Posts by stucs201 1293 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Feb 2010
Surely "battery not charged" is the new batteries not included?
I'm not sure if this is better or worse than batteries not included. On the one hand charging the built-in battery is likely to take less time than waiting for the shops to open once xmas is over. On the other hand there isn't the option of borrowing a couple of AAs from some other device.
(kids - just don't ask which device they were out of if its your Mum that finds 'spare' batteries).
Often accompanied by a dual 8-segment led readout of the current speed on the front of the case. This wasn't actually a measurement, the two values were set with jumpers and so could be unrelated to the true speed (some systems used HI and LO instead of numbers).
Also 'most recent' still has a scrambled order. Random posts are selected to be ordered based on the date of the last comment, not the date they were posted. How this order differs from the top-stories order I'm not sure, but its not what I'd expect from 'most recent'.
Not seen one of these (too new) but have seen earlier toughened panasonics (swivel screen types). Generally in the hands of gas engineers and other people who lug them round in vans full off tools, not coffee shops. As the review says a niche market, but one which will pay a premium for a device which will survive.
If its just for GPS functionality then there are some really cheap (< £50) dedicated sat-nav units out there (I found at least 2 on Amazon). I don't know quite what your requirements for GPS on a bike are - if its just for on-road navigation then they're probably an alternative to paying the same for a remote screen for your phone. If you're after something to log off-road routes or something then I'm less sure they're an option.
I see what you're saying. I think we sort of agree in that we both only want one main device, we just disagree which one it should be.
For me a smartphone is simply too big to carry everywhere (I know not everyone agrees on this). Whereas a watch strapped to the wrist is a very convinient way of carrying tech - I've had a watch strapped to my wrist almost constantly (showers excepted) for most of the last 36 years. I hardly notice its there.
Of the various bits of interconnected tech I just see the watch as the easiest to carry - so it makes sense (to me) to put the brains there. Larger pocketable screens (smartphone replacements), face mounted screens (google glass etc.) and other less portable output devices (e.g. TVs) become just screens that all connect to the same device. If you're going with the destop/laptop analogy then the equivalent would be ditching the desktop in favour of a laptop, but keeping a docking station on the desk.
(as a side benefit if the watch was the expensive part with the processing and data in it then it'd make the most valuable part the part which was hardest to steal)
Unfortunately technology isn't quite at the point where I think its practical to do it the way I want. If even without the CPU grunt in the watch it needs charging once a day then its a long way off where I'd consider it usable.
I think these will make more sense when they can move the 'brains' to the watch rather than the phone. The phone can then become a dumb screen which you can leave behind if you're going somewhere you only need basic functions and don't want to carry a large device in your pocket.
Also if you care enough about your screen based entertainment to spend 20k on a screen are you really connecting stuff directly to it? I'd expect it to be accompanied by a correspondingly nice AV receiever. Which means a one-off connection of power, HDMI and possibly aerial and ethernet to the tele itself - everything else can go through the receiver.
Is anyone else living in the same house? If not then a password adds very little security compared to the locks on the doors. What it would add would be pointless in the event of the PC being stolen if the hard drive wasn't also encrypted to prevent it simply being added as a second data drive to another machine.
Something I've wondered for a while, but never properly looked into the maths of:
Does a virtual particle/anti-particle pair forming and then anihilating look any different to a single particle on a (very short) CTC? If they are equivalent then does this mean that the virtual particle theory might not be right and time travel might be taking place all around us on a quantum scale?
If there is an equivalence then what are the implications for Hawking radiation from black holes if the CTC model is the correct one?
I'd normally agree. However on this occasion the bit which really suffered for being so thin was the screen. This has a good technical reason for being thin; to reduce parallax problems between where your eye and the electronics think the tip of the pen is.
I think the bigger problem is the glue. Surely there must be some way of holding these things together without glue?
There looks to be room for a full size one? So why micro? With the same aspect ratio as a DSLR, the ability to run Lightroom and Photoshop and a pressure sensitive pen this device has a lot to appeal to a photographer - so why doesn't it take the same size SD card as many cameras use?
(Yes I know you could use a micro-sd card in an adaptor in the camera - but who really wants to replace all their memory cards?)
Yes, I totally get why. But reviewing it as if it *is* a laptop is still missing the point. It is still a *tablet* first.
For comparison lets look into the history of the laptop. There was a time (perhaps 20 or so years ago?) when these were a lot less powerfull than a desktop PC and you'd only really use one when you needed portability - most laptop owners would also have a desktop as their main machine.
Then the gap closed a little and we started to get laptops which could be considered 'desktop replacements'. They weren't (and still aren't) quite as good a desktop as a top-end desktop machine, but for many people are good enough in that role that they're willing to compromise if it means not having two machines. To review a high-end laptop on the basis of only ever being used on one desk would be missing the point and lead to the reviewer complaining about it not comming with a full-size mouse, the screen being a little small and ports and expansion being limited compared to a dedicated desktop.
If what you primarily want is a laptop then the surface is probably the wrong choice. However for those people who now mostly use a tablet and only switch an actual PC (laptop or desktop) on when they really need to then perhaps something like the surface might enable them to have one less device - just like many of those same people got rid of desktops to save space and only occasionally put a laptop on a table if they have a lot of work to do.
Whereas for me I expect it to handle the times I'd otherwise use a laptop quite well, since for stuff that is truely demanding I have a desktop with specs that make your monster laptop look like a toy.
But lets not get into a bragging competition, lets just agree that different people have different needs. Surface may not be for everyone, but its different enough that its likely to be for someone - probably someone whose needs aren't quite met by more conventional options. More choice of form-factor has to be a good thing - pick the one that suits you.
If you don't know why you'd want it then it's not for you. Even at the launch event MS said this to the audience of journalists (many of whom proceeded to review their samples based on their normal laptop usage).
Its an attempt to produce something a little different for those people (a minority perhaps, but not noone) for who a pure tablet or pure laptop isn't quite the right device. Its also rather more than their 3rd attempt - it might only be the third with the name, but really its just their latest refinement of their original tablet-PC concept from many years ago.
Those old tablet-PCs never really achieved mass market appeal, but I've seen a few over the years being used for specialised applications. I expect the same will be mostly true of these, though perhaps a little more widespread now that the weight has come down and the handwriting has improved to the point it might not be painfully frustrating to use.
Indeed, mostly completely not needed at a festival.
The stove? A heat source can be good, but the price of this thing will buy a *lot* of disposable BBQs. True they won't charge gadgets, but you don't need that...
Device chargers? Why? A festival isn't a particularly safe place for expensive gadgetry. True a phone is handy to work out where friends are to meet up. However the old S40 Nokia out of the drawer will do that job just fine, won't get stolen, will probably survive being dropped in the mud and has a battery life that should last the entire festival (if you have doubts then take a spare charged battery). You don't need net access on the phone - if you find yourself wanting facebook you've gone with the wrong friends.
Video camera? Why? You've gone to a live music event. Why watch it through a screen. Enjoy it for what it is. A stills camera however can be handy for photos of your mates (if you've taken a truely ancient phone that doesn't have one) - again the battrery on this ought to get through the entire event.
Speakers? Why? See the above comment about being at a live music event. If you really want evening entertainment in the campsite then find someone who has taken an accoustic guitar.
Waterproof case? This one makes sense. Keeping stuff dry can be important, but not gadgets - the personal supply of loo roll for when the toilets have none is far more important. A cheap re-sealable plastic bag will suffice though, and may even be overkill if kept in the pocket of a proper waterproof jacket (the only even remotely expensive thing you should consider taking).
Lantern? Yes you'll need light, but personally I'd take something with a 2 or 3 D-cells in it (they'll run LEDs for ages) rather than having to faff with solar charging.
Icon? The only truely essential thing at a festival!
"While the move will go down well with those wielding conventional plastic, plenty of newfangled chip-equipped debit cards (or at least those here in Vulture South's antipodean eyrie) don't offer raised numerals that old-school imprinters can capture. If P.F. Chang's is processing those cards, it will need to add instructions to write very neatly, and press very hard, to the instructions it offers to staff as they unravel this mess."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
