Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

So their (real) excuse for using a lower resolution is that they didn't use a more powerful chip? Ok, but the problem remains that they're using a chip that can go in $200 tablets as well, a lower resolution display, and also a much smaller battery than the iPad, and yet it still costs $500.

The extra storage is irrelevant, since they need that for cover for the greater size of Windows and Office, and they shouldn't make the user pay for it. Also how do they explain the fact that Google will use a much more powerful chip (Exynos 5 Dual) and a much higher resolution (2560x1600) in their upcoming Nexus 10 tablet, and yet will still cost $500 or less? Not to mention this entire review is not made for the $500 device, but for the $600 device, with they keyboard.

It seems Microsoft's fans promote TheVerge's reviews only when it suits them. I think TheVerge's Surface review is a lot more objective:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface...

View on HN

I don't think it's entirely Microsoft fanboys that are trying to champion the Surface.

A lot of people still think an iPad can't be used for content creation (not true at all; the thing has supported a Bluetooth keyboard since day one, there's tons of music being made with the thing, there's tons of apps for content creation at this point...) or productivity purposes (a somewhat fair point, but unless Surface somehow takes off, I can guarantee there will be Office for iPad someday). Ask anyone how they can justify spending the same amount of money as an iPad on a tablet that's smaller, with a far worse screen, with almost no ecosystem to speak of, unproven software, and with no accessory ecosystem, and they'll probably tell you "because this one will let me be more productive!"

I dunno. I try not to get too negative about products. I've come around on a lot of Android tablets; the Nexus 7 is a genuinely impressive device for $200. But the Surface seems not only woefully underpowered, but with Windows 8, has proven to manage to be cross-contaminating, harming the desktop OS that Microsoft had so finely perfected with Windows 7.

I don't think surface is perfect, nor does it match the iPad in every area, but a proper kickstand + keyboard/touchpad + office puts it in a completely different league to the iPad in terms of productivity. If you want to work when mobile, this is right up there. It is overpriced, but so is the iPad.

As for 'cross contaminating', the convergence of tablet and laptop OSes is inevitable. IMO microsoft would be foolish to ignore it. Their moves toward convergence are also far better than Apples iOS influenced changes to OSX, despite being far more bold.

I think both reviews are perfectly objective, but I don't think The Verge one is very good. There is all of 2 paragraph dedicated to the features of Windows 8 that make it unique (mostly just listing those features), and he only points out the charms bar as something he likes. No discussion of tiles (either the concept of tiles, or "live tiles" specifically). 2 sentences about side-by-side apps. It's ok if the reviewer didn't like these features; but the review should have said such, and specified why.

I don't think the review is intentionally biased, I just think it is biased towards the status quo. Instead of reviewing the Surface for what it is and letting the chips fall where they may, he reviewed the Surface based on the features it has common with other tablets, with the question being "how does the Surface compare to the best parts of the iPad and Nexus 7". From that perspective I think the review is fair, but I also think he's reviewing about 60% of what the device can do.

It's not biased, they just separated the software and hardware reviews into two separate articles. You can't do a hardware review without mentioning the software briefly, but you can focus on the hardware.

The reviews are by different people. The Verge doesn't do "this is the entire site's opinion" reviews any more, like they did at Engadget. This review is Topolsky's. And it is, almost clearly, a review of how well the Surface matches up to the strengths of the iPad and Nexus 7.

The only high resolution ~10″ displays on the market currently are those that didn't pass Apple quality control ...

Not really. Samsung is lowering deliveries to Apple, instead allocating the capacity to themselves (and Amazon, not for HD displays though).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com