Harry McCracken has a two page report on the Microsoft Surface, which I am sure has nothing to do with page views and everything to do with not enough bandwidth to put it all on one page, anyways he has a couple of non-boring sections that I want to point out. The first:
>Surface’s 1366-by-768 resolution sounds skimpy compared to the iPad‘s 2048-by-1536 “Retina” screen. But a Microsoft researcher argued at length that Retina displays aren’t inherently superior. For one thing, he said, aging eyeballs can’t always tell the difference.
Definition of “inherently”:
>existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: any form of mountaineering has its inherent dangers | the symbolism inherent in all folk tales.
>Law vested in (someone) as a right or privilege: the president’s inherent foreign affairs power.
Well, given that I’d say a Retina display *is* inherently superior, but hey no compromises right?
I would guess that the “aging eyeballs” comment is an indication of the target market, so it only makes sense to poke fun at that market by saying: “old people can’t tell the difference anyways, suckers”.
McCracken on the touch cover keyboard thing (skip to page two):
>Overall, for a keyboard that barely increases the tablet’s thickness and weight, and which can be folded back like a magazine cover, it was remarkably good. But I understand why Microsoft will offer the Type Cover as well.
Interesting, he adds:
>Even Sinofsky thinks that plasticky little keys still have their place: He told the assembled journalists that he uses the Touch Cover most of the time, but sometimes swaps in the Type Cover for keyboard-intensive work.
I don’t see the added benefit of the touch-cover over a touch screen if people still prefer the actual keyboard to either. Why not just have nothing — then again if it’s the same thickness as my smart cover it is kind of a no-brainer. This is the single most interesting aspect of the Surface to me and it’s sounding less and less great the more I read about it.