But...how? Tablet is becoming a buzz word that makes consumers forget themselves so they buy a trendy thing. Here's why:
Hackers won't want to buy the Surface. It's got a touch screen. What do they want with a touch screen? They want a full powered, no proprietary Linux installation; a Mac OS X Unix with a lot of freedoms and some great proprietary software; or, if they love ASP or Visual Basic, maybe Windows. But not Windows developed for a touch screen tablet. Actual Windows, on a computer screen.
And users who think critically probably won't want the Surface because, after the glitzy touch screen and processor speed holds no more euphoria, they realize that they're not holding Windows Vista or Windows 7. They're holding Windows 8, which is not really a full operating system on a tablet. Microsoft advertises it this way, but in fact, Windows 8 looks better on a tablet than it does on a laptop. So really, Microsoft just switched the discrepancy such that it could claim the tablet had a "full operating system" - a full operating system would be a hackable Windows 7 implementation, and all the processing demands that would carry with it.
Windows 8 doesn't seem to be progress to me. It seems to be part of the trend to slowly fuse tablets and laptops into this strange combination that will universalize every computing need.
And that's crap. That's something like saying an iPad can replace your laptop (it just can't, most of the time).
People are confusing trending with progress. It's not progress to try to universalize your devices. You can't forget that hardware still has software needs. What's the point of calling it a tablet if you're just going to make it a less powerful laptop? Microsoft gets away with this because of terminology. Let's change tablet with "less powerful laptop":
If I have the choice of a less powerful laptop with a touch screen, and a laptop with a superior processor, more hard drive space, more RAM and a larger screen, I'm going to buy the second, especially if it's proportionately priced to its advantaged.
This is a dumb trend, don't buy into it.
EDIT: I venture a theory that Microsoft is trying to defeat Apple's iPad with the Surface by redefining tablet (no, literally, not in a marketing campaign kind of way). A tablet is useful under certain circumstances, the same way a computer is. It's SUPPOSED to be streamlined. So if you completely un-streamline a tablet, what do you have? A computer that is bloated and less powerful. It manages to be less able to satisfy the demands of either.
A tablet is specialization. So when the specialization is removed, it's no longer worth it.
Hackers won't want to buy the Surface. It's got a touch screen. What do they want with a touch screen? They want a full powered, no proprietary Linux installation; a Mac OS X Unix with a lot of freedoms and some great proprietary software; or, if they love ASP or Visual Basic, maybe Windows. But not Windows developed for a touch screen tablet. Actual Windows, on a computer screen.
And users who think critically probably won't want the Surface because, after the glitzy touch screen and processor speed holds no more euphoria, they realize that they're not holding Windows Vista or Windows 7. They're holding Windows 8, which is not really a full operating system on a tablet. Microsoft advertises it this way, but in fact, Windows 8 looks better on a tablet than it does on a laptop. So really, Microsoft just switched the discrepancy such that it could claim the tablet had a "full operating system" - a full operating system would be a hackable Windows 7 implementation, and all the processing demands that would carry with it.
Windows 8 doesn't seem to be progress to me. It seems to be part of the trend to slowly fuse tablets and laptops into this strange combination that will universalize every computing need.
And that's crap. That's something like saying an iPad can replace your laptop (it just can't, most of the time).
People are confusing trending with progress. It's not progress to try to universalize your devices. You can't forget that hardware still has software needs. What's the point of calling it a tablet if you're just going to make it a less powerful laptop? Microsoft gets away with this because of terminology. Let's change tablet with "less powerful laptop":
If I have the choice of a less powerful laptop with a touch screen, and a laptop with a superior processor, more hard drive space, more RAM and a larger screen, I'm going to buy the second, especially if it's proportionately priced to its advantaged.
This is a dumb trend, don't buy into it.
EDIT: I venture a theory that Microsoft is trying to defeat Apple's iPad with the Surface by redefining tablet (no, literally, not in a marketing campaign kind of way). A tablet is useful under certain circumstances, the same way a computer is. It's SUPPOSED to be streamlined. So if you completely un-streamline a tablet, what do you have? A computer that is bloated and less powerful. It manages to be less able to satisfy the demands of either.
A tablet is specialization. So when the specialization is removed, it's no longer worth it.