"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
I'm not a big supporter of Windows 8, but writing them off based merely on price and specs seems a bit shortsighted.
I'm not a big supporter of Windows 8, but writing them off based merely on price and specs seems a bit shortsighted.
The author chides them for not using a more powerful processor (that would kill the battery life), when Microsoft worked directly with Intel and had them build a processor designed specifically for the Windows 8 kernel that would offer the longest possible battery life.
Shortsighted indeed.
Anything with less than 200DPI is not going to deliver that in 2012. Even at $300 it would be barely competitive, and at $600 it'll join the Xoom in forgotten tabletland.
They typical consumer asks for more gigahertz either as a status symbol or because something is slowing down their existing machine to the point that routine interactions are painful.
Beyond the price and capabilities, what else should the consumer consider?
But as an example, why not consider easy of use?
EDIT: I do know about the old Slashdot meme. I just think the situation is drastically different here, hence "A curious analogy".
When the iPod was announced CmdrTaco said that, it stands as a classic example of tech geeks' tendency to focus on the details (specs, price, etc.) while missing the bigger picture. In that case superior design beats out a spec check sheet.
http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip...