Xbox is sold at a loss and subsidized by the expectation of future game sales. The kinect 2 is an amazing piece of technology, that alone is worth thousands of dollars to a researcher, whose only other options until now have been sensors from specialized industrial suppliers with limited runs and excessive prices (we're talking $5k - $10k).
What Microsoft obviously doesn't want people doing is buying an Xbox, using only the Kincect, and not buying any media. Thus Kinect for Xbox only works with Xbox, and if you want to use it for another application you don't get the subsidy. Oh how greedy.
The people doing the most impressive/innovative things with the Kinect are research institutions and startups. Sensors like the original Kinect used to cost in excess of $5000 - $10000. I've seen some as high as $70,000 which are not as nice as the Kinect and don't offer the same developer resources and community support. At $199 they were a complete steal. Sensors like the Kinect 2 simply do not exist today, and several that are slated for release (which still don't match its capabilities) still run in excess of a grand.
With that in mind, the $399 Kinect for Windows is still a complete steal. It's *the* most innovative and cheapest sensor for robotics, my field, period. The time of flight capabilities they added to the Kinect 2 are unheard of for under $6000. The resolution is unheard of for any price. I will be the first one in line to buy a PC compatible kinect for my robotics research, and I'll be smiling all the way home TYVM.
Rather than let users choose, Microsoft flipped the bird to all of its users (especially those in enterprise environments) and dictated that their new interface be used.
Isn't that kind of what Windows has been since inception? It ships with one UI and only one UI and if you want a different one, it's up to you. Windows 8 is no different except you don't like the one that shipped. There's nothing stopping you from installing whatever shell you prefer. This is your choice.
There is a hierarchy, it's just flattened. IMO this is much more usable than the start menu, where it's just a list of folders, with identical icons, in alphabetical order. Often the folders are named by the company or publisher instead of the actual application name. How does hierarchy help when you don't even know where to look? In Windows 8 the icons are all laid out so if you don't know the publisher, you can at least spot the icon without searching through a dozen folders and sub folders.
And for the "All Apps" menu do you still need to tell users that they should go to the start screen then right click to get the All Apps menu?
No, there is a little down arrow on the start screen that will take you there. You can even set the start button to go there by default in an easy to find setting.
Lol, suit yourself. I'll just point out your two reasons are meaningless. First these were not iPad fanatics, but people who bought iPad because they didn't know any better. They weren't invested in the product or ecosystem, so switching was easy. They saw my tablet and liked the feature set more, so they switched. Simple as that. Plug your ears all you like, but that's the reality.
Your literal words were "So MS throws the button back on and calls it a menu to try and fool desktop users" but this is a compelte lie. MS never called it a menu. Blarkon called it a menu, you corrected him. But then you go on to attribute his confusion to Microsoft, which is completely wrong. You want to fault me for calling you out? Go ahead. Doesn't change the facts.
The single biggest advantage is the ability to display more than one app at a time. When I show my iPad using friends this, they get very jealous. I've personally switched 4 people into the Windows RT camp using this feature alone. Windows 8.1 will make it even better by adding the ability to run multiple instances of an app, between-app information sharing, and variable width frames.
Aside from that, in no particular order:
Multiple user accounts
Flash support (means free Hulu)
Built in: USB, video out, micro SD
An actual file manager
An actual process manager
Better multitasking. By this I mean in iPad, you have to double tap to see a list of open apps, which only display an icon. This double tap operation usually inturrupts anything that's going on in the app (i.e. pausing a netflix video). In Windows you swipe in and get thumbnails of the actual apps running, and nothing is paused. You can then drag in the app and dock it next to the running one.
Mouse support and better external display support. Works just like Windows when plugged into a keyboard and mouse. iPad has extreme trouble with this.
Even Windows RT supports more peripherals like printers, scanners, game pads, external harddrives, external optical drives, USB drives, and again mice.
In many cases, Windows RT tablets are cheaper than iPad.
Live tiles. Slashdot loves to bash them, but all you get on iPad are static icons. Don't display information. Don't update based on app state. Can't resize based on preference. Boring and useless.
More customizable. on iOS your choices are limited to a wallpaper and apps on your launcher. On Windows you choose the background, wallpaper, accent color, which tiles are pinned, how to arrange and group them, how to resize the tiles, which tiles display information, etc.
That's the short list. If you want more, I can go on an on. I'm a user of both, and I vastly prefer Windows RT over iOS. In my eyes there is literally nothing redeemable about iOS over Windows RT except the app situation, and that is easily correctable with time.
So growing at a faster rate than an established platform with more developers is somehow not good enough? It takes time to build an app ecosystem, or is this something you don't understand?
There are plenty of other reasons to buy a Windows tablet over iPad. The Windows store is at 90k apps and growing fast, so the app argument is becoming less and less convincing.
So MS throws the button back on and calls it a menu to try and fool desktop users
Microsoft has not once called the start button added in Windows 8.1 the "start menu". Go find a quote direct from a microsoft representative or blog stating as such. I'll wait all day.
Until and unless they change "Windows" RT so that it lets non-Microsoft applications run on the desktop, no one cares.
There are plenty of Windows 8 tablets out there that do exactly this. Windows RT is for people who want an iPad analogue. i.e. they have no want or need to install legacy applications on their tablet.
People aren't writing applications for Metro and aren't going to start.
There are currently 92,000 apps in the Windows store, and it's growing at an average rate of 591 apps per day. Using Apple's latest figures (from WWDC) for the iPad, the iPad appstore is growing at an average of 435 apps per day. This also includes some double counting for "free" and "paid" versions, which the Windows app store bundles into one app.
Why are the EU antitrust authorities letting them get away with this, anyway?
iPad works the same way. They have no problem with iPad, which has 70% of the tablet market share, so why should they have a problem with Windows RT?
There's a reason I bought a 10" tablet, and it's not to use apps meant for a 3" device. I've owned an iPad since 2010 and in all those years I felt the need to use maybe two apps built for iPhone, my Bank's app (because the website didn't work in safari) and a certain game. On my Surface, I don't need a good deal of apps because I can just use the webpage. For instance, I don't need a Hulu app or MLB Gameday app because both work just fine in the browser, thanks to the inclusion of Flash.
Also, there aren't 800K non tablet apps, there are 500k. 800k is the total iOS app count. 300k are specific to iPad. Further, in that 500k number are many that are available separately for iPad. There's a lot of double and even quadruple counting in the iOS appstore (App Lite, App, App Lite HD for iPad, App HD for iPad).
They didn't pursue lower price, their offerings are no less expensive than Apple.
Yes they did. The Asus Vivo Tab costs about $250 less than a comparable iPad, and comes with Office. The new 8" Acer W3 costs $379 compared to $429 for a comparable iPad mini.
The didn't pursue better specs. They focused on Tegra 3, which is respectable but dated. Their screen resolution is downright atrocious compared to comparably priced products.
Depends on what you want in specs. Some are thinner. Some are lighter. Some have longer battery lives. Screen resolution is one thing, but not everything. For instance, since I can read my screen just fine, I appreciate the utility of having a full-size USB port and built-ind micro SD card reader over an increase of resolution.
They don't have more apps
There are 80,000 tablet specific apps for WinRT already. It's catching up fast to iOS. How many tablet specific apps are there for Android? I can never get a straight answer on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Xbox is sold at a loss and subsidized by the expectation of future game sales. The kinect 2 is an amazing piece of technology, that alone is worth thousands of dollars to a researcher, whose only other options until now have been sensors from specialized industrial suppliers with limited runs and excessive prices (we're talking $5k - $10k).
What Microsoft obviously doesn't want people doing is buying an Xbox, using only the Kincect, and not buying any media. Thus Kinect for Xbox only works with Xbox, and if you want to use it for another application you don't get the subsidy. Oh how greedy.
The people doing the most impressive/innovative things with the Kinect are research institutions and startups. Sensors like the original Kinect used to cost in excess of $5000 - $10000. I've seen some as high as $70,000 which are not as nice as the Kinect and don't offer the same developer resources and community support. At $199 they were a complete steal. Sensors like the Kinect 2 simply do not exist today, and several that are slated for release (which still don't match its capabilities) still run in excess of a grand.
With that in mind, the $399 Kinect for Windows is still a complete steal. It's *the* most innovative and cheapest sensor for robotics, my field, period. The time of flight capabilities they added to the Kinect 2 are unheard of for under $6000. The resolution is unheard of for any price. I will be the first one in line to buy a PC compatible kinect for my robotics research, and I'll be smiling all the way home TYVM.
That's great, I still want the option to use a start menu.
What's stopping you then? Don't transition to Windows 8, or if you do, install a launcher that you prefer.
Rather than let users choose, Microsoft flipped the bird to all of its users (especially those in enterprise environments) and dictated that their new interface be used.
Isn't that kind of what Windows has been since inception? It ships with one UI and only one UI and if you want a different one, it's up to you. Windows 8 is no different except you don't like the one that shipped. There's nothing stopping you from installing whatever shell you prefer. This is your choice.
There is a hierarchy, it's just flattened. IMO this is much more usable than the start menu, where it's just a list of folders, with identical icons, in alphabetical order. Often the folders are named by the company or publisher instead of the actual application name. How does hierarchy help when you don't even know where to look? In Windows 8 the icons are all laid out so if you don't know the publisher, you can at least spot the icon without searching through a dozen folders and sub folders.
And for the "All Apps" menu do you still need to tell users that they should go to the start screen then right click to get the All Apps menu?
No, there is a little down arrow on the start screen that will take you there. You can even set the start button to go there by default in an easy to find setting.
Except there is a full list of installed apps in Windows 8. Its even sortable, unlike the start menu. So what's the problem?
The very first time you open a photo in windows 8 it asks you if you want to open it in the desktop photo viewer or the metro one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_8
The entirety of metro is just one item in that list. The rest is for everyone.
You don't need to open the start screen to search for an application. http://i.imgur.com/04NB7Nh.jpg
Windows 8.1 has an "All Apps" menu which is sortable by most used, date installed, name, or category. Much more versatile than the start menu imo.
As someone who rarely goes to Bing, and just took a peak, I am always amazed at how much of Google MS has mimicked. Layouts, menus, color schemes.
As someone who frequently goes to both, you'd be surprised to know Bing is the one being mimicked.
Lol, suit yourself. I'll just point out your two reasons are meaningless. First these were not iPad fanatics, but people who bought iPad because they didn't know any better. They weren't invested in the product or ecosystem, so switching was easy. They saw my tablet and liked the feature set more, so they switched. Simple as that. Plug your ears all you like, but that's the reality.
For me, it's about the reasons I posted here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3887287&cid=44061659
Your literal words were "So MS throws the button back on and calls it a menu to try and fool desktop users" but this is a compelte lie. MS never called it a menu. Blarkon called it a menu, you corrected him. But then you go on to attribute his confusion to Microsoft, which is completely wrong. You want to fault me for calling you out? Go ahead. Doesn't change the facts.
Aside from that, in no particular order:
That's the short list. If you want more, I can go on an on. I'm a user of both, and I vastly prefer Windows RT over iOS. In my eyes there is literally nothing redeemable about iOS over Windows RT except the app situation, and that is easily correctable with time.
So growing at a faster rate than an established platform with more developers is somehow not good enough? It takes time to build an app ecosystem, or is this something you don't understand?
There are plenty of other reasons to buy a Windows tablet over iPad. The Windows store is at 90k apps and growing fast, so the app argument is becoming less and less convincing.
So MS throws the button back on and calls it a menu to try and fool desktop users
Microsoft has not once called the start button added in Windows 8.1 the "start menu". Go find a quote direct from a microsoft representative or blog stating as such. I'll wait all day.
This article isn't about a desktop, it's about the Surface RT... a tablet.
You want a start menu on a tablet?
Until and unless they change "Windows" RT so that it lets non-Microsoft applications run on the desktop, no one cares.
There are plenty of Windows 8 tablets out there that do exactly this. Windows RT is for people who want an iPad analogue. i.e. they have no want or need to install legacy applications on their tablet.
People aren't writing applications for Metro and aren't going to start.
There are currently 92,000 apps in the Windows store, and it's growing at an average rate of 591 apps per day. Using Apple's latest figures (from WWDC) for the iPad, the iPad appstore is growing at an average of 435 apps per day. This also includes some double counting for "free" and "paid" versions, which the Windows app store bundles into one app.
Why are the EU antitrust authorities letting them get away with this, anyway?
iPad works the same way. They have no problem with iPad, which has 70% of the tablet market share, so why should they have a problem with Windows RT?
There's a reason I bought a 10" tablet, and it's not to use apps meant for a 3" device. I've owned an iPad since 2010 and in all those years I felt the need to use maybe two apps built for iPhone, my Bank's app (because the website didn't work in safari) and a certain game. On my Surface, I don't need a good deal of apps because I can just use the webpage. For instance, I don't need a Hulu app or MLB Gameday app because both work just fine in the browser, thanks to the inclusion of Flash.
Also, there aren't 800K non tablet apps, there are 500k. 800k is the total iOS app count. 300k are specific to iPad. Further, in that 500k number are many that are available separately for iPad. There's a lot of double and even quadruple counting in the iOS appstore (App Lite, App, App Lite HD for iPad, App HD for iPad).
Windows 8 Pro has downgrade rights: http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/pages/downgrade_rights.aspx#fbid=6SVqgYVXJik
About 70% of licneses sold are Windows 8 Pro.
They didn't pursue lower price, their offerings are no less expensive than Apple.
Yes they did. The Asus Vivo Tab costs about $250 less than a comparable iPad, and comes with Office. The new 8" Acer W3 costs $379 compared to $429 for a comparable iPad mini.
The didn't pursue better specs. They focused on Tegra 3, which is respectable but dated. Their screen resolution is downright atrocious compared to comparably priced products.
Depends on what you want in specs. Some are thinner. Some are lighter. Some have longer battery lives. Screen resolution is one thing, but not everything. For instance, since I can read my screen just fine, I appreciate the utility of having a full-size USB port and built-ind micro SD card reader over an increase of resolution.
They don't have more apps
There are 80,000 tablet specific apps for WinRT already. It's catching up fast to iOS. How many tablet specific apps are there for Android? I can never get a straight answer on this one.