True you can't type as fast on a tablet, so if that's all you wanted to do on a tablet they would indeed be useless. But drawing and writing on a tablet is certainly much more comfortable than on a desktop or a laptop. Tablets can also be used more conveniently on planes, the subway, while standing, or any number of places using a laptop or desktop is awkward. They can be passed around a room easily or turned around shown to a group. There are many use-cases for this form factor advantage. Touch interfaces are also more natural for many people. My 90 year old grandmother who's never used a computer in her life can use an iPad, because the interface and gestures are 1:1 with her movements, unlike a mouse (ever try explaining the difference between left-click, double click, and right click, and when to use each to someone completely new to computers?)
For the foregoing reasons, I don't see tablets as a fad anymore. They died before for technological reasons such as insufficient computational power, insufficient battery, terrible low resolution restive touch screens, and insane prices. This time around all the sweet spots seem to be met. For a long time tablets have been about consuming media, but I think as the touch interfaces mature we'll see the use cases expand. Just because they don't fit into your life doesn't mean they don't fit into anyone else's.
The camera kit is for importing pictures from a camera to the photos app. It's not a permanent storage solution like inserting an SD card into a surface.
The point of the article is that Windows 8 and Windows RT are very similar yet applications from one won't run on the other.
And this is only a problem if people have an expectation that Windows tablets will run their desktop software. Since Windows 8 and Windows RT running on a tablet bears no resemblance physically or visually to what people are used to in terms of a traditional Windows 7/XP desktop/laptop form factor. I think they're more likely to associate Windows 8/RT on a tablet to an iPad, with an expectation of only being able to install apps from an appstore.
The vast majority of software almost everyone uses they download at this point.
Got sources for that? Software these days are multi-gigabyte, and many people in the US and the world don't have access to the bandwidth necessary to make downloadable software economical.
As for the keyboard/mouse you should familiarize yourself with the product in question before making comments. The MS Surface tablets all come with a cover that doubles as a physical keyboard.
Actually, perhaps you should familiarize yourself; the $499 Surface comes standard without a keyboard, and you can add one for an extra $100-$120. Regardless this conversation isn't about surface. No one mentioned surface. This is about Windows RT, which will come loaded on a variety of hardware from a variety of manufacturers. The vast majority of devices running Windows RT will be tablets. Even with the ability to attach keyboards and mice, Windows RT still looks like a touch interface and is very different from what consumers are used to as "Windows."
But... RT vs Windows 8. They have the same interface (metro), they run on the same type of hardware (laptops / slates), they come with identical software pre-installed (internet explorer 10, email clients, etc).
What's not clear is how many will buy a Windows RT tablet, expecting to run the same software as their desktop, but not considering things like "How do I install the software without an optical drive" or "how do I use the software without a keyboard and mouse"
But... RT vs Windows 8. They have the same interface (metro), they run on the same type of hardware (laptops / slates), they come with identical software pre-installed (internet explorer 10, email clients, etc).
And both look completely different from Windows 7. I think this anchors expectations for Windows 8 to be "Can this even run my software?" instead of "This obviously must run my software, it's Windows!" This is still bad for Microsoft, because it might reduce sales of Laptops people think won't run the software they're used to on their laptop. But I think the supposed confusion between Windows 8 and Windows RT is going to prove to be overblown.
I agree it will be confusing, but not in the way everyone here is assuming. The overwhelming reaction from people when I show them my old tablet PC running Windows 8 is not "Oh, the obviously must be able to run my old software!" but is instead "Is this really windows? Can it even run my old software?"
Windows 8 looks so different from Windows 7, especially on a tablet, that people (at least in my experience) don't automatically assume it will run regular Windows applications. I think this is going to burn Microsoft in the opposite way everyone here is predicting.
Most people here are arguing that the Windows name will make them think they can run desktop apps on their tablet. I think the opposite will happen: Metro looks so different from classic Windows, and the form factor is so removed from a desktop/laptop, and Apple has conditioned people that tablets get apps from appstores, that I fell not many people will expect to be able to install their software on the machine, despite it being called "Windows." Especially consider the last point, that the expectation now is that tablets run tablet apps, thanks to Apple. This point especially I feel frames the expectations consumers will face when considering a Windows tablet.
However If they do in fact expect a Windows RT tablet will run their legacy software, I foresee them also pausing to ask the following questions before purchasing:
how do I install my old software without a DVD drive?
how do I use my old software without a mouse?
how do I use my old software without a desktop?
I think Microsoft will face the opposite problem where they have trouble convincing people that Windows 8 on desktops will run legacy software. I've installed Windows 8 on a few family computers so far and shown it off to my friends, and the number one question was "Will this run all my old software?" It wasn't assumed at all.
And Windows Mobile devices had Windows on the front.... was there a huge outcry from people who expected those to run desktop applications? I think the fact that Windows RT only comes on computers without a keyboard or mouse will be enough to frame consumer expectations that it won't run software designed for a keyboard and mouse. I think Microsoft will have the opposite problem of convincing people that Windows 8 runs the same desktop software as well as Windows 7.
This is my expectation as well. My prediction is that because Metro looks so different from traditional Windows, and the form factor is completely different from a desktop, no one will be going in with the expectation that Windows RT tablets should run desktop software. Take a look at what Steve Jobs said about the original iPhone in 2007:
Now how do we do this? Well, we start with a strong foundation: iPhone runs OSX. Now, why, why would we wanna run such a sophisticated operating system on a mobile device? Well, because it’s got everything we need. It’s got multi-tasking. It’s got the best networking. It already knows how to power manage. We’ve been doing this on mobile computers for years. It’s got awesome security. And the right apps.
Also on their product page:
“iPhone uses OS X, the world’s most advanced operating system. Which means you have access to the best-ever software on a handheld device”
They unequivocally stated that iPhone runs OS X, yet hardly anyone reasonably expected desktop OS X software to run on the iPhone. I argue that this is because iOS looks so different from OS X and that the form factor is so much different from a Desktop. Since then, Apple has trained people that on tablets, you get your software from Appstores. I think people will look at Windows tablets and have the same expectation, despite that it's called Windows. Again, how many people expected Windows Mobile or Windows Phone would run desktop Windows applications?
In fact, what I predict is that Microsoft will have the opposite problem: convincing people that Windows 8 on desktops will run desktop applications. You see that confusion here on Slashdot all the time.
I think many people would have found them useful, but for the fact that they were so expensive, hardly anyone ever experienced them. Dell and HP for instance put most of their Windows XP and 7 tablets in the business section of their websites, and advertised them only to businesses.
Now, when I say useful, bear in mind I had a very specific use case: I was in college and note taking on these devices was stellar. For most other situations I was in tablet mode. But I think any student in the world would have found these tablets very useful, and doubly so for the Surface. I had an iPad when they first came out in Grad school, hoping it would be like a thinner, lighter, cheaper tablet PC. I was fine that it only ran appstore software, but what killed me was the inability to use a proper stylus, the sheer lack of good office software, no USB ports for transferring files between tablet and classroom/lab PCs, and the lackluster ability to hook up to external monitors. The new Windows tablets fix all of these concerns, and I predict one of the markets we'll see Windows tablets overtaking iPad is in education. It might take a awhile because iPad is pretty entrenched there, but Windows tablets are simply more versatile and useful in an academic setting.
I tried to order my list roughly by how much common users would care about those features. If you look, Pages, Calc, and Keynote are consistently in the list of top apps for iPad. People care about office on their tablets. Using apps side by side is also a game changer. Having a chat window next to a movie or a stocks ticker next to a browser is a game changer. Or even having more choices of form factor and price points or options. Maybe you won't convert many people from iPad with that aspect, but you sure as hell might convince people who are iPad holdouts because it doesn't suit their needs. Or what about people who have a single tablet and multiple users, like a family with children. With iPad, all the childrens games are right there next to your important work. Windows lets you separate accounts and apply family permissions on a per-account basis.
Now, I don't feel and of the advantages I listed above are particularly tech-oriented; each has a very tangible benefit common people can relate to. People are used to plugging in a USB key to transfer files between devices. Can't do that on iPad, can do it on Surface. Average people care about this stuff, and I think many people today who own iPads are tolerating the limitations rather than accepting they wouldn't appreciate the ability to do more with them.
You may need a Surface Pro, which will be available next year at a higher price.
Yes, I'm aware of the difference between Windows 8 and Windows RT tablets, and I'm going back and forth on which is more appropriate for my needs.
Currently, the Office version for the Surface isn't licensed for business use
True, but you can purchase a license to use in a commercial environment, or if you have a group license that might apply to your device.
rumors that the RT version may not be completely compatible
It's not rumors, it's true that there is a subset of features not available in Office RT. But this subset is still vastly smaller than any current mobile office offering on iPad or Android. For my purposes none of the features listed are an issue. YMMV of course.
You won't be able to load anything else that isn't an RT app
True, and this is why I'm leaning toward a Windows 8 tablet, but on Windows RT you can still remote into a desktop.
It may well be cheaper to get a low-end laptop and an iPad Mini.
Perhaps. I've very eager to see how Apple prices the iPad mini. With the iPod touch starting at $299, and the competition (Nexus 7, Kindle Fire) starting at $199, I'm curious to see where they place it. At any rate, the appeal for me with something like the Surface or Surface Pro is the potential to not have to carry fewer devices.
Yes, and I've owned many. But they are not light, they have terrible battery life, and are very expensive. I paid almost $2500 for one once (Dell Latitude XT). It was well worth it due to the capacitive pen input. I look forward to the lighter and longer-lasting series of Windows 8 and Windows RT tablets.
Personally, I prefer to use a tablet while traveling. On a bus, train, airplane, taxi... I used my laptop in these places before tablets, and now I find tablets are much more convenient. Especially on a journey when I'm not sure the next time I'll be able to recharge, the low power usage of an ARM device is much appreciated, especially on long Journeys to Japan/China from the east coast. Some airplanes even have USB charging built right into the seat, which I can charge a phone or iPad with, but not a laptop. I also prefer to present with powerpoint on a tablet, as I can draw on the screen.
But I still need to bring a laptop to do all the work I need. So in the end I bring a laptop and a tablet with me on my business trips. I still also bring a keyboard+mouse+connection cables etc., regardless, so it's not like I need to bring those things specifically for a tablet.
But something like a Surface or other Windows tablet would enable me to leave the laptop at home. Thus, my expensive laptop wouldn't need to endure the journey, which gives me peace of mind, but also it would save me significant hassle by converging these devices. The regular Surface with office would cover probably 75% of my usage, and the rest could be met with a remote desktop connection. But probably the Surface Pro is better still, but has the drawback of using more power and being larger.
At a Resolution of 1366x768, you get 1,049,088 pixels, and at 1920x1080 you get 2,073,600 pixels. Almost double.
Except that most of the tiny (10") high resolution displays are used to increase information fidelity, not information density. Meaning that while you have almost double the pixels on a 1920x1080 display, it's being used to display the same information, only sharper. For instance, the reason the iPad has such a wonky 2,048x1,536 display is that it doubles the resolution on each axis from previous models, thus enabling developers to easily scale existing applications. So you have 4x more pixels as before, yet the home screen still only holds 20 icons. You're not getting any more information, but each bit of information can be displayed in more pixels.
The reason for this is as you add more pixels, the physical dimensions remain the same. Thus, if you want to increase the information displayed, you have to make it physically smaller... which runs counter to the usability of a touch interface. Even if the UI controls remain constant and the data scales, you will probably end up zooming in on specific regions to even see it, which defeats the premise that higher resolution => more data displayed at once.
Office built in for free
Side by side application multitasking
Multi-user operating system
Expandable storage
More peripheral device support
More manufacturers at a variety of price points and options
More form factors (foldable hybrid, detachable screen, pure tablet, etc.)
Open file system for managing and organizing files
Networking for connecting to other PCs, transferring files, serving media, etc.
For me, it doesn't matter so much how they impact typing speed, but the fact they free up half the screen from being obscured by a virtual keyboard that is appealing.
And then the really strange part is his assumption that people will use this for Office apps? Is that what people are doing with tablets?
It's a little backward to say that no one uses office-type software on tablets, when to date office-type software on tablets has been universal trash. I've been waiting specifically for something like surface to come along. Sure it's not ideally suited for touch (I argue that office applications can never be suited for touch; by their very nature they are optimized for keyboard+mouse), but the ability is there.
When I'm traveling on business, I can use full office to make light edits with touch to documents and know those changes will be 100% compatible with my colleagues working at home. When I'm stationed in the hotel, I can connect the Surface to the hotel TV and a keyboard+mouse and I have a full office suite right there. iPad cannot do this, and it's a killer feature of the Surface for me and those similarly situated.
You only need an infinite supply of SD cards if you have an infinite amount of data to store. I don't know about most people, but I'd like to put movies, music, and documents on my tablet. That totals for me about 50GB, most of which is music. To fit that much on an iPad, I need to spend at least $700. And if I have more than 64GB of data, there is no iPad which will fit my needs. With Surface it's cheaper ($539 nets me 84GB of usable storage), plus as you say I can manage data across as many SD cards as I like to increase my storage capacity on an ad hoc basis.
Sure, managing data across cards can take some work/organization skills, but at least with Surface you have the ability to do so if you need that kind of storage. Hell, the thing has a USB port; you can mount a 2 TB portable hard drive if you want.
Remember, apps on the Windows RT are the metro variety, which are very light. Even on my desktop install, which has the full Office Suite, Adobe CS 6 (Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, Premiere), Matlab, Visual Studio, and a couple games I'm only using 19GB in my Program Files directory. I have about 65 apps installed in Windows 8 and the grand total space utilized by them is 1.5 GB. These include the dozen or so apps installed by default, which may be included in the 12GB number quote as being consumed by the OS.
But it's extensible with cheap SD storage. 20 GB for apps, add in a 64GB SD card for $40 for media. 84 GB total userspace memory, something impossible on iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
True you can't type as fast on a tablet, so if that's all you wanted to do on a tablet they would indeed be useless. But drawing and writing on a tablet is certainly much more comfortable than on a desktop or a laptop. Tablets can also be used more conveniently on planes, the subway, while standing, or any number of places using a laptop or desktop is awkward. They can be passed around a room easily or turned around shown to a group. There are many use-cases for this form factor advantage. Touch interfaces are also more natural for many people. My 90 year old grandmother who's never used a computer in her life can use an iPad, because the interface and gestures are 1:1 with her movements, unlike a mouse (ever try explaining the difference between left-click, double click, and right click, and when to use each to someone completely new to computers?)
For the foregoing reasons, I don't see tablets as a fad anymore. They died before for technological reasons such as insufficient computational power, insufficient battery, terrible low resolution restive touch screens, and insane prices. This time around all the sweet spots seem to be met. For a long time tablets have been about consuming media, but I think as the touch interfaces mature we'll see the use cases expand. Just because they don't fit into your life doesn't mean they don't fit into anyone else's.
It seems strange to pay less for a 7" iPad mini than a 3" iPod touch.
The camera kit is for importing pictures from a camera to the photos app. It's not a permanent storage solution like inserting an SD card into a surface.
The point of the article is that Windows 8 and Windows RT are very similar yet applications from one won't run on the other.
And this is only a problem if people have an expectation that Windows tablets will run their desktop software. Since Windows 8 and Windows RT running on a tablet bears no resemblance physically or visually to what people are used to in terms of a traditional Windows 7/XP desktop/laptop form factor. I think they're more likely to associate Windows 8/RT on a tablet to an iPad, with an expectation of only being able to install apps from an appstore.
The vast majority of software almost everyone uses they download at this point.
Got sources for that? Software these days are multi-gigabyte, and many people in the US and the world don't have access to the bandwidth necessary to make downloadable software economical.
As for the keyboard/mouse you should familiarize yourself with the product in question before making comments. The MS Surface tablets all come with a cover that doubles as a physical keyboard.
Actually, perhaps you should familiarize yourself; the $499 Surface comes standard without a keyboard, and you can add one for an extra $100-$120. Regardless this conversation isn't about surface. No one mentioned surface. This is about Windows RT, which will come loaded on a variety of hardware from a variety of manufacturers. The vast majority of devices running Windows RT will be tablets. Even with the ability to attach keyboards and mice, Windows RT still looks like a touch interface and is very different from what consumers are used to as "Windows."
But ... RT vs Windows 8. They have the same interface (metro), they run on the same type of hardware (laptops / slates), they come with identical software pre-installed (internet explorer 10, email clients, etc).
What's not clear is how many will buy a Windows RT tablet, expecting to run the same software as their desktop, but not considering things like "How do I install the software without an optical drive" or "how do I use the software without a keyboard and mouse"
But ... RT vs Windows 8. They have the same interface (metro), they run on the same type of hardware (laptops / slates), they come with identical software pre-installed (internet explorer 10, email clients, etc).
And both look completely different from Windows 7. I think this anchors expectations for Windows 8 to be "Can this even run my software?" instead of "This obviously must run my software, it's Windows!" This is still bad for Microsoft, because it might reduce sales of Laptops people think won't run the software they're used to on their laptop. But I think the supposed confusion between Windows 8 and Windows RT is going to prove to be overblown.
I agree it will be confusing, but not in the way everyone here is assuming. The overwhelming reaction from people when I show them my old tablet PC running Windows 8 is not "Oh, the obviously must be able to run my old software!" but is instead "Is this really windows? Can it even run my old software?"
Windows 8 looks so different from Windows 7, especially on a tablet, that people (at least in my experience) don't automatically assume it will run regular Windows applications. I think this is going to burn Microsoft in the opposite way everyone here is predicting.
Yes, but which way are they going to be confused?
Most people here are arguing that the Windows name will make them think they can run desktop apps on their tablet. I think the opposite will happen: Metro looks so different from classic Windows, and the form factor is so removed from a desktop/laptop, and Apple has conditioned people that tablets get apps from appstores, that I fell not many people will expect to be able to install their software on the machine, despite it being called "Windows." Especially consider the last point, that the expectation now is that tablets run tablet apps, thanks to Apple. This point especially I feel frames the expectations consumers will face when considering a Windows tablet.
However If they do in fact expect a Windows RT tablet will run their legacy software, I foresee them also pausing to ask the following questions before purchasing:
how do I install my old software without a DVD drive?
how do I use my old software without a mouse?
how do I use my old software without a desktop?
I think Microsoft will face the opposite problem where they have trouble convincing people that Windows 8 on desktops will run legacy software. I've installed Windows 8 on a few family computers so far and shown it off to my friends, and the number one question was "Will this run all my old software?" It wasn't assumed at all.
And Windows Mobile devices had Windows on the front.... was there a huge outcry from people who expected those to run desktop applications? I think the fact that Windows RT only comes on computers without a keyboard or mouse will be enough to frame consumer expectations that it won't run software designed for a keyboard and mouse. I think Microsoft will have the opposite problem of convincing people that Windows 8 runs the same desktop software as well as Windows 7.
Now how do we do this? Well, we start with a strong foundation: iPhone runs OSX. Now, why, why would we wanna run such a sophisticated operating system on a mobile device? Well, because it’s got everything we need. It’s got multi-tasking. It’s got the best networking. It already knows how to power manage. We’ve been doing this on mobile computers for years. It’s got awesome security. And the right apps.
Also on their product page:
“iPhone uses OS X, the world’s most advanced operating system. Which means you have access to the best-ever software on a handheld device”
They unequivocally stated that iPhone runs OS X, yet hardly anyone reasonably expected desktop OS X software to run on the iPhone. I argue that this is because iOS looks so different from OS X and that the form factor is so much different from a Desktop. Since then, Apple has trained people that on tablets, you get your software from Appstores. I think people will look at Windows tablets and have the same expectation, despite that it's called Windows. Again, how many people expected Windows Mobile or Windows Phone would run desktop Windows applications?
In fact, what I predict is that Microsoft will have the opposite problem: convincing people that Windows 8 on desktops will run desktop applications. You see that confusion here on Slashdot all the time.
I think many people would have found them useful, but for the fact that they were so expensive, hardly anyone ever experienced them. Dell and HP for instance put most of their Windows XP and 7 tablets in the business section of their websites, and advertised them only to businesses.
Now, when I say useful, bear in mind I had a very specific use case: I was in college and note taking on these devices was stellar. For most other situations I was in tablet mode. But I think any student in the world would have found these tablets very useful, and doubly so for the Surface. I had an iPad when they first came out in Grad school, hoping it would be like a thinner, lighter, cheaper tablet PC. I was fine that it only ran appstore software, but what killed me was the inability to use a proper stylus, the sheer lack of good office software, no USB ports for transferring files between tablet and classroom/lab PCs, and the lackluster ability to hook up to external monitors. The new Windows tablets fix all of these concerns, and I predict one of the markets we'll see Windows tablets overtaking iPad is in education. It might take a awhile because iPad is pretty entrenched there, but Windows tablets are simply more versatile and useful in an academic setting.
I tried to order my list roughly by how much common users would care about those features. If you look, Pages, Calc, and Keynote are consistently in the list of top apps for iPad. People care about office on their tablets. Using apps side by side is also a game changer. Having a chat window next to a movie or a stocks ticker next to a browser is a game changer. Or even having more choices of form factor and price points or options. Maybe you won't convert many people from iPad with that aspect, but you sure as hell might convince people who are iPad holdouts because it doesn't suit their needs. Or what about people who have a single tablet and multiple users, like a family with children. With iPad, all the childrens games are right there next to your important work. Windows lets you separate accounts and apply family permissions on a per-account basis.
Now, I don't feel and of the advantages I listed above are particularly tech-oriented; each has a very tangible benefit common people can relate to. People are used to plugging in a USB key to transfer files between devices. Can't do that on iPad, can do it on Surface. Average people care about this stuff, and I think many people today who own iPads are tolerating the limitations rather than accepting they wouldn't appreciate the ability to do more with them.
You may need a Surface Pro, which will be available next year at a higher price.
Yes, I'm aware of the difference between Windows 8 and Windows RT tablets, and I'm going back and forth on which is more appropriate for my needs.
Currently, the Office version for the Surface isn't licensed for business use
True, but you can purchase a license to use in a commercial environment, or if you have a group license that might apply to your device.
rumors that the RT version may not be completely compatible
It's not rumors, it's true that there is a subset of features not available in Office RT. But this subset is still vastly smaller than any current mobile office offering on iPad or Android. For my purposes none of the features listed are an issue. YMMV of course.
You won't be able to load anything else that isn't an RT app
True, and this is why I'm leaning toward a Windows 8 tablet, but on Windows RT you can still remote into a desktop.
It may well be cheaper to get a low-end laptop and an iPad Mini.
Perhaps. I've very eager to see how Apple prices the iPad mini. With the iPod touch starting at $299, and the competition (Nexus 7, Kindle Fire) starting at $199, I'm curious to see where they place it. At any rate, the appeal for me with something like the Surface or Surface Pro is the potential to not have to carry fewer devices.
Yes, and I've owned many. But they are not light, they have terrible battery life, and are very expensive. I paid almost $2500 for one once (Dell Latitude XT). It was well worth it due to the capacitive pen input. I look forward to the lighter and longer-lasting series of Windows 8 and Windows RT tablets.
Personally, I prefer to use a tablet while traveling. On a bus, train, airplane, taxi... I used my laptop in these places before tablets, and now I find tablets are much more convenient. Especially on a journey when I'm not sure the next time I'll be able to recharge, the low power usage of an ARM device is much appreciated, especially on long Journeys to Japan/China from the east coast. Some airplanes even have USB charging built right into the seat, which I can charge a phone or iPad with, but not a laptop. I also prefer to present with powerpoint on a tablet, as I can draw on the screen.
But I still need to bring a laptop to do all the work I need. So in the end I bring a laptop and a tablet with me on my business trips. I still also bring a keyboard+mouse+connection cables etc., regardless, so it's not like I need to bring those things specifically for a tablet.
But something like a Surface or other Windows tablet would enable me to leave the laptop at home. Thus, my expensive laptop wouldn't need to endure the journey, which gives me peace of mind, but also it would save me significant hassle by converging these devices. The regular Surface with office would cover probably 75% of my usage, and the rest could be met with a remote desktop connection. But probably the Surface Pro is better still, but has the drawback of using more power and being larger.
At a Resolution of 1366x768, you get 1,049,088 pixels, and at 1920x1080 you get 2,073,600 pixels. Almost double.
Except that most of the tiny (10") high resolution displays are used to increase information fidelity, not information density. Meaning that while you have almost double the pixels on a 1920x1080 display, it's being used to display the same information, only sharper. For instance, the reason the iPad has such a wonky 2,048x1,536 display is that it doubles the resolution on each axis from previous models, thus enabling developers to easily scale existing applications. So you have 4x more pixels as before, yet the home screen still only holds 20 icons. You're not getting any more information, but each bit of information can be displayed in more pixels.
The reason for this is as you add more pixels, the physical dimensions remain the same. Thus, if you want to increase the information displayed, you have to make it physically smaller... which runs counter to the usability of a touch interface. Even if the UI controls remain constant and the data scales, you will probably end up zooming in on specific regions to even see it, which defeats the premise that higher resolution => more data displayed at once.
They've come up with several:
Office built in for free
Side by side application multitasking
Multi-user operating system
Expandable storage
More peripheral device support
More manufacturers at a variety of price points and options
More form factors (foldable hybrid, detachable screen, pure tablet, etc.)
Open file system for managing and organizing files
Networking for connecting to other PCs, transferring files, serving media, etc.
For me, it doesn't matter so much how they impact typing speed, but the fact they free up half the screen from being obscured by a virtual keyboard that is appealing.
And then the really strange part is his assumption that people will use this for Office apps? Is that what people are doing with tablets?
It's a little backward to say that no one uses office-type software on tablets, when to date office-type software on tablets has been universal trash. I've been waiting specifically for something like surface to come along. Sure it's not ideally suited for touch (I argue that office applications can never be suited for touch; by their very nature they are optimized for keyboard+mouse), but the ability is there.
When I'm traveling on business, I can use full office to make light edits with touch to documents and know those changes will be 100% compatible with my colleagues working at home. When I'm stationed in the hotel, I can connect the Surface to the hotel TV and a keyboard+mouse and I have a full office suite right there. iPad cannot do this, and it's a killer feature of the Surface for me and those similarly situated.
You only need an infinite supply of SD cards if you have an infinite amount of data to store. I don't know about most people, but I'd like to put movies, music, and documents on my tablet. That totals for me about 50GB, most of which is music. To fit that much on an iPad, I need to spend at least $700. And if I have more than 64GB of data, there is no iPad which will fit my needs. With Surface it's cheaper ($539 nets me 84GB of usable storage), plus as you say I can manage data across as many SD cards as I like to increase my storage capacity on an ad hoc basis.
Sure, managing data across cards can take some work/organization skills, but at least with Surface you have the ability to do so if you need that kind of storage. Hell, the thing has a USB port; you can mount a 2 TB portable hard drive if you want.
So install it once and leave it there forever. Permanent 64GB storage upgrade for $40. The point is the option is there.
That's exactly what I said...
Remember, apps on the Windows RT are the metro variety, which are very light. Even on my desktop install, which has the full Office Suite, Adobe CS 6 (Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, Premiere), Matlab, Visual Studio, and a couple games I'm only using 19GB in my Program Files directory. I have about 65 apps installed in Windows 8 and the grand total space utilized by them is 1.5 GB. These include the dozen or so apps installed by default, which may be included in the 12GB number quote as being consumed by the OS.
The Zune marketplace is still alive, but simply rebranded.
But it's extensible with cheap SD storage. 20 GB for apps, add in a 64GB SD card for $40 for media. 84 GB total userspace memory, something impossible on iPad.