kristalsoldier
Well-Known Member
A family member has a Surface 2, which I was looking at recently. I remember it well as it was my former machine. But she has been using it for the last two years as her only computing device aside from her phone. She mainly uses it for Mail, browsing and videos (mainly YT). And she swears by it!
Well, I was looking at that device again with keen interest. And, at first it seemed rather limited - kind of obvious since I was comparing to my use of the S3, SP3 and now SP4. Again I noticed that the move from the tablet side of things to the desktop was indeed jarring. I don't feel this on W10 and I do switch between modes.
Regardless, the S2 felt light - though I am not a fan of that AR. But as a media streaming device, it seems just fine. But I have to be honest here - if I compare it to the iPad Air, which was then contemporary to it (if I am not mistaken), then it does fall short and moving into the desktop side to access "full" Office was just not enough. At the least, I think, the S2 should have been released with no access to the desktop and with Office Mobile (full featured, if necessary) on the tablet side. I also think, the S2 and its predecessor (which btw, I think, looked much better with the dark colour) should have been marketed and sold as pure tablets and not as hybrids. The hybrid argument hold true now with the S3 and the SP3/4. But this was not so with the RT devices.
So, was the entire RT project - including the OS, the hardware, the positioning etc. - a completely misguided effort? Was it totally wrong and a sheer waste of energy and resources? Or, could RT have worked as a base or a platform where MS could have explored alternative futures (especially one in which their mobile business could be seen thriving)?
Edit: Suppose a case had to be made to the MS Board to invest time and money into the RT project I which I am sure must have had actually happened regardless of how much of a set-up it may have been in reality) - not now but at the time the device was designed and released - how would that case be made?
Well, I was looking at that device again with keen interest. And, at first it seemed rather limited - kind of obvious since I was comparing to my use of the S3, SP3 and now SP4. Again I noticed that the move from the tablet side of things to the desktop was indeed jarring. I don't feel this on W10 and I do switch between modes.
Regardless, the S2 felt light - though I am not a fan of that AR. But as a media streaming device, it seems just fine. But I have to be honest here - if I compare it to the iPad Air, which was then contemporary to it (if I am not mistaken), then it does fall short and moving into the desktop side to access "full" Office was just not enough. At the least, I think, the S2 should have been released with no access to the desktop and with Office Mobile (full featured, if necessary) on the tablet side. I also think, the S2 and its predecessor (which btw, I think, looked much better with the dark colour) should have been marketed and sold as pure tablets and not as hybrids. The hybrid argument hold true now with the S3 and the SP3/4. But this was not so with the RT devices.
So, was the entire RT project - including the OS, the hardware, the positioning etc. - a completely misguided effort? Was it totally wrong and a sheer waste of energy and resources? Or, could RT have worked as a base or a platform where MS could have explored alternative futures (especially one in which their mobile business could be seen thriving)?
Edit: Suppose a case had to be made to the MS Board to invest time and money into the RT project I which I am sure must have had actually happened regardless of how much of a set-up it may have been in reality) - not now but at the time the device was designed and released - how would that case be made?