Comments on: Microsoft Surface SP1 adds features, better support

By: satan.

satan. — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:15:12 +0000

you dick faced whore, i might just slap you’re grandparents and pee all over you’re grave when you die. and then im gonna crack a bottle, let my body wobble, and kill you, cause you call yourself a fat guy. i hate you.

By: Apres Ski

Apres Ski — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:22:26 +0000

If you’ve ever watched CSI:Miami or the new NCIS:LA, they’re using this on those shows right now . . . and they are AWESOME!!

By: Windows 7 and Microsoft Surface play well together

Windows 7 and Microsoft Surface play well together — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:43:05 +0000

[...] couple weeks ago we got an early demo of the Surface SP1 update, and saw that one of the goals of which was to improve Windows-Surface cross-compatibility and [...]

By: Cec

Cec — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:39:29 +0000

I don’t think they’re at that point yet, or even that they are on their way to market domination. Microsoft needs a game plan change. They need to stop overreaching and focus on polishing the key aspects of modern computing, one of them being usability. Only then will they have a chance once competition from leaner, more focused companies comes out.

By: Tim Layton

Tim Layton — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:48:16 +0000

We are going to see Microsoft dominate the market and with the evolution of new screen technologies we will see this gap get even bigger. Nobody does mobile like Microsoft. If you look at the history of windows mobile the story is compelling and you will agree they are here to stay.

By: Michael Wolf

Michael Wolf — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:38:37 +0000

[...] we I had the honor or presenting with the Surface team during Tech.Ed about the announcement of Microsoft Surface SP1. For the session at Tech.Ed 09 myself Rick Barazza and Jon Bradley developed one of the first [...]

By: Exotische Betriebssysteme: Microsoft Surface SP1 « 11tech

Exotische Betriebssysteme: Microsoft Surface SP1 « 11tech — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:14:26 +0000

[...] Im Moment sieht es so aus, als würde Microsoft versuchen, aus Surface ein echtes Produkt zu entwickeln. Aber das sah beim Zune ja auch eine Zeitlang so aus. Unten das Video, zum Servicepack . (via crunchgear) [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:55:40 +0000

I wish Microsoft would push this technology harder! Touch computing is the next obvious step in personal computing, but without a big push from Microsoft it’s not going to happen.

By: AS

AS — Thu, 14 May 2009 08:45:17 +0000

You’re hot!

By: Cellphone Accessories

Cellphone Accessories — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:11:47 +0000

I though Microsoft surface is just a private technology of Microsoft. This is very cool especially for my visitors area. Is this available to market now?

By: dante

dante — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:05:40 +0000

@geekevaluation… Holy Shit bro… Now THAT is the future… and she said all the components only cost $350??? That’s cheaper than an unlocked iPhone. I agree, Surface to the dead pool if Sixth Sense finds the day of light.

By: Devin Coldewey

Devin Coldewey — Wed, 13 May 2009 00:37:47 +0000

In answer to your several comments, the Surface is a real product. That’s what sets it aside. In terms of hardware it’s only a little better than hacks and competing products (they’ve worked hard on making the touches very accurate, and yes it can handle like a hundred at the same time). The difference is they are providing the support, APIs, and placement to make it a viable product and not just a unique way of interacting with your windows. It’s a completely different environment to work in and it fosters innovation, kind of like how the iPhone drove touch interfaces on mobiles. Of course the iPhone is a consumer device, the Surface isn’t.

The fact is that the Surface has been extensively tested, the interactions with it and included capabilities are compelling and well-made, and its future interoperability with windows 7 and winmo 7 makes it a good investment as well.

By: Miles

Miles — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:25:48 +0000

Thanks! This is more like what I’m looking for. What sets it apart from similar solutions. Although, calling competitive solutions “hacks” addresses how they’re done–not what they are. It’s just a dismissive way to denigrate what might otherwise be a perfectly acceptable solution which can then be engineered properly with time, as has happened with many other “hacks” in the past.

How do you mean that it scales to hundreds of simultaneous inputs? Do you mean hundreds of RFID’s? Hundreds of simultaneous touches across a very long Surface area? I’ve never really seen Surface take up a large area enough to imagine hundreds of “inputs”. I do like what I’ve seen of it but I’m cynical about the cost to benefits of this particular platform. It does seem fascinating, despite all my cynical questions and remarks. I would just like to be able to understand why it’s the better solution to generic multitouch or the ‘hacks’.

Thanks for shooting back a comment, by the way!

By: Service Pack 1 dla Microsoft Surface

Service Pack 1 dla Microsoft Surface — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:56:14 +0000

[...] nagranie pochodzi od crunchgear.com, który otrzymał możliwość przetestowania dla nas nowych możliwości SP1 dla [...]

By: Jose Fajardo

Jose Fajardo — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:41:04 +0000

Just to state the obvious, wiimote hacked surface like solutions are just that HACKS. They do not scale to hundreds of simultaneous inputs, they don’t scale to performance, and the user experience just doesn’t exist for those hacked solutions..

Surface is a productized solution that scales great for mass use. There is really no other proven surface competitor out there, certainly not any i have seen that has a solution that can be plonked out infront of the public tomorrow..

Surface tables have proven themselves out there in the public, in places that have adopted them that is.

I work for a non-microsoft company that builds surface apps and Surface definetely delivers on the technical and user experience front.

Nothing out there comes close!

By: Miles

Miles — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:44:48 +0000

Quick note on my last post, in case it wasn’t obvious: I’m just musing–I don’t know anything about any of these arrangements.

By: Miles

Miles — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:43:05 +0000

I don’t agree on how silly it is to hate or love a company. You can like or dislike their products independent of your opinion on how the company treats its decisions, employees and customers. Microsoft has earned their reputation largely on the experiences customers and developers have had with their products, sure, but also their support, licenses, costs, ethics and other dimensions of their business. I still like to see them make good decisions, but I’m largely disappointed in most of them.

Good point, though, on the burgeoning aspect of the technology. It would make sense for them to ‘beta test’ these devices, maybe they leased these devices rather than purchased them outright? Later down the road, they have the option to purchase the final product. That’s a common way to go about doing things–especially for something as constantly changing as a theme park, as the best example you gave.

By: Cec

Cec — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:20:22 +0000

I think it’s silly (no offense to anyone) to say, I hate company X or I love company Y. It is the product that has any merit/shortcoming. Admittedly, Microsoft has a rather bumpy track record of hits and misses, but I think this product has lots of potential.

Bear in mind (what a funny mental picture that expression brings) that the technology is still in diapers, and as such pricing is still bloated, as there are no competitors (that I know of). I’m also pretty sure mass production hasn’t even begun and thus it would not be cheap to produce them. The companies that have adopted the technology I presume are merely test-driving it rather than adopting it full-scale. I don’t know how/if it is customized to each customer, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

By: Miles

Miles — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:18:07 +0000

After a little more thought, I think I answered some of my own questions–it’s about the API’s, I suppose. :)

I still question the cost to benefits ratio of that argument, still. it seems cheaper and more secure to just build something proprietary for your own purpose than to offload a lot of money on Microsoft’s solution. Hmmm…

By: Robert Oschler

Robert Oschler — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:09:43 +0000

Ok, thanks Devin. At least now I know about how much it costs.