| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Lenovo Windows 8 ThinkPad Tablet 2 announced |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-09 13:12:12 |
| "It'll be a full x86 device - Lenovo calls a 'joint effort' with Intel and Microsoft - that clocks in at 1.3 pounds with a 10.1-inch 1366 x 768 display. It's billed to have 10-hour battery life, which would be impressive for a device only 9.8mm thick. The standard model is Wi-Fi-only, but there will also be carrier versions including one with AT&T's LTE connectivity." If you see a 1366x768 resolution on a 10.1" display, they blew it. |
|
| RE[5]: Comment by shmerl |
| By Morgan on 2012-08-09 20:08:50 |
|
> So just because you legally can do something, doesn't mean it is reasonable or right to demand one. I believe the same argument is made for software patents, they're perfectly legal in the US too, but according to many, the exercise of that legal right is reprehensible. You're opening a can of worms with that one. The laws exist to serve the people, not the other way around. The moment the laws become oppressive is the moment they should be changed. That is what most of us here hope for with regard to software patents; right now they serve only to oppress the individual and take away their rights. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: Comment by shmerl |
| By shmerl on 2012-08-09 20:21:37 |
| Tablets are absolutely not an appliance. They are mobile computers. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[5]: Comment by shmerl |
| By shmerl on 2012-08-09 20:24:50 |
|
> A tablet is not a general purpose device. Only because some vendors want to prevent this. There is no logical reason for it not to be a general purpose device. Small form factor of the computer should not detract from the general purpose of its computing capabilities. Therefore people should be opposed to the restriction notion. See also "War on general purpose computing" as a good review of this issue (which explains why vendors would want to change the perception of computers to appliances): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H... Apple are notorious in their notions of locking things up and thwarting interoperability, so bringing them as an example only strengthens the point above about bad practices of manufacturers. Edited 2012-08-09 20:29 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[6]: Comment by shmerl |
| By Nelson on 2012-08-09 20:24:51 |
| Like I said before, good luck asking Apple for a refund for the cost of iOS |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: Comment by shmerl |
| By Nelson on 2012-08-09 20:27:35 |
|
> You're opening a can of worms with that one. The laws exist to serve the people, not the other way around. The moment the laws become oppressive is the moment they should be changed. That is what most of us here hope for with regard to software patents; right now they serve only to oppress the individual and take away their rights. That's a rather..primitive view of how the law should function. It is also largely besides my point that a measuring stick for morality is not legality. Just because you can, maybe, after extensive legal procedure, get a $100 check, doesn't mean it makes sense to do so, nor does it make my statement that tablets are appliances any less true. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: Comment by shmerl |
| By Nelson on 2012-08-09 20:29:04 |
| If people were opposed, then there would be a reflection in the sales. Obviously the market is in demand of a device that is an end to end experience. The coupling of hardware and software is just a means to that end. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[7]: Comment by shmerl |
| By Morgan on 2012-08-09 20:32:02 |
| You're confusing "core" with "primitive". So are you suggesting that the law should oppress the people? I weep for your future generations... |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[7]: Comment by shmerl |
| By shmerl on 2012-08-09 20:32:59 |
|
> Just because you can, maybe, after extensive legal procedure, get a $100 check, doesn't mean it makes sense to do so What makes sense, is to be able to buy the computer with OS of your choice or with no OS (so you could install something else there). The fact that one has to go through complex refund process is caused by monopolistic practices (of MS in this case), precisely as you pointed out for the purpose of making it too hard that it shouldn't make sense to bother doing it. It only proves the point of crookedness of MS and OEMs who do this bundling. Edited 2012-08-09 20:33 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[8]: Comment by shmerl |
| By Nelson on 2012-08-09 20:35:41 |
| Yes, something which a statistically irrelevant number of users even seek is considered oppressive and abusive. You really need some perspective. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[8]: Comment by shmerl |
| By Nelson on 2012-08-09 20:36:30 |
| Not what I am saying at all, and its disappointing because I'm certain you know how to read. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |