Microsoft Answers Surface Pro Questions

[ManofGod]

Microsoft Surface Pro isn't very good and this type of product has been around for awhile now. So, no. This isn't the next step. Sorry Microsoft. You guys really need to listen to what the consumers want and need instead of rehashing the same old concept and hoping that people will jump on it.

This type of product is been around for a while? Source, proof?

 

[SkribbelKat]

Where is all of the money that was lost when people moved to Office 2007? Employees adapting to new software and business processes is just how it goes. I'm not saying that Windows 8 is right for everyone and all businesses but I think that it is silly to think that Windows 8 is some super costly unlearnable thing when people each and everyday have to learn new things to remain productive and employed.

The money lost moving to Office 2007 is still being lost. We've had an enterpise wide deployment of it since mid 2009 and there are no small number of support calls related to Office 2007's menus and function. People to this day don't get it and the call for help, soaking up a technicians time and wasting their time while they wait for a technician to help them solve it. Windows 7 has been on our enterprise since early 2011 and people still ask what the little flag means next to the clock, thinking that the notifications in the Action Center are a reason to consider their machines infected with viruses and that they should do nothing until someone lets them know that their local firewall is disabled by a group policy object.

The money being lost is in labor mostly and unaccounted for because technical support personnel are being diverted from more significant concerns to deal with the trivial things that end users don't understand and can't seem to get despite being shown or told several times. IT people who have worked or used to work supporting end users will generally agree that even minor changes can become the source of significant investments in time and effort to adapt into. Based on the things you say and how you say them, it's pretty clear you have very little or no experience in that aspect of information technology and certainly not the 20 years that is required to even speak an opinion, much less be considered credible by anyone in this forum.

Equating that back to the UI you're insisting on arguing about, it's different and it will cost companies significant money to use. The investment is unlikely to be directly accounted for and reported on, but intangibles and unaccounted for costs can easily be millions of dollars in accumulated labor, delays as other projects are put aside in favor of dealing with the short run issues, and a considerable loss of productivity.

 

[Trepidati0n]

The money lost moving to Office 2007 is still being lost. We've had an enterpise wide deployment of it since mid 2009 and there are no small number of support calls related to Office 2007's menus and function. People to this day don't get it and the call for help, soaking up a technicians time and wasting their time while they wait for a technician to help them solve it. Windows 7 has been on our enterprise since early 2011 and people still ask what the little flag means next to the clock, thinking that the notifications in the Action Center are a reason to consider their machines infected with viruses and that they should do nothing until someone lets them know that their local firewall is disabled by a group policy object.

The money being lost is in labor mostly and unaccounted for because technical support personnel are being diverted from more significant concerns to deal with the trivial things that end users don't understand and can't seem to get despite being shown or told several times. IT people who have worked or used to work supporting end users will generally agree that even minor changes can become the source of significant investments in time and effort to adapt into. Based on the things you say and how you say them, it's pretty clear you have very little or no experience in that aspect of information technology and certainly not the 20 years that is required to even speak an opinion, much less be considered credible by anyone in this forum.

Equating that back to the UI you're insisting on arguing about, it's different and it will cost companies significant money to use. The investment is unlikely to be directly accounted for and reported on, but intangibles and unaccounted for costs can easily be millions of dollars in accumulated labor, delays as other projects are put aside in favor of dealing with the short run issues, and a considerable loss of productivity.

Saying "we can't change our tools because the workers are idiots" is just awesome. And saying you require 20 years of experience to have an opinion is being an asshat.

I hear this phrase over and over again...wish more people adopted it:

The people change or the people change.

 

[SkribbelKat]

Saying "we can't change our tools because the workers are idiots" is just awesome. And saying you require 20 years of experience to have an opinion is being an asshat.

I hear this phrase over and over again...wish more people adopted it:

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the thing you just quoted, didn't read it, or are pretending to misunderstand on purpose so you can summarize in an overly simplistic and silly way to reason out being upset at the facts within. There's a cost associated with change. I'm pointing out where that cost is and the fact that it still exists. That doesn't mean things won't be changed or can't be changed, but rather, that it costs money to enact change and those costs are still felt for many years after changes are made.

As for the 20 years of experience thing, that's a local meme from previous heatlesssun comments in which he's dismissive of the opinions of others because they don't have 20 years of experience using tablet computers.

 

[wonderfield]

This type of product is been around for a while? Source, proof?

Tablets PCs have been around — in various forms — since the late 90's. Microsoft started really acknowledging the market with Windows XP Tablet Edition. Over the years, they've evolved in aspects like performance, size, volume and battery life, and Windows itself has been on a similar evolutionary path.

The Surface Pro is an evolution of an existing product type, not a revolutionary product type.

 

[SkribbelKat]

This type of product is been around for a while? Source, proof?

Just because I like wonderfield...

http://the-labs.com/Stylistic/1000.html

TLDR - launched 1996 - 486 DX processor

Tablets are not a new idea at all. They were around since almost before Skribbels were around.

 

[Jaerb4]

Just because I like wonderfield...

http://the-labs.com/Stylistic/1000.html

TLDR - launched 1996 - 486 DX processor

Tablets are not a new idea at all. They were around since almost before Skribbels were around.

That website gave me AIDS.

 

[Biznatch]

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the thing you just quoted, didn't read it, or are pretending to misunderstand on purpose so you can summarize in an overly simplistic and silly way to reason out being upset at the facts within. There's a cost associated with change. I'm pointing out where that cost is and the fact that it still exists. That doesn't mean things won't be changed or can't be changed, but rather, that it costs money to enact change and those costs are still felt for many years after changes are made.

As for the 20 years of experience thing, that's a local meme from previous heatlesssun comments in which he's dismissive of the opinions of others because they don't have 20 years of experience using tablet computers.

So what you are saying then is that since any change costs money, microsoft shouldn't make any? He is right though. It's user stupidity costing you money. If you have that many employees, and are making a change like, maybe it's time for some documentation that answers all of these questions for you.... If you keep getting the same calls over and over, maybe it's time for you to make some changes in your department.....

 

[SkribbelKat]

So what you are saying then is that since any change costs money, microsoft shouldn't make any?

Let's look over that thingey I posted again. I'll take out the extra stuff to make it more obvious something is being missed.

That doesn't mean things won't be changed or can't be changed, but rather, that it costs money to enact change and those costs are still felt for many years after changes are made.

He is right though. It's user stupidity costing you money. If you have that many employees, and are making a change like, maybe it's time for some documentation that answers all of these questions for you.... If you keep getting the same calls over and over, maybe it's time for you to make some changes in your department.....

There's probably adjustments that can be made to reduce costs and there's always a way to save time or money with respect to getting end users to the point where the stuff they want to do with a system is easier for them to do. That's kind of a sidebar to the fact that making changes costs money though and is a way to evade the previous points by throwing up a red flag that there's something broken in a support chain. Humans are limited by the limits of being, well, human. There'll always be repeat questions. That doesn't mean you stop answering them and it also doesn't mean you just give up, but all of that isn't central to the fact that changing things incurrs a cost somewhere for someone. If it gets soaked up by running introductory classes where employees are educated or eaten in a technical support staff's time writing procedure guides or just in direct support, there's still time invested and money spent.

 

[SkribbelKat]

That website gave me AIDS.

Oh, does it taste yummy?

 

[Jaerb4]

So what you are saying then is that since any change costs money, microsoft shouldn't make any? He is right though. It's user stupidity costing you money. If you have that many employees, and are making a change like, maybe it's time for some documentation that answers all of these questions for you.... If you keep getting the same calls over and over, maybe it's time for you to make some changes in your department.....

No, he's saying that there's a learning curve for any new or redesigned product, and MS has a habit of leaping across a creek instead of building a bridge.

It was a fair criticism of Office 07 and it's a fair criticism of Win8. People have other tasks, and having to unlearn and relearn delays them from those tasks. You need to give people a strong benefit in order for them to switch, and it helps tremendously if you can bridge the gap between two interfaces.

The benefit part is debatable, but it's not debatable that MS hasn't done a good job bridging the gap between interfaces, with Office 07 and Win8,

 

[Jaerb4]

Oh, does it taste yummy?

Some of these pages were updated after 2008. :O

The Times Roman... it burns.

 

[odditory]

Just because I like wonderfield...

http://the-labs.com/Stylistic/1000.html

TLDR - launched 1996 - 486 DX processor

Tablets are not a new idea at all. They were around since almost before Skribbels were around.

Theres actually a touch Compaq unit that was around circa 93, required a pen but nonetheless predated the start menu in Windows 95

Now who's legacy, bish

 

[SkribbelKat]

Theres actually a touch Compaq unit that was around circa 93, required a pen but nonetheless predated the start menu in Windows 95

Now who's legacy, bish

My link to old computer junk bows to your even older computer junk.

 

[heatlesssun]

The Office 2007 ribbon argument is beyond stale, you're bailing the ocean my friend. Hardly the same, a different way of dealing with Office - and buttons/functions that were changed instead of completely hidden from view - versus a tablet environment that takes over the entire screen with no inherent productivity purposes for the sole purpose of trying to lend some cred to the dead in the water mobile offerings. Microsoft calls it the OOBE and its broken out of the box.

The core argument by those that thought the ribbon in Office would be a problem in the enterprise and result in tons of lost productivity is exactly the same by those that think that new Windows 8 UI will face the same difficulty and it's simply that the UIs changed dramatically from prior versions.

We can debate as to how much more difficult the changes in the Windows 8 UI are compared to Office but it's all dependent on the individual, some people pick it up easily and some don't, just like the ribbon in Office. The question is how hard is it really to adapt to the new UI and that's honestly a question that really doesn't have a good answer. In all that's been said of the Windows 8 UI, much tends to be nothing but hyperbolic nonsense. Clearly most humans can learn and are trainable and adaptable otherwise people couldn't function day to day.

The bottom line for enterprise use: There's nothing in Windows 8 and Metro where if a CIO asked me "what will we gain by switching our installed base to Window 8", I would have nothing in the pro's column outside maybe SMB3.0/SMB Multichannel for workstation/powerusers that need some extra bandwidth, and a list of cons a mile long.

For people that don't need mobility and can do everything they need to with a keyboard and mouse a device like the Surface Pro probably doesn't have a great deal of utility.

 

[odditory]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Concerto

The overnight experts in computing trends 20-somethings jumping up and down about metro and getting excited about Microsoft's corporate overreaction to just missing the last "touch computing" bus that left again might want to stop and reevaluate because these things are cyclical, just like centralized computing -> distributed -> centralized again (each iteration with its own special buzzword, Cloud™ etc), 3DTV (which fanboys swore 'this time its here to stay' and yet gone it is again), touch is no exception - its got legs for portable consumption devices but little more than gimmick in the business sector - vertical touch won't be used beyond receptionist stations or large size sets in conf rooms, so the idea that a glorified appstore overlay that exists for the sole purpose of generating app revenue for Microsoft has anything to do with or that any consideration was even given by MS to the evolution of usability or that its in any way visionary or forward looking (beyond seling apps) is laughable at best.

Put another way, when design goals were drafted up for Metro - there was clearly no interest in actually increasing net usability or figuring out how to make workflows more productive and carry less cognitive burden, it was simply how do we stick our fingers into the pie of every piece of software sold and then building around that monolithic goal. And monolithic it became.

 

[SkribbelKat]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Concerto

The features list from that article include:

Windows for PEN Computing Version 1, which was Windows 3.1 with necessary add-ons for pen operation — including handwriting recognition - was also pre-installed.

Handwriting recognition...on a 25 MHz 486......yet we're amazed by it in OneNote now.

The Concerto was not a very successful laptop, but it did have some special features: a detachable keyboard, and a pen & touch screen (the touch screen only worked with the special pen).

Detachable keyboard...you mean like the innovation on the Surface?

Its screen had Wacom functionality, giving it some pointing properties which are still (in 2012) unique...

Wacom functionality. Another Surface Pro feature that's being touted an innovation.

That's all from like twenty years ago. I bet it had a user replaceable battery too.

 

[heatlesssun]

Put another way, when design goals were drafted up for Metro - there was clearly no interest in actually increasing net usability or figuring out how to make workflows more productive and carry less cognitive burden, it was simply how do we stick our fingers into the pie of every piece of software sold and then building around that monolithic goal. And monolithic it became.

Of course Windows 8 increases net usability because Windows 8 can now be used on tablets and touch devices much more effectively than prior versions while retaining the traditional keyboard and mouse driven desktop.

As for cognitive burden, point the mouse in the bottom left corner, Start Screen, like the Start Menu but bigger. Point the mouse in the top left corner and click, switch apps. Move mouse down from top left corner to see thumbnails of running apps, click on a thumbnail to switch to that app. The Windows desktop is an app. Point the mouse in bottom right corner for device options, printing, sharing, search and the Start Screen, BTW, there's your onscreen Start Button. This is pretty much all one needs to know to use Windows 8 effectively with a mouse. I'm not saying that this the epitome of UI design or anything but how complicated is this really? How hard is this for the average person to grasp and then use effectively?

 

[wonderfield]

Handwriting recognition...on a 25 MHz 486......yet we're amazed by it in OneNote now.

Count me out of that "we". I've found OneNote's OCR to be pretty unusably horrendous.

Wacom functionality. Another Surface Pro feature that's being touted an innovation.

I don't think they're touting the digitizer as an innovation.

 

[SkribbelKat]

Count me out of that "we". I've found OneNote's OCR to be pretty unusably horrendous.

LOL, okay! You're not part of "we" anymore.

I don't think they're touting the digitizer as an innovation.

You're probably right. Some forum residents are pretty excited about it as being a very, very good thing. It just underscores the fact that it's not at all unique or new.

 

[heatlesssun]

Count me out of that "we". I've found OneNote's OCR to be pretty unusably horrendous.

Lot's of variables at play here, version of OneNote, consistency and readability of handwriting, sometimes it's so bad even humans don't make it as we all know, if the device was trained to your handwriting and how much you used the device as accuracy does improve with use of the onscreen writing panel.

OneNote is not great at converting large blocks of handwritten data flawlessly into text, that's not what OneNote it is about, it's a digital note book for freeform arbitrary data, not a handwriting converter. However you don't have to convert handwriting to text in OneNote to be able to search on it. For note taking purposes as long as enough of the text is recognizable then you still get enough to do useable keyword searches even on unconverted handwriting.

And when you get into symbolic notation, drawings, sketches etc., yeah, that's not going to convert into anything but a mess. But it's not like it would have been possible to even input information of this nature with a keyboard and mouse.

If one wants to convert text to handwriting the best way is to use the onscreen writing panel and convert and correct mistakes in real time.

You're probably right. Some forum residents are pretty excited about it as being a very, very good thing. It just underscores the fact that it's not at all unique or new.

It's not a matter of being unique or new, to me it's a useful tool.

 

[odditory]

Of course Windows 8 increases net usability because Windows 8 can now be used on tablets and touch devices much more effectively than prior versions while retaining the traditional keyboard and mouse driven desktop.

Merry go round, i swear. I wasnt talking about tablets and neither is anyone else, im talking about my pc is not a tablet and the installed base of millions of windows pc's - especially business desktops - are also not tablets. Touch enabled windows branded devices are so insignificant in terms of marketshare that theyre not even at the table. Its great that Microsoft saw fit to improve usability for its mobile devices with an interface that streamlined the UX for a failed mp3 player but that appropriateness stopped there, it does nothing for desktops outside of give access to lightweight fullscreen mobile apps.

Its great and all that MS so desperately wants into the mobile segment, but their willingness to alienate and cannibalize a large percentage of their established desktop base in some half assed attempt to help them get there is turning people off, and thats ultimately their cross to bear, not my PC's. They'll need to find another way.

 

[heatlesssun]

Merry go round, i swear. I wasnt talking about tablets and neither is anyone else, im talking about my pc is not a tablet and the installed base of millions of windows pc's - especially business desktops - are also not tablets. Touch enabled windows branded devices are so insignificant in terms of marketshare that theyre not even at the table.

But is the traditional desktop/laptop market growing? No. A company can't base its future on what has sold, it must base its future on what it determines what will sell. Of all of the disagreements and arguments over Windows 8, this issue is at the heart of the matter. I've said over and over and over and over, if the desktop market were growing then Windows 8 would not be what it is. Guess what, the desktop market isn't growing and that started before Windows 8 was released.

Its great that Microsoft saw fit to improve usability for its mobile devices with an interface that streamlined the UX for a failed mp3 player but that appropriateness stopped there, it does nothing for desktops outside of give access to lightweight fullscreen mobile apps.

How many Metro apps have you tried to use? If you aren't looking constantly, even if there's only 200 apps a day, one will pass you by. Personally I live Metro apps on the desktop because all of the damned inline ads are gone for now. All of the major video sites, YouTube, Vemio, DailyMotion Metro app, no ads, not crap, gone.

Its great and all that MS so desperately wants into the mobile segment, but their willingness to alienate and cannibalize a large percentage of their established desktop base in some half assed attempt to help them get there is turning people off, and thats ultimately their cross to bear, not my PC's. They'll need to find another way.

There's very little indication that Windows 8 is driving people to Linux or Macs. The desktop war was won long ago, no one is going to commit the resources to dethrone Microsoft from that victory when all indications are that the new war for hearts and minds isn't on the desktop.

 

[wtburnette]

Merry go round, i swear. I wasnt talking about tablets and neither is anyone else, im talking about my pc is not a tablet and the installed base of millions of windows pc's - especially business desktops - are also not tablets. Touch enabled windows branded devices are so insignificant in terms of marketshare that theyre not even at the table. Its great that Microsoft saw fit to improve usability for its mobile devices with an interface that streamlined the UX for a failed mp3 player but that appropriateness stopped there, it does nothing for desktops outside of give access to lightweight fullscreen mobile apps.

Its great and all that MS so desperately wants into the mobile segment, but their willingness to alienate and cannibalize a large percentage of their established desktop base in some half assed attempt to help them get there is turning people off, and thats ultimately their cross to bear, not my PC's. They'll need to find another way.

I'm not so sure this is the appropriate thread for this, but I had to quote it for truth! Big thumbs up and exactly the way I feel about it.

But is the traditional desktop/laptop market growing? No. A company can't base its future on what has sold, it must base its future on what it determines what will sell. Of all of the disagreements and arguments over Windows 8, this issue is at the heart of the matter. I've said over and over and over and over, if the desktop market were growing then Windows 8 would not be what it is. Guess what, the desktop market isn't growing and that started before Windows 8 was released.

How many Metro apps have you tried to use? If you aren't looking constantly, even if there's only 200 apps a day, one will pass you by. Personally I live Metro apps on the desktop because all of the damned inline ads are gone for now. All of the major video sites, YouTube, Vemio, DailyMotion Metro app, no ads, not crap, gone.

There's very little indication that Windows 8 is driving people to Linux or Macs. The desktop war was won long ago, no one is going to commit the resources to dethrone Microsoft from that victory when all indications are that the new war for hearts and minds isn't on the desktop.

I don't want mobile apps on my desktop, especially when they're only full screen or full screen plus a small strip. There are actual desktop or web apps that do pretty much everything those mobile apps do, usually much better.

Yes, desktop sales are in decline and the mobile market is growing. That doesn't mean that you F things up for your desktop sales, cause that's making them a ton of money (still). Giving people any reason to pass on your shiny new OS for stupid UI decisions like Windows 8 is full of is just dumb. Saying it's because you want more of the mobile market doesn't make it any better. I'm still a firm believer in the fact that UI is dependent upon the type of device used. Metro/modern simply doesn't work on the desktop as well as the previous UI. Ironically, I like Windows 8 on the Surface. I tried one out that's being tested at work and I thought it worked well. Problem is (as I stated earlier in the thread), there are some issues with Surface beyond Windows 8. The price would be the most major issue for me. If Surface RT was around $350 with a keyboard cover and the Pro was around $800 with the cover, I think they'd be priced to sell. As they're priced now, I don't see the value.

 

[SkribbelKat]

It's not a matter of being unique or new, to me it's a useful tool.

Out of the kindness of my little Skribbel-y heart, I gave you tons of words, words, words of intelligent discourse and you picked that? Skribbels everywhere are disappointed at your responsiveness to brain cells. You go back to teh YouTubes.

 

[heatlesssun]

I don't want mobile apps on my desktop, especially when they're only full screen or full screen plus a small strip. There are actual desktop or web apps that do pretty much everything those mobile apps do, usually much better.

So when you're on a desktop, use desktop or web apps and if you're on a tablet use Metro apps. But there may be times when one wants to run a Metro app on a desktop and a desktop app on a tablet. I do this everyday and love the freedom of being able to chose. Many people have made a point of Microsoft not giving a choice of using the old UI versus the new one in the box yet seem to dismiss this particular choice.

Yes, desktop sales are in decline and the mobile market is growing. That doesn't mean that you F things up for your desktop sales, cause that's making them a ton of money (still).

But there's no empirical evidence that Windows 8 is causing trouble for desktop sales that wasn't already there. Yes there are a lot of complaints about the new UI but even Mac sales took a huge hit last quarter, nearly three times the decline of Windows PCs and that certainly wasn't due to Windows 8.

I just don't see how Microsoft can sit back, see the decline in PC sales and the move to more and mobile devices and say let's concentrate on the desktop and keep Windows a desktop only OS, because well, even though more and more people aren't using desktops, keeping one of our most valuable assets locked into a declining form factor is going to generate more sales in the long run? Ok, maybe you put a Metro off switch in to appease some folks. But that's just an option to lock the OS into a death spiral I think. I'm not opposed to the option for users but it does nothing to help the long term viability of Windows however.

I'm not saying that Windows 8 in it's current form is the best answer, I just don't see any kind of future for Windows other than a legacy OS if it can't become more mobile and touch and tablet oriented.

Giving people any reason to pass on your shiny new OS for stupid UI decisions like Windows 8 is full of is just dumb. Saying it's because you want more of the mobile market doesn't make it any better. I'm still a firm believer in the fact that UI is dependent upon the type of device used. Metro/modern simply doesn't work on the desktop as well as the previous UI. Ironically, I like Windows 8 on the Surface. I tried one out that's being tested at work and I thought it worked well. Problem is (as I stated earlier in the thread), there are some issues with Surface beyond Windows 8. The price would be the most major issue for me. If Surface RT was around $350 with a keyboard cover and the Pro was around $800 with the cover, I think they'd be priced to sell. As they're priced now, I don't see the value.

I do agree that pricing is an issue with Windows 8 devices but then pricing has long been a problem in the PC world. OEMs have raced to the bottom to create too much plastic junk and ignored quality. Creating more and more cheap junk to run as desktop only OS is a losing proposition. Yes, prices need to come down for Windows 8 devices but it can't be a race to the bottom for yet more plastic junk.

 

[pelo]

Microsoft's RT model costs less than $300 to make, and probably inching closer to below $250 now. The price, though, has stayed the same despite fewer than 1 million units sold and a very high return rate - speaking comparatively with respect to other tablets. Namely the iPad and upper end Androids which both have lower return rates and better hardware.

They're very very far away from creating a race to the bottom, but they're also very far from creating a tablet worth that sort of money. Plopping in a Tegra 3 that can barely run Office while browsing the web and charging $600 for it is a crime. If they want a premium device then they should use premium hardware. A plastic flimsy touch pad, <$15 Tegra 3, poor cameras, and a mediocre display aren't the way to do it.

 

[pelo]

And it isn't a matter of keeping costs down with regards to the hardware aspect, namely the SoC. Win8 isn't exactly svelte and neither are the applications for it; namely Microsoft-provided applications that, while they offer more functionality [Office], they also require better hardware to run smoothly.

It's a device with a very nice magnesium body and an okay display, but the rest is very much under-powered and cheap.

 

[rudy]

Glad they pointed out they will be addressing scaling in windows 8 on different displays and I certainly hope more companies (cough valve) will stop being ass hats and start implementing support for scaling. But if MS does their part it could be great, imagine being able to hook up any display, scale properly and have windows remember the configuration. I also hope one day we can do something like monitor mirroring at different resolutions. I hate the way I am forced to keep a 1080p display on one of my computers to match my TV so I can duplicate.

 

[wtburnette]

So when you're on a desktop, use desktop or web apps and if you're on a tablet use Metro apps. But there may be times when one wants to run a Metro app on a desktop and a desktop app on a tablet. I do this everyday and love the freedom of being able to chose. Many people have made a point of Microsoft not giving a choice of using the old UI versus the new one in the box yet seem to dismiss this particular choice.

I just don't see how Microsoft can sit back, see the decline in PC sales and the move to more and mobile devices and say let's concentrate on the desktop and keep Windows a desktop only OS, because well, even though more and more people aren't using desktops, keeping one of our most valuable assets locked into a declining form factor is going to generate more sales in the long run? Ok, maybe you put a Metro off switch in to appease some folks. But that's just an option to lock the OS into a death spiral I think. I'm not opposed to the option for users but it does nothing to help the long term viability of Windows however.

I'm not saying that Windows 8 in it's current form is the best answer, I just don't see any kind of future for Windows other than a legacy OS if it can't become more mobile and touch and tablet oriented.

Here's the thing, people are going with tablets and phones because of a lot of reasons, mostly due to portability and ease of use. I absolutely agree that they need to do something to gain market share in the mobile arena. They are a day late and a dollar short at this point.

So, what is their solution? Let's put a phone/tablet UI on a desktop that doesn't benefit from that interface and let's charge too much on our actual mobile devices. Sorry, but that's just plain stupid. They needed to compete on both price and quality. After using a Surface RT I'd say they did a pretty good job with quality but the price is off. They can't afford to screw around like this. If they're serious about getting mobile market share they have to price themselves lower. Failure to do so is going to make them stay where they are now, behind the market leaders.

On the desktop side, my point is they didn't need this "universal UI paradigm". The desktop does not need touch. It does not need phone/tablet apps. It does not need to be hampered at some of it's most basic functions, like multitasking. They could have kept the "unifying" aspect of the UI and still given the people who didn't want it a choice to disable it and stay completely on a desktop OS. They chose not to do that and a lot of people are taking exception to that. There wasn't a reason not to give people the choice, except MS wanted to force the new UI down everyone's throats. To me, that's a move that will prevent me from moving from Windows 7. I have 5 home machines (3 desktops and 2 laptops) and will stick with Windows 7 either until support for it ends, or until MS wises up and realizes that they lose nothing by giving us the choice we demand.

 

[mattjw916]

Well, Surface Pro was sold out already at every store I called in my area... was sold out online in about 45 minutes at the MS store (but it appears the 64GB model is now available again, it was sold out for a while).

Clearly this is device is going to be a total failure and missed the mark /sarcasm

They are going to sell bazillions of these things. Can't wait for mine to show up.

 

[heatlesssun]

Here's the thing, people are going with tablets and phones because of a lot of reasons, mostly due to portability and ease of use. I absolutely agree that they need to do something to gain market share in the mobile arena. They are a day late and a dollar short at this point.

Yes Microsoft is late to the modern era of mobile computing which is why they were forced to take on more risk with Windows 8 than I’m sure they wanted to.

So, what is their solution? Let's put a phone/tablet UI on a desktop that doesn't benefit from that interface and let's charge too much on our actual mobile devices. Sorry, but that's just plain stupid. They needed to compete on both price and quality. After using a Surface RT I'd say they did a pretty good job with quality but the price is off. They can't afford to screw around like this. If they're serious about getting mobile market share they have to price themselves lower. Failure to do so is going to make them stay where they are now, behind the market leaders.

Yes, price is an issue but at the same time it’s not like tons of companies are making tons of money from cheap devices. Apple and Samsung are making money in the mobile space hardware but there’s almost nothing being made by everyone else. Sure Microsoft and OEMs want market share and sales but going down the same path of super thin margins is part of the reason why a lot of PC OEMs are not in the best shape today. Success for Microsoft and it’s OEMs will be more than just flooding the market with tons of razor thin margin devices.

On the desktop side, my point is they didn't need this "universal UI paradigm". The desktop does not need touch. It does not need phone/tablet apps. It does not need to be hampered at some of it's most basic functions, like multitasking. They could have kept the "unifying" aspect of the UI and still given the people who didn't want it a choice to disable it and stay completely on a desktop OS. They chose not to do that and a lot of people are taking exception to that. There wasn't a reason not to give people the choice, except MS wanted to force the new UI down everyone's throats. To me, that's a move that will prevent me from moving from Windows 7. I have 5 home machines (3 desktops and 2 laptops) and will stick with Windows 7 either until support for it ends, or until MS wises up and realizes that they lose nothing by giving us the choice we demand.

A Metro off switch would definitely appease some people and perhaps sell a few more copies of Windows 8 today but since desktop sales were already in decline before Windows 8 I don’t know how having a switch in the OS that keeps it tethered to a shirking market makes a lot of sense strategically. It makes more sense to improve the UI so that it is more desktop friendly which I would imagine is in the coming. As for the new UI hampering multitasking, I understand the issue to some degree but at the same time I can multitask in Windows 8 the same way I did in Windows 7 on the desktop. Improvements in the Windows RT API do need to be made for better multi-monitor support. I’m not so sure about free floating and resizable windows. Microsoft did explain their reasoning on this with Metro apps and there are some very valid reasons for not implementing windowing like this in Metro. One of the big reasons is that if you want applications to behave well they need to handle resizing properly. There are tons and tons of current desktop applications that don’t resize well, with the UI getting chopped of, elements disappearing and so forth.

 

[odditory]

Well, Surface Pro was sold out already at every store I called in my area... was sold out online in about 45 minutes at the MS store (but it appears the 64GB model is now available again, it was sold out for a while).

Clearly this is device is going to be a total failure and missed the mark /sarcasm

They are going to sell bazillions of these things. Can't wait for mine to show up.

Its also being reported Best Buys & Staples were only sent 0, 1 or 2 of the 64GB Surface Pro's. So I'm not sure what 'selling out everywhere' is really saying but best of luck to em

 

[heatlesssun]

Its also being reported Best Buys & Staples were only sent 0, 1 or 2 of the 64GB Surface Pro's. So I'm not sure what 'selling out everywhere' is really saying but best of luck to em

High-end and exotic Windows tablets are never made in large initial batches, they are always hard to obtain at launch and it looks like Microsoft is following that same pattern. Unlike the Surface RT, there's a lot of history that Microsoft can look at with something like the Surface Pro. The reasons I think are pretty clear, devices like the Pro will never sell in large volume and they aren't easy to make and there's a lot high-end components in them that don't grow on trees.

 

[rudy]

Here's the thing, people are going with tablets and phones because of a lot of reasons, mostly due to portability and ease of use. I absolutely agree that they need to do something to gain market share in the mobile arena. They are a day late and a dollar short at this point.

So, what is their solution? Let's put a phone/tablet UI on a desktop that doesn't benefit from that interface and let's charge too much on our actual mobile devices. Sorry, but that's just plain stupid. They needed to compete on both price and quality. After using a Surface RT I'd say they did a pretty good job with quality but the price is off. They can't afford to screw around like this. If they're serious about getting mobile market share they have to price themselves lower. Failure to do so is going to make them stay where they are now, behind the market leaders.

On the desktop side, my point is they didn't need this "universal UI paradigm". The desktop does not need touch. It does not need phone/tablet apps. It does not need to be hampered at some of it's most basic functions, like multitasking. They could have kept the "unifying" aspect of the UI and still given the people who didn't want it a choice to disable it and stay completely on a desktop OS. They chose not to do that and a lot of people are taking exception to that. There wasn't a reason not to give people the choice, except MS wanted to force the new UI down everyone's throats. To me, that's a move that will prevent me from moving from Windows 7. I have 5 home machines (3 desktops and 2 laptops) and will stick with Windows 7 either until support for it ends, or until MS wises up and realizes that they lose nothing by giving us the choice we demand.

Its not about your small world though, ask yourself this as you said yourself MS is a day late and a dollar short, in most markets that means death. So how is it possible for them to get back in? Well for some companies they could just sell things at a loss or give them away free, but if MS did that anti trust suits would come flooding in. So what are their options?

The answer is to leverage their vertical integration and that is exactly what they are doing. They have a huge market share for desktops and laptops, so windows 8 says, put touch front and center and make people develop for our touch interface, this will force app devs to make things work for their mobile solutions.

Do you like that? No, but it doesn't matter because in reality its probably MS only solutions. MS has been presented with similar problems before in history and as always this is how they solve it. Leverage their strengths to fix their weakness. And is this going to kill MS? Well maybe but its a risk they have to take because either way long term they would be dead, they werent going to get into the mobile market if they did not force some people to do somethings they dont like.

 

[wtburnette]

Yes, price is an issue but at the same time it’s not like tons of companies are making tons of money from cheap devices. Apple and Samsung are making money in the mobile space hardware but there’s almost nothing being made by everyone else. Sure Microsoft and OEMs want market share and sales but going down the same path of super thin margins is part of the reason why a lot of PC OEMs are not in the best shape today. Success for Microsoft and it’s OEMs will be more than just flooding the market with tons of razor thin margin devices.

Its not about your small world though, ask yourself this as you said yourself MS is a day late and a dollar short, in most markets that means death. So how is it possible for them to get back in? Well for some companies they could just sell things at a loss or give them away free, but if MS did that anti trust suits would come flooding in. So what are their options?

The answer is to leverage their vertical integration and that is exactly what they are doing. They have a huge market share for desktops and laptops, so windows 8 says, put touch front and center and make people develop for our touch interface, this will force app devs to make things work for their mobile solutions.

Do you like that? No, but it doesn't matter because in reality its probably MS only solutions. MS has been presented with similar problems before in history and as always this is how they solve it. Leverage their strengths to fix their weakness. And is this going to kill MS? Well maybe but its a risk they have to take because either way long term they would be dead, they werent going to get into the mobile market if they did not force some people to do somethings they dont like.

I understand MS wants to make money on these things. That's a given. If the breakdown on this earlier was anywhere near close on the RT, it is being built for around $300. If that's the case, they should have introduced these things at $350 - $400. Enough to make some decent profit and to be able to grow that profit once economies of scale kick in. That would even given them some room for the occasional sale. I have no idea if the margins are similar for the Pro, but I'm betting it is. You can't come to the market, from behind and expect margins similar to the market leaders. That's just not good business strategy. They need people to buy them to get them out there. The only way their current strategy makes sense is if these are only "concept" devices to get their OEM's going in the right direction. Maybe that's what they are, but that gives people even less reason to buy them. Personally I think they actually want to sell these, as they wouldn't have opened up to retail stores otherwise.

High-end and exotic Windows tablets are never made in large initial batches, they are always hard to obtain at launch and it looks like Microsoft is following that same pattern. Unlike the Surface RT, there's a lot of history that Microsoft can look at with something like the Surface Pro. The reasons I think are pretty clear, devices like the Pro will never sell in large volume and they aren't easy to make and there's a lot high-end components in them that don't grow on trees.

Were past the initial phase I think. Also, I think MS wants these things to supplant a certain segment of tablet and ultraportable laptop market. If they're not making many, companies won't want to adopt them because they won't be able to get enough to make it worth their while. The shortage thing wouldn't work for the consumer either. Consumers will wait for a certain amount of time and then just purchase the next best thing that meets their needs.

And to rudy, this isn't about my small world. I've been in IT for 20 years and have seen every version of Windows introduced. I've read the comments and articles for each and every one and I can honestly say that Windows 8 has more complaints then any other version (aside from Vista and it's horrid driver support of course). That doesn't bode well for Microsoft's bold new strategy. I don't know of any corporate customers looking to go with Windows 8 and that's a really big problem for Microsoft. Oh, they'll find some to "partner" with, giving huge discounts to get it in the door, but by and large companies will pass on it. Too close to Windows 7, Windows 7 does a fine job and there isn't enough benefit in moving. Add the new UI and the amount of training needed and companies don't have much reason to switch. Not exactly a good situation for MS.

 

[heatlesssun]

I understand MS wants to make money on these things. That's a given. If the breakdown on this earlier was anywhere near close on the RT, it is being built for around $300. If that's the case, they should have introduced these things at $350 - $400. Enough to make some decent profit and to be able to grow that profit once economies of scale kick in. That would even given them some room for the occasional sale. I have no idea if the margins are similar for the Pro, but I'm betting it is. You can't come to the market, from behind and expect margins similar to the market leaders. That's just not good business strategy. They need people to buy them to get them out there. The only way their current strategy makes sense is if these are only "concept" devices to get their OEM's going in the right direction. Maybe that's what they are, but that gives people even less reason to buy them. Personally I think they actually want to sell these, as they wouldn't have opened up to retail stores otherwise.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here other than some very extreme hardware advances are expected in the coming year, particularly in the x86 world. Microsoft for all of it's problems is still a very healthy and profitable company. Windows 8 is already an act of desperation. There's no need to be completely desperate if bottom line is as healthy as Microsoft's, not at this point. Perhaps the time will come when more desperate measures are needed.

Were past the initial phase I think. Also, I think MS wants these things to supplant a certain segment of tablet and ultraportable laptop market. If they're not making many, companies won't want to adopt them because they won't be able to get enough to make it worth their while. The shortage thing wouldn't work for the consumer either. Consumers will wait for a certain amount of time and then just purchase the next best thing that meets their needs.

And to rudy, this isn't about my small world. I've been in IT for 20 years and have seen every version of Windows introduced. I've read the comments and articles for each and every one and I can honestly say that Windows 8 has more complaints then any other version (aside from Vista and it's horrid driver support of course). That doesn't bode well for Microsoft's bold new strategy. I don't know of any corporate customers looking to go with Windows 8 and that's a really big problem for Microsoft. Oh, they'll find some to "partner" with, giving huge discounts to get it in the door, but by and large companies will pass on it. Too close to Windows 7, Windows 7 does a fine job and there isn't enough benefit in moving. Add the new UI and the amount of training needed and companies don't have much reason to switch. Not exactly a good situation for MS.[/QUOTE]

Haven't initial shortages been an issue for any new tech product? As for corporate customers going to Windows 8, didn't the US Department of Defense go that route? I understand that a lot of people do not like Windows 8. I have no problem with that and that some people will have a problem adapting. What I do have a problem with is that the changes are so difficult to understand that few people will be able to adapt and that the Windows 8 desktop is radially different from that of Windows 7.

Windows 8 supposedly can't multitask well yet I have a dozen desktop and Metro apps running currently running on the machine I'm one right now with three monitors. Please tell me how that is not multitasking. I hear of this lock in to the Windows Store yet I am writing this post with Open Office with no need to hack. While Microsoft has made changes to Windows 8 and taken some things out of the box I have yet to see anything that can't be done in Windows 7 that can't be done in Windows 8 with 3rd party support and 3rd party support is what made Windows in the first.

 

[pelo]

Apple charges an arm and a leg, but at least their hardware is second to none. They have by far the best tablet SoC and it's also a pretty damn good phone SoC as well. Their displays are fantastic and so is the rest of the underlying hardware. Last I checked, they're making a very healthy profit on their devices as well. And it isn't just Apple that follows the same trend, with Samsung also making great mobile products using top notch hardware. Then there's the cheaper-but-still-great-quality stuff from Amazon, Google and B&N, all of which have roughly equal hardware but are 2-3x cheaper than the MS's RT tablet.

All of these companies are making a good bit of money from the devices, so this notion that it's somehow alright for MS to sell mediocre hardware at an inflated price tag and provide the user with a lesser experience (with respect to apps and the general fluidity of how the apps run) is absolutely crazy.

I reckon selling fewer than 700k RT tablets and having a desperately high return rate are signs that more' desperate measures' are needed. 'Desperate measures' like decreasing the price to sane levels and spurring on the development for their app store.

 

[rudy]

wtburnette Of course you hear the most complaints about windows 8 it is the single most radical change in the desktop OS, since, well ever, you think that people who have spent 20 years in IT using the same OS that entire 20 years aren't a little based in their habits? Don't just want things to be a little the same? I have played with windows 8 enough to know that once you learn it you can do alot pretty fast, but I hear the same arguments every time MS changes a UI. Yet each time people get over it. Now you may try to claim that this time is different but look at it from MS perspective they hear this every time, they have learned for better or worse to ignore it. They could have done a few things with the UI to help smooth things in and they didn't that is bad, but overall I think their direction was what they needed to do.

Lets break down the surface problems. 1 compete with your own partners, do you want to under cut them? 2 You have already been fined for anti competitive practices multiple times so can you really drop the price that far? Think about the fact RT comes with office that in itself is worth around $100 so by your own numbers its probably right at the pricing you would expect.

pelo amazon google and B&N, think about who you have listed, ask yourself this why doesnt ASUS, HP, Dell sell great products for 2-3x cheaper than surface? The thing is some companies who are not yet considered monopolies in the tablet / computer space are willing to sell something for nothing try to break into the market but everyone here with much sense knows that would never fly in the US or EU with MS. It was not a realistic option on the table for them. Second what the heck else can they do to spurr on development for their app store? They have been trying to push that as much as they can, the fact is the only thing they can do now is just strait up build apps themself.

 

[pelo]

Asus makes the Nexus 7 and their transformer tabs did pretty well given they were essentially using not-up-to-par versions of Android. And, btw, those past-gen Asus tablets have better hardware than the Surface RT.

Microsoft has the same option as Google here. They can lean on their OEMs to provide quality hardware and a great experience for the both of them rather than putting out a tablet and competing directly. HP, Dell, Lenovo and the rest of MS's OEMs are stuck paying $85 for the WinRT license. They can never compete with Android or even Apple charging that high a price just for the OS! The OEMs will never be able to compete with this approach. But instead of easing up on the pricing of the OS so the devices can at least be supplemented with better hardware (an extra $40 will buy you huge upgrades in a tablet), MS hasn't budged.

The app store could also benefit tremendously from decreased MS tax. MS is already making $85 for each device sold, so it stands to reason that they shouldn't be charging the same as everyone else for their app store. Apple's iOS is free (technically), Android is free (the prepackaged apps cost pennies), while MS is charging a whopping $85 for just the operating system + Office. They don't even provide a non-bundled option. It's both or nothing. Why not then cater to developers better by decreasing the 30% charge to 20%? Why not 10%? Clearly they've got to do something given that the BlackBerry 10 has had more developer attention since its release than all of Metro. That's absolutely pathetic.

It's not the developers fault, either. Why would a developer cater to an absolutely tiny market share with Metro when the time and money going into development isn't going to be rewarded ($$$) by the few people who have these devices and an even smaller number who want the developer's services/products? If you're late coming into this market that relies so heavily on developers and their focus on platforms, it's absolutely imperative you come out with a bang and show that your platform is worth investing their people and time. If you enter the market with a high priced item that isn't selling, then developers rightfully aren't going to care.

Apple started it and they had the luxury of screwing up before getting it right. They also had the luxury of charging whatever they wanted in a complete vacuum. Android also had a bit of wiggle room, and when Google got it right they flooded the market with great devices and now dominate with respect to market share. The developers first only developed for Apple, but because Android had such a huge presence in the phone space it was a seamless transition to tablets (the programs already work on the OS). Microsoft is now the third to enter the market. Instead of competing with the others on price - namely Android, with its hundreds of times bigger app store and better hardware - Microsoft decided to compete against Apple on price and low-tier Android on hardware, and with apps they're competing with nobody because they don't have any. Unlike Android, Windows Mobile/Windows Phone 7 lost support and it isn't a seamless transition to WP8, never mind the RT/Pro tablets.

So they've got an absolutely tiny market share, devices that won't sell in volume, a fragmented ecosystem (X86/ARM, WP7/WP8, RT/Pro), expensive devices (due to that OS charge), and despite all of this they're charging developers 30% (20% after certain amount of $$) and people wonder why developers don't give two fucks? If you want developers to tend to your new platform, above all you have to show it's going to stick around a while and that it's growing at a rapid rate. Current estimates show Win8 tablets to be less than 8% of the entire tablet market going through 2015 and the sales of WinRT, the tablet that was meant to sell >4million units, sold fewer than 700k.