Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't see any advantage in OSX with its "defaults" obscure command. Windows registry at least can be read and written in a Finder-like interface, more straightforward than a command-line utility.

I see what you're saying, but they're fundamentally different under the hood. The 'defaults' command just wraps around a bunch of .plist files on your system. If you have a preferences problem, you can just delete the .plist. The registry truly is a large database and winds up being single point of failure.

All that said, I haven't had registry problems in years; Windows 7 is truly much improved since XP.
 
The words of a man who has obviously never been the tech support source for his elderly parents.

If I could install iOS on their iMac, I would. Even OS X somehow manages to mystify them, but their eyesight is failing so the iMac screen is a must. Their VCR blinks 12:00 too. I got rid of it once, but they just bought another. These people are out there. There are millions upon millions of them. And they want to use the techy-slick-gizzy-doos but simply wouldn't know where to start in terms of learning what they need to know to use them. My two-year-old can use an Apple TV with ease, but her grandmother struggles to get it to do anything. ("Where's the clicker? How do I put on channel ten?")

I don't think it's possible for technology to be too simple to succeed wildly in the market.

Yes you have a good point of course. But I see Microsoft putting a huge amount of thought into keeping a full OS AND having a simplified touch OS. Of course we are going to have some rough times transitioning from full OS software, nightmares of clicking the tiny x to close programs in windows mobile style.

Microsoft is so entrenched though, which will help them immensely. The vast majority of PC's run Windows, so there is a huge user base which already feeds into that ecosystem. Contrasting that there is a substantial OSx user base, and of course a huge iOS user base. But I'll bet a substantial portion of iOS users in some way, shape or form wish they either had windows on their tablet, or at least that they has OSx or more of an OS than iOS provides.
 
That might not be a bad thing. I have a new iPad and struggle to find applications for it. Certain apps like Flipboard flourish on it, but for many apps, the iPad feels trapped in no-mans land for me. That is, it's not portable like a smart phone, nor is it nearly as functional as a laptop. Given a choice between, say, a MacBook Air and and iPad, the choice would be an obvious one for me.

Fair enough, but what apps are you looking for that are lacking? I'm not saying your beef is meritless, I'm just curious to know.
 
I love the fact that the keyboard will deactivate when flipped around the back. I also like that the touch digitizer deactivates when it detects the stylus is close. These are very cool innovations.

However, I am concerned that I likely cannot place this on my lap and type since the kickstand + fully-extended keyboard cover would likely be:
a) unstable
b) too long for me to comfortable extend my forearms for typing

I own the Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover and the reason I bought this over other iPad keyboards is that it easily detaches so I can use the iPad as a tablet (my 90% use case) but use the keyboard when I need it for typing. Typing sometimes occurs on a table, but mostly on my lap on the couch or lying down on my stomach in bed. The Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover + iPad makes all three of these use cases possible. What Logitech's keyboard does NOT do is:

a) fold over the back of the iPad (typically requires you have a case to store it in while not using it)
b) have a track pad for handling touch events without the "gorilla arm" action

It seems to me that there is still a gap on either side that needs to be filled. I think my preference would be for the Logitech Ultrathin keyboard BUT with a touchpad.

One other thing to note... All of these solutions are inferior to the ease of the smart cover for the times that you have no need for a keyboard. The sacrifice you make for going with a keyboard cover is that when you grab your iPad/Surface out of your bag to use it there is a physical motion that has to be taken to access the screen and start using it.

With the smart cover that physical motion is incredibly elegant. It begins with sliding the smart cover to the left and it begins to fold, then when it folds in half you simply grip the folded cover and flip it to the back side or give it a tug and detach it from the iPad.

With the Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover (and with the Surface Keyboard Covers) there is no folding. As such you have to move the tablet away from your body to give clearance to the keyboard as you open it. Once you open it you have to tug and detach while your arms are about 20 inches apart and then one-handed store the relatively large keyboard OR (with the Surface keyboard) you have to fold it to the back at full size and then make sure to grip it with your other hand.

Either way, there is a sacrifice in tablet ease-of-use to using a keyboard cover and every keyboard cover has its drawbacks as to how well it performs as a keyboard in various typing positions. I think if the somebody comes up with a keyboard cover that:

a) is rigid so it could hold up the tablet without a kick stand (for lap use)
b) yet folds in half (hinged?) so it can easily be removed without much clearance
c) flips to the back of the tablet (and turns off when flipped over or folded)
c) is super thin so even if folded and flipped to back of tablet is easy to grip
d) has a track pad with onscreen touch-cursor on tablet

If you had that then you have a nearly perfect tablet keyboard.
 
Recall that the G5 iMac and white Intel iMacs used magnets to store the remote control on the side of the screen.

I don't know who used magnets to attach accessories before that. Not saying nobody did, just I don't know who.

Ever heard of "fridge magnets"?


Ah, I love the consistency at MacRumors. When anything new from Google or Microsoft is announced, 1) eight-thousand Captains Obvious arrive to remind us that Competition Is Good, and 2) anyone who dares point out any potential or perceived flaw in said Google or Microsoft product is instantly down-voted.

This place is becoming a lot like Engadget. :rolleyes:

For a proper hatefest, check Wired's "review" (cough, cough) of the MBPRetina and the comments.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa/
 
Last edited:
Surface to be the next Zune?

I remember the iPod killer "Zune" ... which came out about the time Apple transitioned the iPod into an app for the iPhone and iPod Touch.

So, now we see a "Surface" to become the iPad killer?

The "kickstand" initially seems nice, but I don't like the idea of a permanent position for the screen.

To be fair, I have had the same issue with iMac's as well. Apple should design a telescoping up/down pole. Old Mac's used to have monitors that sat on top of the computer. One should not have to resort to setting their iMac on top of a NYC telephone book to fight neck fatigue. Of course, newer 27" iMac's are less of an issue than 15-17" iMac's of the past. Still, a telescoping up/down movement for monitor would only be something that HP LCD monitors had in 2003; nothing new, but certainly helpful for fighting aching necks.

Back to Surface. From the get-go Microsoft are already fragmenting the device into 2 separate operating systems? This means that developers will most likely have to work out bugs for 2 systems rather than 1. This adds complexity to building apps and supporting them. This is why Steve Jobs mocked Google's Droid -- too many variants; fragmentation.
 
I don't think so. This whole "3rd device" or whatever Jobs called it wasn't optimal IMO, it was to sell more devices and not infringe on their PC business. I'd rather have a tablet that WAS my laptop when I sat down, than a tablet with a completely different OS which required me to still have a laptop.

Uhm... he never perpetuated the idea of the 3rd device. Otherwise he never would have said "PCs will become trucks" or coined the term "post-PC era." He knew there was a market for those that didn't need the complete PC functionality but wanted something portable to browse the web, email, play games, etc. on. And it's true - a lot of laptops were sold not because people needed the functionality, but because they already had a desktop PC but also wanted portability.

What everyone on this forum fails (and has since the iPad was introduced) is that ordinary people hate PCs (even Macs). They can't stand them, they fail to understand why they are so difficult to use when all they want to do is look at photos, send email, and browse the web. The iPad stepped in and said "Hey, you can do all the things you want to do with a PC, but without the PC part. Here's a device that's easy and can meet your needs." The market responded. That's why tablet PCs have never taken off. That's why Apple was smart not to put MacOS X on the iPad. Most people here have never understood that.

So how does this Surface fit in? Well, I don't think the Intel version will be very successful for the reason above, and the ARM version will depend on the apps available when it ships.
 
Just a PC! The good part is that Ballmer does not get it. We need a new Windows Team, oh wait, maybe not! ;)
 
A full OS on a portable device is the past, not iOS or Android. The past has proven that a full OS on a tablet device is not a great fit, and also causes issues that you are concerned about. Battery life.

They may be in the wrong, but Google (Android) and Apple (iOS) have bet on a system that has primary full screen applications, with their own version of task switching. Full windows OS tablets have and do exist alongside these options, however that model isn't selling as well. Perhaps Windows 8, and a slightly different outlook on the historic Microsoft operating system will be the ideal hit. Only time, and testing will tell us.

I too will be curious to see how well these devices do, and how well they work. I welcome the competition, and also, a potential option for my mobile computing needs. Having VAG-COM (A automotive diagnostic tool) on a tablet such as the slate would be a nice addition to the shop I help support (IT Services).

Windows 8 will have a convertible GUI, allowing running older apps along fullscreen ones. Also, Photoshop already can be run in fullscreen under Windows, it even support Wacom (and others) tablets, so it's potentially a touchscreen-aware application. A Windows tablet will only add functionality to a PC user and even to a Mac user as Apple doesn't provide currently any similar alternative.
 
Why do you want Microsoft's failures to be so lightly taken? I have admitted Apple has failed. I wholeheartedly agree Ping is a fail and I agree the cube was a fail

I don't. I want objectivity in the discussion. Objectivity says that both companies pretty much failed. To try to say Microsoft failed more without backing it up with costs vs revenue for the project in question is daft.

Ping was a failure, it cost Apple. Zune hardware was a failure, it cost Microsoft. Why do some of you need to quantifiy it ? Why does this quantification have to say Microsoft "failed more" ?

What does it hurt you even if it was Ping that cost more in the end ? What does it gain you if it was the Zune hardware ? Why do some of you insist on presenting your opinions as fact ?
 
How does an Core i5 Ivy Bridge system, with it's built in GPU, which I assume will power the graphics, compare in computing power with what is in the iPad3 today?

I know we are not sure of what Ghz the i5 is going to be running at, but it's a very powerful CPU as far as I understand even at a modest clock.

I know an item is not all about raw horsepower for many, but being able to carry on working with the apps on the move you were working on at home/work will be a boon to many, without having to carry a tablet and a laptop with you

You cannot really compare them, but I can give you some figures. In Javascript Browser Benchmarks my iPad2 calculates the Sunspider 9.1 in ~1900ms. My girlfriends zenbook (ultrabook with probably comparable processor to the new surface) needs only 134ms with IE10 on Windows8 RP.
I would guess ten times the Performance CPU- wise. GPU is an 543MP4, and the similar (but not MP) version 545 (~ 4 times slower than iPad3 GPU) is used by Intel as their GMA 3600 for Atom Netbooks. This GPU is not even comparable to the Intel HD 4000 in their ivy bridge chips ( think of 20 times slower), so even the powerful GPU of the new iPad is much slower than the HD 4000.
 
Last edited:
Uhm... he never perpetuated the idea of the 3rd device. Otherwise he never would have said "PCs will become trucks" or coined the term "post-PC era." He knew there was a market for those that didn't need the complete PC functionality but wanted something portable to browse the web, email, play games, etc. on. And it's true - a lot of laptops were sold not because people needed the functionality, but because they already had a desktop PC but also wanted portability.

What everyone on this forum fails (and has since the iPad was introduced) is that ordinary people hate PCs (even Macs). They can't stand them, they fail to understand why they are so difficult to use when all they want to do is look at photos, send email, and browse the web. The iPad stepped in and said "Hey, you can do all the things you want to do with a PC, but without the PC part. Here's a device that's easy and can meet your needs." The market responded. That's why tablet PCs have never taken off. That's why Apple was smart not to put MacOS X on the iPad. Most people here have never understood that.

So how does this Surface fit in? Well, I don't think the Intel version will be very successful for the reason above, and the ARM version will depend on the apps available when it ships.

For a post PC era Apple sure is putting a lot of effort in making and selling PC's. No, the ipad was meant as a device in addition to your PC, not as a replacement. Sure I get that people like simple devices, but Microsoft is putting a TON of effort into simplifying Windows 8. You can use Windows 8 in the metro style and never leave metro, and it functions very much like a simplified OS such as iOS. Or you can go into the old desktop mode and have a full Windows machine, the consumer can decide.

The reason why tablet PCs didnt take off are because of things like battery life, size, UI, OS not being suited for a portable touchscreen, etc. Things which Apple elegantly solved and deserve a heck of a lot of credit for. Microsoft realizes this, although very late as is their way, and that's why they've completely reinvented Windows.

I think if people hated windows so much they wouldn't sell so many laptop licenses, or Apple wouldn't sell as much OSx as it does, or we would have iOS on all of our desktops and laptops. Obviously this isn't the case, so someone is buying the Windows OS, and it's not just corporate sales. That's the beauty of the surface, it truly IS a "post PC era". You can truly buy one and say goodbye to your laptop. Microsoft providing Windows licenses and the only hardware they make is the post PC tablet is great for them if we have a paradigm shift away from laptops and home PC's, something which would be terrible for Apple.

In terms of which will sell more, I think the opposite, I think the Pro model will be insanely successful, especially if a lot of 3rd parties pick it up like HP, Dell, etc. I think the RT model will fall flat on its face as people realize they don't want a watered down OS, it's only saving grace will be price and possibly battery life.
 
Last edited:
But humor me and take an educated guess

Educated guess says it was probably about the same. Microsoft probably spent more than Apple on the Zune endeavour, but in the end, they recoupped some of the costs through sales of a number of units and the introduction of their Zune service (which is now available to PC subscribers and Xbox users I believe).

Apple probably paid less up front for Ping, but the service was free. It cost them in programmer time/Q&A/data center space and infrastructure support with probably quite a few "artist deals" to get some artists on board in a bid to draw users (Lady Gaga on day one... yeah...).

Hence, my guess and opinion is that both were pretty equal in terms of financial costs in the end, without actual data to present as fact.

You want to guess subjectively that Apple "won" in terms of the lesser failure. Why do you feel you need Apple to have "won" ? What does it change in your life if they did or didn't ?
 
Fair enough, but what apps are you looking for that are lacking? I'm not saying your beef is meritless, I'm just curious to know.

Well, I'm a developer. So for me, examples would be things like Xcode/Terminal. Those would admittedly be cumbersome on an iPad given its interface, but that's kind of why it's in no-mans land for me. I also suspect that there are similar issues that people would have with many productivity apps. The iPad seems like a good device for consuming content, but I feel like with the combo of an ultrabook and a smartphone, there's not much left for the iPad.
 
I don't see any advantage in OSX with its "defaults" obscure command. Windows registry at least can be read and written in a Finder-like interface, more straightforward than a command-line utility.

You realize you don't need to use the defaults command, right? You can use a text editor or the property list editor that comes with the dev tools if you so wish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_list

Oh and, mucking around in a plist still won't completely screw up a system like mucking around in the registry can.
 
So, somehow the case-keyboard is flat, but still has better feel than flat glass? This is what I'm wondering about. People here are presenting this as if it is a real keyboard with keys and will behave as such. From what I see, it isn't any different than virtual/glass, except probably being more forgiving to your fingers when pounding. And being out of the way, external.
 
So, somehow the case-keyboard is flat, but still has better feel than flat glass? This is what I'm wondering about. People here are presenting this as if it is a real keyboard with keys and will behave as such. From what I see, it isn't any different than virtual/glass, except probably being more forgiving to your fingers when pounding.

There's two keyboards. A Touch and a Type. The touch is a touch, but has a texture to it and slightly raised touch points for keys.

The type is a real keyboard with 1.5mm travel.

The Touch is also pressure sensitive so you can rest fingers and not fire keys unlike a touch screen
 
Last edited:
I see what you're saying, but they're fundamentally different under the hood. The 'defaults' command just wraps around a bunch of .plist files on your system. If you have a preferences problem, you can just delete the .plist. The registry truly is a large database and winds up being single point of failure.

All that said, I haven't had registry problems in years; Windows 7 is truly much improved since XP.

Both the "defaults" command and the registry are crap. First, you can't get a list of keys to use, as keys that are not set do not show up in the files/registry. You have to rely on vendors to know where and how exactly to set keys. The regedit GUI does not make this any easier than the "defaults" command, quite the contrary, at least with defaults, you just need to copy paste appropriate lines, with the GUI, any number of "folders" you create can introduce typos.

Second, the registry is also "just a bunch of files", it's not a single database that's a single point of failure. If a user's HIVE is causing problems, you can force log off the user, unload his hive and delete it (ntuser.dat under his profile) to force Windows to recreate it with defaults, same as you can application plists. It's not as granular, but it's hardly "1 big database".
 
I don't. I want objectivity in the discussion. Objectivity says that both companies pretty much failed. To try to say Microsoft failed more without backing it up with costs vs revenue for the project in question is daft.

Ping was a failure, it cost Apple. Zune hardware was a failure, it cost Microsoft. Why do some of you need to quantifiy it ? Why does this quantification have to say Microsoft "failed more" ?

What does it hurt you even if it was Ping that cost more in the end ? What does it gain you if it was the Zune hardware ? Why do some of you insist on presenting your opinions as fact ?

Here is objectivity.... The Zune is gone they sold almost none, in the total music players of the world... it was a HUGE failure. The Kin was a huge failure and no longer exists. Windows phone is on life support, it may come back to being in critical condition with the new version. Ping is a piece of code inside an application with virtual servers that can be shut down and brought back as a part of iCloud, or web servers or mail server.... etc

You began this trying to equivocate Ping and Zune. I keep having to bring you back to that fact.

----------

Finally a worthy competitor....hopefully iPad prices will fall.

Don't hold your breath waiting. Apple sells every one they make. This new device doesn't even exist yet.
 
There's two keyboards. A Touch and a Type. The touch is a touch, but has a texture to it and slightly raised touch points for keys.

The type is a real keyboard with 1.5mm travel.

Thanks. Yeah, I meant the Touch version. That one seems kinda pointless. There have been similar keyboards for tablets and computers alike. Very few sales.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.