microsoft surface (parody)

[shorthair]

Some of you might've seen this already. It's only half a joke in that there will be stuff like this, though hopefully they'll only be interfaces connected to the network. Of course, as was predicted in David Brin's fiction novel EARTH and in Howard Reingold's VIRTUAL REALITY, and is already possible but not fashionable, people will wear things like 'shutter glasses' (transparent, but able to display images, also) that will do these sorts of things, and more.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/clips/microsoft-surface-the-parody-270782.php

[boykster]

Funny parody, but your commentary relating everything to scifi books is getting old.

[shardian]

Funny parody, but your commentary relating everything to scifi books is getting old.

And if you take his penchant for Hard Sci-fi and also his strange sexual related posts, I would bet money that shorthair's favorite Sci-Fi series is the Ringworld trilogy. (I'm right aren't I? )

[shorthair]

shar: never read it. From what I've heard from everyone, it seemed like more fantasy than I'm generally interested in. At least, most who've told me about it read fantasy vs SF. But, if it's the latter, I don't know if Ringworld could qualify as 'hard' SF. EARTH does, though.

boyk: only EARTH is SF. VIRTUAL REALITY is non-fiction. In any case, I'm always thinking about interface and function. The point of the parody is, using something huge and expensive vs a hand-held device. My point extends beyond that.

[NightGod]

Some of you might've seen this already. It's only half a joke in that there will be stuff like this, though hopefully they'll only be interfaces connected to the network. Of course, as was predicted in David Brin's fiction novel EARTH and in Howard Reingold's VIRTUAL REALITY, and is already possible but not fashionable, people will wear things like 'shutter glasses' (transparent, but able to display images, also) that will do these sorts of things, and more.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/clips/microsoft-surface-the-parody-270782.php

You do realize that the joke is in the voice over, not the device itself, right? These are slated for release from Microsoft 4Q2007.

[shardian]

shar: never read it. From what I've heard from everyone, it seemed like more fantasy than I'm generally interested in. At least, most who've told me about it read fantasy vs SF. But, if it's the latter, I don't know if Ringworld could qualify as 'hard' SF. EARTH does, though.

It is considered hard SF because he bases the physics of the ringworld on research on real math and research. Mainly though (especially in part 2), the series is just a setup for the main character to have wild interspecial sex with as many people as possible.

[shorthair]

shar: I've heard that. Don't recall the latter part....I thought Heinlein laid claim to that vein. Anyways, maybe one day. If you want something really far out - actually very similar to a vague idea I had but had no real story to, which is telling - check out Greg Bear's short JUDGEMENT ENGINE.

NightGod: yeah, I figured. Would take a bit too much to produce something like that just for fun.

[RayB]

Look up "Augmented Reality".

[Hawk Daddy]

Is it just me, or does this sound Like a really good idea?  I mean thats a pretty sweet concept.  BUt for $10,000 I don't think so.  But if I had that money I'd buy one for sure.

Hawk

[boykster]

I remember when a simple CD burner was $500.  LCD panels used to be thousands of dollars.  $10k at product debut sounds reasonable.  My first modern PC computer cost nearly $3k and I have thumbdrives that had more capacity that it did.

Does anyone remember when Philips debuted their consumer 42" plasma displays....at $15k?  Now you can buy a much better display for right around $1k. 

Neat concept, but there's essentially no software for it right now, but when there is, whoever gets it right will have quite a market for it....

[Zero_Hour]

It was mentioned in another thread when MS unveiled the device, but it bears mentioning if you missed it; MS has a number of corporate partners (Hotels, Casino Game manufacturers, Casinos, Retailers), that will be rolling out the Surface devices when they hit production in the fall. I think the demo videos focus on the 'home use' functions simply because of the Gee-Whiz factor. I think that software aimed at home use would come around the same time that the prices closed in on 5K.

It may take a while for it to get to a price I could even begin to consider owning one (lower than the mentioned 5k), but I personally would find uses for it in my living room immediately, simply from the touch interface and wireless / bluetooth functions.

[patrickl]

I remember when a simple CD burner was $500.

First CD burner I saw was $10,000. First one I bought was $1,000.

This surface table will stay reasonably expensive though. It contains a computer, a projector, 5 camera's and a piece of furniture. That combination is not likely to get below $2 (or maybe even $3k) in a hurry.

Personally I think it's a cool gimmick and I'd love to have one (for free), but I don't see the use really. For a proper computer the horizontal orientation is annoying. You need to keep your table empty to really use it.

What application that it offers do you really need in your home? Bubbles around your glasses? Getting directions? Sending e-mail? Moving pictures around in a heap?

I think I'd use it to show off to my friends and then after that I would most likely hardly ever use it.

They're more suitable for bars and a hotel lobby.

[shardian]

The main thing about pictures on the pc is that most people keep HUNDREDS of pictures on their computer, not "10-15" that the surface machine makes look so easy to manipulate.

[shorthair]

Well, that and it's large enough that you could see more of them as well as actually orient them in a 'sloppy' fashion. And, totally, I thought the same about viewing angle. But, yeah, the hotel/casino thing could - maybe will - be big.

[RayB]

The table itself as a product might not be something many people want, but the paradigms of its user interface and device interfacing shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

Take the simplified transfer of photos for example. That's something I would want now. I don't want to find my USB cable, plug it in to the PC, plug it into the camera, turn the camera off, open a "E drive" window, copy the files. A step up from that is of course a card reader (reduces a couple steps mentioned above).

But just think if you had this little platform you could just set your camera on and automatically your PC knows what it is and either downloads the photos or asks you if you want to do that? Then put your cell phone on the same platform and it syncs up your contact list.

[shardian]

But just think if you had this little platform you could just set your camera on and automatically your PC knows what it is and either downloads the photos or asks you if you want to do that? Then put your cell phone on the same platform and it syncs up your contact list.

I guess you've never heard of docking stations, or bluetooth??

I don't mean to make your head explode, but you can also get a printer/camera that actually downloads and prints all of your pictures just by setting the camera on the printer.

In short, I don't see ANY revolutionary technologies with this surface thing. Besides, it's a MS product, do you really think it will work as flawlessly as the demo shows it?

[patrickl]

If you don;t want to use a cable, you can put the memory card in a TV or in a printer. You could put the whole camera in a dockingstation and indeed some cameras have wireless connections.

You can have the files copied off t he camera automatically when you connect the camera to the USB port. I personally use the cardreader in my notebook and think it works fine. I'd grow a beard if I had to wait for 1GB to come over bluetooth.

Why would a coffee table be better at receiving pictures from a camera than a PC? Especially since the coffee table basically IS a computer.

[RayB]

Well like all great things, you invent the ideas and concepts NOW, then technology and cost scales down in the future and becomes viable. Take 3D computer graphics for example, they could do it back in the 60's, but it took weeks to render 1 frame of some simple looking, untextured shapes. Should they have given up on that useless technology? We now can render photo-realistic images within minutes.

I don't want multiple docking stations with multiple syncing/download schemes. I own 2 digital cameras, a PDA, and a cell phone. I want one platform where I can just put all this stuff on it and it takes care of itself.

Mark my words! We'll have this within the next 10-15 years. Hell, you'll even be able to put your cheque card on it and "refill" it with money.

[shardian]

I don't want multiple docking stations with multiple syncing/download schemes. I own 2 digital cameras, a PDA, and a cell phone. I want one platform where I can just put all this stuff on it and it takes care of itself.

Mark my words! We'll have this within the next 10-15 years. Hell, you'll even be able to put your cheque card on it and "refill" it with money.

Bluetooth is that technology you are wanting and it is here already. It is a fast, secure wireless transmission. Unfortunately, your old stuff won't work with the "surface box" any better than it will with bluetooth because it isn't capable or compatible.
I just got a box formy home called a dock-n-talk that will let me use my home land line wiring and phones with my cell service. Once I get my bluetooth phone, I'll just have to walk into my front door and my phone will automatically be securely connected to all of my homephones. It communicates caller ID info and everything. Is that cool or what?

[RayB]

I just got a box formy home called a dock-n-talk that will let me use my home land line wiring and phones with my cell service. Once I get my bluetooth phone, I'll just have to walk into my front door and my phone will automatically be securely connected to all of my homephones. It communicates caller ID info and everything. Is that cool or what?

Is this it? http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp

[shardian]

I just got a box formy home called a dock-n-talk that will let me use my home land line wiring and phones with my cell service. Once I get my bluetooth phone, I'll just have to walk into my front door and my phone will automatically be securely connected to all of my homephones. It communicates caller ID info and everything. Is that cool or what?

Is this it? http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp

yep

[boykster]

I just got a box formy home called a dock-n-talk that will let me use my home land line wiring and phones with my cell service. Once I get my bluetooth phone, I'll just have to walk into my front door and my phone will automatically be securely connected to all of my homephones. It communicates caller ID info and everything. Is that cool or what?

Is this it? http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp

yep

that's pretty sweet...if only I had decent cell coverage at my house.....

[shardian]

Well I pay $38 a month for land line service that is only used for me to talk to my wife during the work day, and for my mother-in-law to call us. That gadget is money well spent - I can get a two phone family plan and save like $20 a month.

[Jouster]

I'm kinda liking the restaurant/bar possibilities with Surface...just imagine being at a bar with your buddies drinking lots of whatever...ordering food left and right...then comes time for the bill...you lay your pocket PC down on the table, it links with it, and the software you downloaded from the bit torrent site the night before goes to work not only deleting your bar tab, but telling the establishment that they actually owe you money!

I can't wait!!   

Jouster

[Ed_McCarron]

Well I pay $38 a month for land line service that is only used for me to talk to my wife during the work day, and for my mother-in-law to call us. That gadget is money well spent - I can get a two phone family plan and save like $20 a month.

Hope you don't need to call 911 in a panic.  Cell phone E911 is still kinda sketchy...

[shardian]

Well I pay $38 a month for land line service that is only used for me to talk to my wife during the work day, and for my mother-in-law to call us. That gadget is money well spent - I can get a two phone family plan and save like $20 a month.

Hope you don't need to call 911 in a panic.  Cell phone E911 is still kinda sketchy...

Isn't that funny though, considering I pay almost $4 a month on my cell-phone bill to support 911 service.

[Ed_McCarron]

Well I pay $38 a month for land line service that is only used for me to talk to my wife during the work day, and for my mother-in-law to call us. That gadget is money well spent - I can get a two phone family plan and save like $20 a month.

Hope you don't need to call 911 in a panic.  Cell phone E911 is still kinda sketchy...

Isn't that funny though, considering I pay almost $4 a month on my cell-phone bill to support 911 service.

What, you expect something you pay for to work?

Silly Shardian.

[Jouster]

You really wanna feel like your money's being wasted?  Add up all the taxes on your phone bill and figure out the tax percentage your paying...for what exactly?

That's the only reason I don't have a land line...couldn't see paying 90% tax on something I hardly used anyway.

Jouster