back on the author and say "fix your shit" unless THEY can prove there is a bug in the kernel. That all drivers in Linux are in kernel space and can cause kernel panics is another issue which could be solved for a large number of drivers by pushing them to user space... as Windows has done since Vista (for video drivers for example. modern windows vista+ video driver crash = black screen while the driver is reloaded, system stays up).
I think you misunderstand the concept of a stable ABI. A service pack won't break it. Windows can use many classes of drivers between Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1. Why? Because Microsoft published an ABI and do their best to prevent breakage.
"We don't want to be held back" is a fucking cop out. FreeBSD both ensure ABI compatibility within a major release (not for drivers, but user software) and on the driver front can (could? "project evil") make use of Windows NDIS network drivers. By way of a compatibility shim.
Of course there's the argument that some people do not want binary drivers at all. Good luck with that. We've been there for the past 20 years, and the problem isn't getting any better.