Evangelist = Religion = Bullshit
No change there then Microsoft.
An organisational reshuffle at Microsoft is to create a new Windows and Devices team under Panos Panay, currently chief product officer in charge of hardware including the Surface range. Panay is the guy who presents new Surface devices at Microsoft press events as if each were a revolution in personal computing. He will now …
Atheism, assuming we're talking about true atheism and not just some form of agnosticism, has an article of faith as its central tenet, since it assumes an untestable hypothesis. Any hypothesis about the supernatural, including the null hypothesis, cannot be tested scientifically. That's what "supernatural" means: outside of nature, and therefore not required to be consistent with any other observed principle of the material world.
So yes, atheism is a faith, if not a religion per se.
Someone who's serious about not committing to untestable beliefs would be an agnostic, ideally a Perfect Bayesian Reasoner agnostic aware of the formal limitation on belief in consistency (from doxastic logic). That's about as uncommitted-to-unprovable-propositions as you can get.
In reality, of course, the ability of the human mind to avoid unproven and unprovable assumptions is extremely limited. Even in conscious thought, it requires continual vigilance, which carries a high cognitive load and can't be sustained for long stretches. In the preconscious and unconscious, forget it.
The MS Surface concept seems to me to be an attempt to chase Android outside the phone market, I would hope that this doesn't mean that all MS systems will now slide towards tablet interfaces by default. When you look at Microsoft's management over recent years it seems that their products are only a means of generating a nice retirement bonus for the executives.
Once upon a time, choosing a computer to work with was a fascinating exercise that everyone devoted a significant amount of time and effort to choosing the best fit, nowadays it's like walking through the store trying to decide, do I want ripple or smooth toilet paper?
Surface was and is more directed at the iPad - nothing to do with the phone market - they can replace both a laptop and a tablet, but they can't replace a phone.
And indeed MS demonstrated that an hybrid device with a detachable keyboard and a digitizer (high-precision pen input) is useful - more useful than a simple tablet for activities which aren't simply consuming contents. Despite some hardware problems they should have spotter earlier and fixed, the devices are useful.
What they botched - twice - was the UI, first trying to force the tablet UI onto desktops, than removing it in tablet mode too. Showing that those at the helm had little understanding of users needs, and have no real long-term vision.
For example they could have designed a strong integration between Windows Phone and Windows - but not forcing the tile UI on desktops - from the beginning.
they can replace both a laptop and a tablet, but they can't replace a phone
A Surface device that was smaller and possessed a SIM slot and phone app would be a phone, and I would buy it.
Heck, people would buy a full sized Surface with SIM slot and phone app.
MS is showing much more panache and savvy since Ballmer left; let's hope this trend continues.
At the Office where I occasionally turn up to work, the big bosses saw the Surface and went a bit daft, all insisting they must have one, I guess they saw somebody else using one and felt the need.
Those surfaces are all languishing in a cupboard now because they didn’t get on with them, they are not that practical to use, none kept one more than 12 months. They saw somebody with an XPS and now insist on buying those.
I kept my original laptop from when I joined for over 4 years, it’s just a normal sort of laptop. They all replace phones from a static workstation perspective. IP phones have all disappeared from the desks and the Skype type apps have taken over. They won’t replace phones for carry, because pocket size.
I doesn't matter how many re-orgs MS do, or who's in charge of what. MS still don't seem to know what to do with Windows these days - it's been under the control of pretty much every department inside MS over the years, and they still won't listen to what their customers actually want - Windows 10 and their incessant fixation on cloud and dragging all their 'customers' into it - whether they want it or not - is proof of point!
windows a closed OS, only available on MS equipment?
I don't think even MS would be that foolish at the moment. It would take away a huge chunk of their revenue for no recognisable advantage.
In 5 or 10 years time - maybe. Depends on the uptake of their applications on other platforms (and how stagnant the PC market gets)
So why windows 8.x and Windows 10 on the desktop?
Why API confusion?
Why Settings all over the place?
Why the least configurable GUI since Win 3.11?
Why the brokeness of the File Exporer and Desktop local search.
Why mix up of two incompatible Surfaces (x86 and ARM)
Why splurge $11 Billion on Nokia and get nothing? See Also earlier Danger/Sidekick/Kin debacle.
Why ME and Vista?
Why they should?
Windows runs on a lot of cheap devices, and that ensures it runs on more then 85% desktops/laptops worldwide. Android has a comparable market share for the same reason.
Apple to keep its hardware business profitable needs to sell expensive devices only - and Surfaces are expensive devices as well. And Apple makes little software for its platform (although it reaps money form the store - but not much on macOS), while for MS Windows is a way to sell then more expensive software as well.
Those devices are useful for brand-building, and to push hardware vendors to deliver something at least comparable as well, and avoid the situation where Apple (or someone else) catches them fully unprepared.
Maybe if and when all the processing happens in some cloud and there's less money to be made from local software, it could change.
the Surface initiative seems to have been successful in improving the design of PC hardware
Has it? How? I admit I don't pay much attention to the design of PCs, but I don't recall seeing a single story about how it has "improved" recently. Or even changed significantly, except for USB whatever-it-is-now and this dual-screen thing the Surface is apparently sporting. Maybe I've missed some major innovation.
Just like in the days of Windows 8, brace for more adware and useless OS's coming from MS.
We need a windows alternative badly!
Maybe its Linux and Wine, but that on a users desktop? It still has a ways to go to be ready for the office especially in troubleshooting app errors.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020