They use the iPad for convenience. It has nothing to do with blind Windows hate. A tablet can, surprise, be comfortably used with 2 hands while standing. A laptop, well you gotta carry to a place, put it on a desk and open it up. Or put it on your lap. Then you still have to use that shitty trackpad.

Convenience...tablets are what many people have always wanted in a computer. If the Surface Pro can deliver, then you'd be a fool to think enterprise IT services would be so willing to accomodate iPads. That Surface Pro "should" be a pretty seamless addition to their networks. If Microsoft screwed that up, then it's going to fail badly because the home users certainly aren't going to pay that much for a tablet anything when you can get a kindle fire for $150.

This...wireshark is the most awesome tool for tcp/udp. It even supports custom plugins if you get creative.

As for a real world data usage. Look up the IEEE DIS standard. That standard is used by many military systems for simulating distributed environments. At least then there'd be a real world example that might get the kid even more into it knowing that the army and navy use it. Make your own dummy DIS streamer, or find one online if a free one exists.

Because Windows isn't going away. People can wish it and want it all they want, it's not happening. Surface Pro has the capability of finally giving people the truly portable PC. A laptop was great, but not exactly convenient for laying on the couch or sitting in a car. Yes they "can" do it, but tablets are what people want. iPads and Android tablets are nice. They don't replace anything though.

Surface Pro "could" replace laptops. I stress could. It may not be Surface, but it WILL be a tablet made by someone which can be used as a workstation. If you believe the iPad or any android tablet today could replace a laptop workstation then you would be wrong. Surface Pro at least might be capable of that feat. Either way, I expect laptops to all but disappear in the not so distant future, say 5 years or so replaced by capable tablets.

Does more? No.
More Flexibility? No.

More hardware options? Yes.

The question is, do you want tablet form factor or laptop?

Consider, to do any real work on a laptop (ie not watching video or reading the interwebz), you need a separate keyboard and mouse and probably a bigger monitor. May as well have the dock then; so how portable is that laptop for getting anything done? The Surface has the click on attach whatever keyboard and touch screen. I really think the Surface has a chance to show a way ahead where laptops become an outdated option. I know that's a stretch for some to think of right now, but at the concept of what the Surface is trying to do seems valid IMO.

Also depends on the IT folks administering the network. Paranoid admins can lock down so much stuff, and add so much overhead crap that it makes a machine near unusable. On one particular network I use, every time any machine rebooted the scripts would search for, and remove Adobe Reader IX. Then install Adobe Reader X. Every time. This would take 10 to 20 minutes, every single reboot. They only did away with it when they decided to virtualize everything. Now their machines will randomly freeze during boot. Same place every time, I mean literally the progress bar that just scrolls on the Windows boot freezes in the exact same spot every time it happens on any machine it happens to.

So yea, I can see why stories persist.

It's partly touch, and partly....I expect and need a desktop to be more than just a glorified smart tv or xbox. Windows 8 does not appear to fit the needs of people who create content. Even on the standard desktop, there's no start menu. At work, that's just going to be a no go. I am not going to go putting 20 to 30 freaking programs "pinned" to the task bar. That's clutter. Nor do I necessarily want them all stuck as icons on the desktop.

Or how about this, I find I need to often do some basic command line functions to double check things. Simple stuff like ipconfig. XP was easy enough to start the cmd line utility from start, Win 7 it's even easier. I am really going to miss being able to open the Start menu and simply type, "cmd" and get the utility. Forcing me to pin or icon the Command Prompt is wasting space that will take me longer to find than click twice and type 3 chars. Or "calc" or "notepad" or "regedit" or....well you get the point.

No Central location? Go away troll.

I haven't had to actively update Windows anything since I manually did the XP sp1. And that's because I didn't have broadband at the time. The only thing I manually update now is my graphics card drivers, and any other device drivers I may need to do. Windows update is exactly what it should be now. Critical updates download, and prep to install when you next turn off or reboot. You know they need installed by the update icon that appears in the shutdown/lock/restart button in win 7, and Vista when I had it, in the start menu.

If it's fair to point out all crashiness, then let's go ahead and add in android as being a steaming pile of poo. I had, stress 'had', multiple coworkers with droids of different flavors. Each and every one of them had to replace those phones within a year because they would just cease functioning and require rebooting. Occassionally even the battery would require being pulled to get it to restart. Sometimes right in the middle of calls.

A phone should just work. Why is it that the smartphones just stop working? Not just droids, but all android phones. Why can we all ignore how tremendously slow they become after a few months and just blame it on shitty hardware or whatever other reason people choose. And don't people come here and say that they should just root it and put whatever newer version they want. That's not a valid solution to the phone's original state decaying.

Win phone 7 sucks, but android phones have their own problems too. So do iphones, but I don't have one and only know of the iphone 5's propensity for completely losing text conversations.

Compared to them slowly going to shit, my WIn XP machine that I had from 2001 to 2010 still ran damn good on only 512 MB memory when I replaced it. The only crashes I ever got with it, or my new rig have been graphics card related.

No, they won't switch today. But 5 or 10 years from now if they have to continually upgrade all their systems and risk breaking legacy programs that may change. The cost of making a complete transition to Linux will not be anywhere near as steep.

Consider, for what I work on, accrediting a system is a tremendous task. It involves many months of in house testing, followed by months of ridiculous paperwork all to get a nice stamp of approval. Think of the multitudes of people involved in this task, and the associated costs that easily go in the 6 figures and definitely 7 or 8 if they start counting in facility use costs for testing. Imagine Windows forcing OS upgrades every year, or even every other year on those systems....that cost will destroy our business very quickly if we have to accredit on a new system just for the OS. That would very, very quickly drive change in our business.

That's a more extreme example I think, but nonetheless true.

I think you're wrong. Windows has had over a decade of solid performance for home users with XP and newer. Business has been solid since Win 2000, and NT was pretty stable as I remember. Their image right now is XP and 7. Those are solid OS's.

8....well if it's not a knockout for mobile devices, they're in deep trouble.

I was with you til this. Rebooting, slowness, and "crashiness" are just fallacies. Vulnerabilities aside, XP and Win7 do not generally suffer from rebooting, slowness, or "crashiness". Even Vista, once it finally booted and UAC was disabled, was a solid OS. I ran it for 2 years that way, and the only reason I upgraded was because I got a free copy of 7 Pro. (I do not have the time nor motivation to maintain an up to date linux system at home) User Confidence is not a general problem with Windows to their users. On the contrary, people use Windows because it works. It's only a perceived problem to their detractors.

Windows 8 has the huge problem of them attempting to steal mobile markets while using the same OS as on the desktop. That's a huge mistake. The input devices are, and will most likely always be too different to make both appealing simultaneously.

Windows most insurmountable advantage is business. Business uses Windows for the PCs. It's not 100% usage, but close enough for this discussion. Business is all about keeping costs down, and OS migrations are anything but that. OS upgrades cost real money as well as time and lost productivity. "Blue" is going to have a multiplying effect on that. You see it, others see it, how can Microsoft not see it?

Even with completely FREE upgrades, business still loses by applying those. It's like Microsoft is deliberately giving enterprise users a legitimate reason to switch to any version of Linux that meets their needs. They can't underestimate that it won't happen, because those MBAs will start to shit little chickens if they see cost projections having noticeable upswings due to Microsoft's annual update.

Lose the business (and Office dominance due to that), and Microsoft will lose the home as well. It just seems like a strategy doomed to fail, all in an attempt to copy competitors in a different market.

I've learned very quickly, that if you read anything about military systems posted on slashdot that you better not hope for valid answers in the comments. The posters here have a very good grasp on Command and Conquer, but not real military tactics. Plus they just love to point out how that same system won't be effective once the enemy "upgrades" their weapons to the even better version that flies faster or spins or gets evasive, or whatever else they come up with. Cause that happens instantaneously in real life for no cost too!! lol

I think, what the submitter is referring to is not necessarily the difference between ballistic missiles and "unguided rockets". Rather that short range missiles are still ballistic, but do behave differently. For instance they typically remain a single vehicle from launch to impact. Once you go to the medium that's usually not the case as there's a booster involved. Long range on the other hand can have multiple boosters as well as possibly separating payloads as well as going fast as all hell. In other words, there's a whole lot of shit to filter through to determine the real target and a very short window to do that in.

So you developed your ego before being paid and already knew everything. What a fantastic coworker you must have made.

You idiot. God doesn't drive evolution. God simply creates and everything remains static because Evolution is a myth perpetuated by those liberal bastards trying to make our kids think outside my little church house rules.

Only if you get a waiver first!