Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft The Media Windows Hardware Technology

Witness Ridicules 'Hands-On' Reviews of Surface 206

Posted by timothy
from the elbows-only-reviews-from-now-on dept.
Freshly Exhumed writes "Danny Sullivan over at Marketing Land has been tipped over the edge by various colleagues: 'After seeing yet another "hands-on" review of the Microsoft Surface tablet, I thought it would be interesting to shed more light on what exactly the journalists who assembled in Hollywood this week for the Surface launch event actually got to do with the tablets. In short, not a lot. Come along as I explain the hands-off reality of what I saw.' In response to Sullivan's criticisms, TechRadar contributor Mary To Many rebuts that merely touching something that does not operate nor even truly exist equates to an actual hands-on review. So, what do Slashdotters expect a "hands-on" review to reveal and/or include?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Witness Ridicules 'Hands-On' Reviews of Surface

Comments Filter:
  • "Reviews" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tsa (15680) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @04:25PM (#40431599) Homepage

    Most "Reviews" I see on the 'net are just summaries of what you find in the product folder, nothing more. So what's new about this?

    • Re:"Reviews" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @05:22PM (#40431959) Journal
      It's probably going to get even worse now that so much of the new hotness is in functionally embedded systems that ship tied to hardware...

      With software, the vendor essentially faces the choice of keeping it under wraps, or of having pre-release builds leaking all over the damn place. Maybe if it's just a handful of partner companies with some seriously mean NDAs; but once it gets to the journalist level you can forget about it(analogous to the Oscar screeners that get leaked every damn time, despite being subject to just about everything short of armed guard...)

      Hardware, though, with the exception of the occasional unit that...um...goes missing in a bar, is easier to keep a tight grip on. Plus, very-late-prototype hardware, in limited quantities, is inevitably available to the vendor a modest period before retail hardware is available. That sort of thing is perfect for rewarding, or punishing, media outlets. Play ball, and you'll be seeing a sample unit in the mail in time to have your benchmarks and review done before the other guys get back from Best Buy. Don't, and you can read your competitor's reviews while you wait in line to buy something to review...

      This sort of thing has gone on for years in the gaming-enthusiast-wanking sector of CPU, GPU, and motherboard reviews; but it hasn't really been all that relevant. Enthusiasts care a lot; but there just aren't a lot of enthusiasts, so it was mostly just sideshow, and the truth usually managed to surface by the time whatever the product was trickled down to the '80% of the speed, 20% of the price' market where people actually buy things.

      Now that the 'mainstream' devices are tightly embedded hardware units, though, there will likely be a lot more room for the same sort of shenanigans that rule enthusiast hardware wank to worm their way into mainstream tech coverage.
    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      Well I don't know about the mobile stuff but most of the "hands on" reviews I've seen on the PC side equals them putting the hardware through the paces and seeing what it can do. I remember reading one before the AMD E-Series chips had been released where they went to the trouble of bringing their own SSD loaded with testing tools just so they could get a few benches and see what the unit could do.

      So if all MSFT is doing is turning the unit on and letting them go through some carefully scripted demos? Sor

  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @04:27PM (#40431613)

    MS's problems are really kind of bizarre. It's not for lack of talent or trying they just keep screwing up. It has to be management. You don't get such systematic across the board f' ups unless management is behind it.

    • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @05:17PM (#40431925) Homepage Journal

      It's [bloomberg.com] management [businessinsider.com] alright [seekingalpha.com]. It's been management for years. Microsoft consistently hires the best people in the field (well, those that Google doesn't snag—prior to that, though, they were nearly unchallenged, and consequentially MS has had a huge number of very respectable older researchers and engineers, including a large contingent of ex-DEC people) and then squashes them with bad managers, who spend so much time politicking and infighting that they can't recognize genius like the Courier [wikipedia.org].

      Unfortunately this is an increasing trend in the whole software industry; the very recent example of Diablo 3's utter failure to live up to hype, even though it's now the fastest-selling game in history, can largely be attributed to management changes in Activision [teamliquid.net]. The underlying problem seems to be hiring management and leadership from non-computing sectors instead of promoting from within, although in MS's case it's more like a long-term family feud.

      • by Karmashock (2415832) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @05:39PM (#40432133)

        I largely agree.

        The MBAs are very useful for administration but that doesn't mean they need to be in charge. Subordinate them to secretarial functions and give actual department control to people that actually know what is going on.

      • by Omestes (471991) <omestes@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Sunday June 24, 2012 @06:25PM (#40432591) Homepage Journal

        Unfortunately this is an increasing trend in the whole software industry; the very recent example of Diablo 3's utter failure to live up to hype, even though it's now the fastest-selling game in history, can largely be attributed to management changes in Activision [teamliquid.net].

        Er... you realize you have a contradiction in that statement, right? "Utter failure to live up to hype" and "fastest selling game in history" don't really work together. Also you ignore the fact that the Blizzard side of Activision-Blizzard, and the Activision side of it are separate, and wholly autonomous. Or at least I haven't seen a single credible, informed, source stating otherwise. Even your link amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory, linking disparate facts into a structure without any actual evidence towards the premise. Yes, there might be the same masters (which Blizzard has had before), but this doesn't really mean much since you don't actually know whats going on. For all we know they are hands-off of Blizzard since they are the most profitable game company in existence so they must be doing something right (as evident from Diablo 3, which is justifiably making money hand over fist).

        That said, and back on topic: I think MS has a behemoth problem, they are so large, and their fingers are in so many pies, that they lack the ability to quickly adapt to anything. I'm going to get flamed here, but many of their "failures" have actually been pretty decent, but they failed to grasp the market, or marketing, needed to make it work. They try to win by sheer weight, and not by finesse. This works sometimes (Office, the IE domination of yore, Exchange), but generally fails in a non-business arena. The iPod and the Zune weren't really that different, with one being better in some areas, and the other in others, but the Zune completely died because you can't compete on pure specs, especially with Apple (the masters of image and sexy). I suppose this does boil down to managment, but also to the fact that they are MS... Its hard to say "Microsoft" (insert picture of Bill Gates/Balmer)" and "sexy" in the same breath, much less sell it to the masses.

        • Hmmm... Blizzard is one of those companies that could pinch a turd off in the toilet and sell millions of copies of it so long as it has their logo on it.

          That fan loyalty however was hard won by delivering good games.

          Blizzard might have made money but they lost respect and lost credibility. Their ability to do that again is reduced. Think of when Disney started opening disney stores all over and completely devalued their animation department?

          The company died a little. And even now they haven't recovered fro

          • by Omestes (471991)

            What is happening to Blizzard is comparable. They're being sold out.

            By whom, to whom?

            • By Blizzard, to Activision.
            • by Karmashock (2415832) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @09:54PM (#40434279)

              Perhaps a better phrase would be "hollowed out"... the insides sucked out leaving a shell.

              Everything that was special about blizzard will soon be little more then a memory if they don't change course and quickly. D3 is a continuation of the WoW path. Blizzard might have made most of their money from WoW but WoW isn't why customers trusted them enough to sign on to WoW.

              They built that on the back of their RTS and hack and slash franchise history. They pulled that community. It will only accept so many betrayals. And once it's gone well, it has to be reearned. And most companies never earn that sort of trust. Ever. So the ability to reearn that sort of thing once lost is minimal.

        • Its hard to say "Microsoft" (insert picture of Bill Gates/Balmer)" and "sexy" in the same breath, much less sell it to the masses.

          But you can say MS and sexchange in the same breath and sell it to the masses, try it -- "MS Exchange."

          • by dbIII (701233)
            I thought "Exchange" was an instruction on what to do with the software at least back in 2000 or so. These days it apparently hardly ever loses mail, live backups are actually possible and it could almost be considered ready for release.
        • Just to wrap up the Blizzard talk and defend my position: no, it's not a contradiction; the available statistics [xfire.com] suggest that a lot of people bought the game, and then have failed to continue playing it. It sold very quickly at first, but now no one wants it. The hype sold it, but the game itself hasn't succeeded in holding onto that player base. Many of the patch changes nevertheless appear to correspond to the agenda put forth by Activision's new management in the aforementioned conspiracy theory, even if

          • by Omestes (471991) <omestes@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Sunday June 24, 2012 @10:20PM (#40434441) Homepage Journal

            he available statistics [xfire.com] suggest that a lot of people bought the game, and then have failed to continue playing it. It sold very quickly at first, but now no one wants it.

            You might be right, but I can't tell from that. I don't know how they are measuring this, and I have no clue what Xfire even is. Also, I don't know what to compare that too, how does a game launch of comparable size compare. Again, for all I know, you are 100% correct.

            Many of the patch changes nevertheless appear to correspond to the agenda put forth by Activision's new management in the aforementioned conspiracy theory, even if Activision doesn't actually have direct influence in Blizzard's management: continued nerfing despite promises not to do so [battle.net], removing drops from destructible objects, and only slightly modifying the difficulty of Elite monsters all appear to imply that the company wants to force players to participate in the real money auction house in order to finish the game.

            I think the community has a lot to do with the nerfs. Inferno was supposed to be impossible, and everyone complained about it NONSTOP, and very loudly. If anything they made the penultimate difficulty LESS difficult, which, one would think, would lessen the need for cash purchases of items. There has been a lot of changes that the community has spun into "Blizzard wants money!!", that can also be seen at face value. Nerfing some builds did open other options, as much of the Demon Hunter nerfs did, they increased the amount of perceived viable builds. I'm okay with this. I wouldn't be okay, though, with them nerfing things to benefit the RMAH (real money auction house). I haven't seen much evidence of this. Companies always patch games, especially Blizzard. They are known for being aggressive patchers, look at the patch notes for Diablo 2 and expansion.

            I've heard that Blizzard's testers couldn't actually complete the game on the hardest difficulty, and that they knowingly shipped the game in that state.

            When they said that, my mind screamed "hyperbole". But I still, if true, wouldn't take that as a negative. Further, you don't need to really ever use the auction house, the RMAH, or any other social feature of the game to have fun. It might be more work, but it still fun to try. I'm working my way through Act II, and haven't spend a cent of real money, and only a small amount in the in-game money AH. I probably die more than the people who want to spend money, but I'm fine with that.

            I probably sound like a "fanboy" or some such here. I do have complaints about the game, but I figure its pointless to voice them since they've been said by others ad nauseum. I also really can't tell how it stacks against Diablo II, since nostalgia rears its ugly undependable head. I'm also much older than I was back then, I have a life now, I have hobbies that don't involve sitting in front of a computer in a dark room, I have experience with more things, and my tastes have changed. I want to say Diablo 2 was better, but I can't really. I was in the Torchlight 2 beta, and I didn't enjoy it as much as I felt I should have, or would have 10 years ago.

            At this point, with Microsoft, I really, truly believe that people are so conditioned to hate their products that they can't rightly succeed any more with their current brands. This is the fate of all greedy computer companies, I think.

            I don't even know if its hate... On places like Slashdot, sure, but out there in userland... I'm pretty sure it is mostly apathy. When you (Joe Sixpack) think of Microsoft you think of Windows, something that you are forced to use at work, or Office, something that you are forced to use at work. Or you think of that incomprehensible beige box sitting in your home office, that your kid has to fix for you. The problem with Microsoft, for most people, is probably that it leaves no impression on them.

            • Xfire is a chat service closely comparable to Steam, although it has no store functionality; its primary selling point is that you can chat while in-game. If it represents any particular demographic, it would be a bias toward more veteran gamers, since it has mostly been displaced. That graph says that Diablo 3 players who use Xfire are now playing half of the hours per day that they were a month ago.

              Here [battle.net] is a direct source for Inferno being unbeatable by Blizzard's playtesters.

        • Utter failure to live to hype can mean fastest selling together. This simply means it sold like hot cake, but people after a few bites were finding the content bland and forgettable. In fact I contend that even if Blizzard were developing Diablo 4 now, no matter the hype, a lot of people would WAIT before buying it.
      • Microsoft does hire the best people in the field, but they also have a retention problem. Just look up the big names that are former MS folks. Among the things credited to ex-Microsofties: Picnik, stackoverflow, Zillow, Valve, Cranium, and Zappos.
      • including a large contingent of ex-DEC people

        Like... Dave Cultler and his entire engineering team that developed NT at DEC before stealing away to Microsoft with DEC's intellectual property, what we know today as Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8.

      • Not sure about that (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Monday June 25, 2012 @03:21AM (#40436015)
        The last head of Rolls Royce was a psychologist, and he did the job that was needed - to get it across to "traders" and "investors" that RR was a reliable delivery vehicle for long term shareholder value and that short-termism made no sense. I suggest that the problem is quite different. Psychopathic personalities tend to accumulate where there is power without obvious accountability. The management of large corporations constitute a perfect field of operations where the complexities and the sheer scale mean that psychopaths can carve out private empires and remain un-noticed for long periods. In a small company, a dysfunctional asshole pursuing his own interests gets noticed quickly.

        It is hard for a psychopath to become a good engineer or scientist; it is a career they avoid.

        It's interesting (to me at least) that the founders of RIM, faced with a product and management succession crisis, developed a new CEO internally, while Nokia faced with the same crisis brought in a manager from Microsoft. Although both companies are in serious doo-doos, RIM is still profitable and it is Nokia that has been left to develop a load of phones for Microsoft which they are then told will not be supported by the next OS. What's more, RIM owns its next-gen OS and has customers for it in other fields, while Nokia is now completely owned by Microsoft.

        Unfortunately it is all too easy to confuse being a psychopath with rugged American individualism.

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @05:19PM (#40431937)

      While some here on slashdot debate who copied whom first, I think we can agree MS tried to copy Apple's style of product announcements but they missed some key details. When Apple announces a new product, the product is already being shipped from China to their stores. As such Apple has a launch date and pricing detailed. The only exception is probably the original iPhone but Apple explained the 6 month lead time was because Apple couldn't keep it a secret as they had to get FCC approval. But Apple did list price and an estimated quarter.

      Because the product is pretty much ready, Apple can rehearse the entire presentation ad nauseum to make sure it works. At best MS had a working prototype of Surface. However, the Surface tablet froze [betabeat.com] in the middle of the presentation. It's an incident that anyone who had done a product demo dreads. The most glaring gaffe at an Apple announcement was when Jobs couldn't get the original iPhone to surf the web via wifi. The technician traced the problem to too many wifi users at once which isn't a big deal. I think MS timed the PR event to follow Apple as Apple had their WWDC a week earlier to try to steal the thunder of everyone talking about the new MacBook Pro Retina displays.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Raenex (947668)

        The technician traced the problem to too many wifi users at once which isn't a big deal.

        Only if you live inside the reality distortion field. What, you want to use your WiFi at a conference, or a busy place like an airport, or the university cafeteria? You can't, but no big deal. Oh, and you're holding it wrong.

        • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @07:10PM (#40433075)
          So you're saying that a clogged wifi network causing glitches during the middle of a presentation of product using wifi(which isn't a fault of the product but the network devices) is totally the same thing as a product freezing in the middle of a presentation. What world do you live in?
          • by Raenex (947668)

            So you're saying that a clogged wifi network causing glitches during the middle of a presentation of product using wifi(which isn't a fault of the product but the network devices) is totally the same thing as a product freezing in the middle of a presentation.

            Yes, and I gave examples of why, as a non-fanboy, I'd have cause for concern. I saw the Jobs video and cringed while watching it. Placing the blame on the WiFi devices instead of the product is ridiculous. Do you expect everybody to turn off their device in a crowded area, or do you expect your product to work in such places?

            What world do you live in?

            Outside the reality distortion field.

            • Do you understand what network congestion is right? Cause it seems that you seemingly don't understand the term "bandwidth". You do understand how a router works right? During the demonstration, many devices including the iPhone had problems getting data from wifi as the network was swamped. As soon as Jobs asked everyone to stop using the network, suddenly the iPhone was able to pull data. The next demonstration, Apple set up a network just for their devices so it wouldn't happen.

              To use a car analog

              • by Raenex (947668)

                The next demonstration, Apple set up a network just for their devices so it wouldn't happen.

                Which is what they should have done in the first place, then. It's a demo, where perception is everything. Having to tell everybody to turn off their WiFi is a PR disaster akin to a device freeze.

        • The technician traced the problem to too many wifi users at once which isn't a big deal.

          Only if you live inside the reality distortion field. What, you want to use your WiFi at a conference, or a busy place like an airport, or the university cafeteria? You can't, but no big deal. Oh, and you're holding it wrong.

          Eh? You've never tried to connect to an AP that simply couldn't handle any more connections?

          • by Raenex (947668)

            Nope, but I'll admit I haven't done a lot of traveling with WiFi. That said, I expect, for example, my cell phone to work at busy places, which it has.

      • by citizenr (871508) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @07:25PM (#40433227) Homepage

        However, the Surface tablet froze [betabeat.com] in the middle of the presentation.

        Not only that, later on presenter was trying to show camera widget and it "only" took him 4 tries :). I stopped watching after that.

  • I would drop (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I would drop the most basic things like
    1. Weight on hands (as every person finds it different)

    2. Feel on fingertips (every person finds it different, and I mean personal opinions "This feels nice" but you can say if there is texture or rubber or it is slippery)

    3. Where the slots are (you can find them from screenshots, but I would like to hear which way the slots are if they are under cover, meaning some MicroUSB ports are wrong way installed so you need to plug cable other way as well).

    4. Opinions of colo

    • 6. Use correct names for software systems, like not "Android Ice Scream Sandwich" but "Android 4.0" as that way people know better what it is about, so leave code names to ignorance nerds and wannabe teens.

      Depends on how much of a hash the marketing makes of the names. With Android 4.0 you have picked an example where the official name is actually meaningful. So far, so good.

      But on the hardware side, the codenames are often more useful to identify the product generation of a certain model. As a particular bad example, consider Nvidia's GT 640: three different models under the same name. Two new ones in 28 nm and one obsolete one in 40 nm manufacturing.
      With codenames (in this case "Kepler" versus "Fermi"), you

  • "Journalism" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by arisvega (1414195) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @04:33PM (#40431651)

    How many journalists can you name from the top of your head that follow a code of ethics and perform their function which is to report the news ojectively?

    Yea, I thought so.

    In this buzzphrase-dominated media society, journalists rank very high on own fart-smelling.

    • Erin Burnett?

      You should be laughing.

    • Re:"Journalism" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Media_Scumbag (217725) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @09:36PM (#40434167)
      Journalism's been dying for years, but like a frog in a pan of water, it will not flex a muscle to save itself. Though it boils violently in it's own excrement, its' audience can scarcely be bothered, as the spectacle isn't awful enough.

      Pardon my anecdote:

      I was at E3 2000 when MS revealed another (pardon the pun) "game changer" in much the same way as this "iPad-killer": The X-Box.

      There was no case, no controller (it was a Logitech PC controller) and myself and 20 or so journalists sat in a makeshift theatre watched a fly-through demo highlighting what we all knew was a basic PC Direct-X graphics engine. No one steered the flythrough, none of us were allowed to touch the controller or the clunky plexiglass and PC-guts that sat on a small, cloth-draped a/v rack. None of our questions could really be answered, either. To this day, I'm not at all sure why they didn't call individual reporters up to breakout rooms or hotel suites, because those of us who weren't in our early 20's were thoroughly unimpressed.

      I'm sure someone gave them props. After all, E3, gaming and the Web (still) were booming, and fact-checked news and Comdex were showing their age.

      Read the Web articles of the NYT, WashPo, WSJ, - any of the leading print publications from the past 30 years or more. How often do you see grammatical, spelling, or factual errors? I see them with exponentially increasing frequency. I think it's indicative of the "death of print," and more distressingly, the "dumbing-down of America." No one cares about quality reporting anymore. They want HuffPo, Brietbart, TMZ, and Gawker. They want blood.

      Bradbury was right.

  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @04:37PM (#40431675)
    I guess these reviews just scratched the surface.
  • by nzac (1822298) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @04:46PM (#40431733)

    I think the surface will be terrible to use as a tablet just because MS chose the ratio to match current laptop screens.

    Its just too thin either orientation.
    You loose half the screen for things that pop-out from the bottom or top including the keyboard and if you turn it upright its too thin to deliver a decent experience for most things. Traditionally you use portrait for web-pages buy the arm one does not horizontal resolution to view it naively.

    If its a poor tablet then and it wont be as good for typing as laptop then its doomed to find its self a small uninteresting niche. This is made worse because its only available online or from an MS store.

    • by chrylis (262281)

      I was rather skeptical as well, but I bought a Toshiba Thrive (10") when it came out about a year ago, and I've been quite pleased with it. In particular, the taller aspect ratio makes reading text more convenient, since 6" is a bit wide of a column width, and a 16:9 screen gives a narrower column and a longer page.

      • by nzac (1822298)

        Looks like they changed it to 16:10 for the current models [toshiba.com].

        Text and the arranged list of tiles they use to demo the portrait work pretty well because they rearrange without needing to stretch anything.

    • by anss123 (985305)

      Traditionally you use portrait for web-pages buy the arm one does not horizontal resolution to view it naively.

      Not that I disagree about 9:16 being potentially awkward, the arm surface has the same horizontal resolutions as the ipad 1 and 2 in portrait mode.

      • by nzac (1822298)

        Not that I disagree about 9:16 being potentially awkward, the arm surface has the same horizontal resolutions as the ipad 1 and 2 in portrait mode.

        The iPad is sometimes gets sent to mobile websites, if MS is fine with letting servers do the same then the native res is not as much of an issue.

    • The real question is why they gave it the same name as their $10k "big-ass table" [youtube.com] computer.

  • a hands on review must include a game of angry birds

    preferably by a drooling 3 year old

    if the toddler plays for more than 3 minutes without dropping the thing and wandering off (weight and functionality), the tablet will be a success

  • by future assassin (639396) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @05:20PM (#40431943) Homepage

    >Again, like I wrote before, if I could have only two of three tablets, I’d go iPad then Windows 8 and not Android, because Android’s not offering me anything I can’t already do on the iPad but with (to me) what’s not an elegant environment. Windows 8 is different, unique, seems to offer some compelling features even without the icing of a kickstand that goes “click” and thin keyboard.

    Wait wait he bitches about not being able to use the tablet to see what its all about but he prefers it over an Android tablet because there's something potentially magical about it even though he has no clue what that could be...

    I've never used it but doesn't Asus Transformer already do the same thing as the windows tablet. Convert from laptop to tablet and vice versa?

  • by kamapuaa (555446) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @05:28PM (#40432021) Homepage

    She doesn't say "merely touching an unworking product makes it hands-on review" at any point. She says that she can give a review that's "hands on" even with just a short time using the product, as long as she's clear it's just an impression and isn't an in-depth review. If you read the review, it's full of qualifiers like "At this stage Microsoft is being very cagey and no-one has had much time using Surface RT yet, but from our experience of trying it out."

    Just another unfair article summary by some Slashdot basement dweller with an anti-Microsoft agenda.

    • by rudy_wayne (414635) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @05:54PM (#40432269)

      She says that she can give a review that's "hands on" even with just a short time using the product, as long as she's clear it's just an impression and isn't an in-depth review.

      Holding a device, that isn't turned on, for a few seconds, is not a "hands-on review", except in the world of unethical scumbag journalists.

    • She doesn't say "merely touching an unworking product makes it hands-on review" at any point. She says that she can give a review that's "hands on" even with just a short time using the product, as long as she's clear it's just an impression and isn't an in-depth review. If you read the review, it's full of qualifiers like "At this stage Microsoft is being very cagey and no-one has had much time using Surface RT yet, but from our experience of trying it out."

      Just another unfair article summary by some Slashdot basement dweller with an anti-Microsoft agenda.

      As far as Anandtech, at least, which is usually the only tech site on the internet worth reading, there was no claim of a "review" and the author made it very clear exactly how much contact he had with the device.

  • I will gladly volunteer for a review of Scarlett Johansson.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by davidbofinger (703269)

      I will gladly volunteer for a review of Scarlett Johansson.

      The point of TFA is that some people got to paw Scar-Jo, but not take her clothes off, and then expressed opinions on her skills in bed.

      "It's a metaphor." "I know it's a metaphor." -- Moneyball

  • *sigh* (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Altanar (56809) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @06:35PM (#40432697)

    If anyone's want to know exactly what went down at the press conference without being fed a heavy dose of cynicism, you could always check out ArsTechnica's liveblog and post-event coverage: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/liveblog-from-la-microsofts-major-announcement-rumored-tablet-unveil/ [arstechnica.com]

    Slashdot's reaction to the Surface has been a mixture of amusing and frustrating. The reaction was immediately: "Surface is complete garbage. Horrible fail. After all, Microsoft never makes anything good." A few days later after some of the announced features of Surface disseminated the reaction changed to: "Utter vaporware. Never coming out. After all, Microsoft could never make something like that. They must be lying." Never in my life have I seen a piece of unreleased hardware declared vaporware in mere days of it's announcement. Never. Microsoft must've really touched a nerve with some people.

    • Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tuppe666 (904118) on Sunday June 24, 2012 @09:47PM (#40434241)

      If anyone's want to know exactly what went down at the press conference without being fed a heavy dose of cynicism, you could always check out ArsTechnica's liveblog and post-event coverage: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/liveblog-from-la-microsofts-major-announcement-rumored-tablet-unveil/ [arstechnica.com]

      Slashdot's reaction to the Surface has been a mixture of amusing and frustrating. The reaction was immediately: "Surface is complete garbage. Horrible fail. After all, Microsoft never makes anything good." A few days later after some of the announced features of Surface disseminated the reaction changed to: "Utter vaporware. Never coming out. After all, Microsoft could never make something like that. They must be lying." Never in my life have I seen a piece of unreleased hardware declared vaporware in mere days of it's announcement. Never. Microsoft must've really touched a nerve with some people.

      Slashdots response has been discussion...as always. As for Ars Techinca I believe they have closed their open source section :). I fail to see what is wrong with being surprised that Microsoft is making its first computer ever!? They have always made money from the software and not from the hardware, and have had Fall guys to test the water "Play for Sure - partners" or "Nokia"...and even then not computers, nothing to challenge its bread and butter of OS+Office, and No the Xbox doesn't count....but your wrong this is still vaporware; Where can I buy this product? Lets face it even journalist are not even allowed to use it.

      Personally I believe many who advocate open source Os's are feeling a little like Winston Churchill when Pearl Harbour was attacked "So we have won after all!"

      Seriously other than some really nasty anti-competitive tricks involving locking the OS to the hardware. I cannot see a downside, and that was already happening...its less likely to happen now. There is little to no threat to Linux based tablets[Google allegedly pricing their tablet at $200] where its best chance to win, is from bottom up. Microsoft have chosen to Directly take on Apple[their only option with x86] in the computer market for the first time in 20 years, rather than to continue to exist in a safe but shrinking duopoly, With a high end; High margin product; Using Brand Power[its like Mexican wrestling]. While giving a whole host of hardware manufactures including Nokia;"Barnes and Noble", Beige box manufactures waiting for windows 8 chance to re-evaluate their now weak strategy; being denied that a piece of that sweet early adopter high margin action after being stabbed in the back. Who here sympathises with these companies, hell these companies probably have a whole host of hardware IP ready to attack Microsoft with, most of them should have a "what will happen when Microsoft screw us over" package...or a button...or a bloke in a bowler hat. I suspect these hardware companies are suddenly going to an gain a healthy interest in software, and Open source is the best way to get to a working solution quickly. Personally I'd be installing libreoffice on all my current Windows 7 offerings, With dualboot into Company themed Debian based distro just for badness. They simply have no other choice, they need to adapt just like Microsoft have.

      Personally I think computing is getting exciting again. Thanks to Microsoft being a backstabbing dick.

  • .. the power subsumed by a religious icon [wikipedia.org].

  • If I don't get to play with the thing until I can invoke a crash or at least a major system error, I don't consider it "hands-on". Nearly any nitwit can set up a demo where the reviewer is allowed to push a certain button and the right thing happens. Hand over the device to someone while they poke at prod at it in ways the creators never imagined.
  • The way I see it, Microsoft created a fantasy proof-of-concept rather than an actual working product. By presenting it to Hollywood types who all live in a delusional fantasy world where they think they're important, they were pretty much guaranteed a receptive audience.

  • Didn't "Surface" used to be a big-ass table [youtube.com]?

    When did it become a vaporware iPad?

    On a more serious note, MS has a long history of pretending they have a product when it's actually just on the drawing boards. It used to make markets seize up in waiting for the MS product. I can't see how that tactic is going to help them against Apple's shipping and very popular products. It's like they're drawing their marketing tactics from the nineties. They don't have any weight in this market to cause it to seize up.

    Win

  • So, what do Slashdotters expect a "hands-on" review to reveal and/or include?

    People who don't have their heads up their butts (or anyone else's butts).

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.

Working...