It seems like Microsoft's plan for Windows is to get rid of windows.

The server version looks cool. You can boot it to a command line. The full GUI is a loadable option.

Windows 8 is faster than Windows 7 in every way. If I could get it without the Metro UI or only the Metro UI, I would likely buy it. If the final version is the same as the consumer preview, I'm not interested at all.

My comment may be somewhat hyperbolic, but it isn't generally false. Pick out your favorite MS research fellow and compare their publishing history before and after joining Microsoft. Most of the people I'm talking about come from academia and perhaps it's just the nature of the academic world -- publish or perish. Maybe they join Microsoft in part to escape that cycle?

If you are trying to cheer me up, it isn't working.

Microsoft Research is the most depressing part of that whole company. There have so many great researchers and computer scientists working there and you hear very little from them. People who used to publish papers every year join up with MR and are never heard from again. It's a roach motel of computer scientists.

I'm speaking about normal people who account for most tablet computer sales. Slashdot readers may find the RIM Playbook / Windows Surface / Kindle Fire / other Android tablet to be have a more compelling software library and that will make those tablets a better buy.

I have both iOS and Android devices in my house and the holes in the Android library (for normal users) are slowly being filled, but app quality still lags. For now, I still can't recommend anything other than an iPad to people who ask me what they should get.

What measure of performance are you interested in? Whetstone? Dhrystone? Linpack?

Does anything other than the software library really matter? Assuming it hits the same $200 price point that Google and Amazon have hit, then the iPad wins hands-down.

I ordered a Nexus 7 because, at $200, I'm not risking much. If the iPad Mini comes in at $200, it will easily own the 7" market.

And there probably never will be. Cancer isn't a thing, it's an umbrella term for a whole bunch of different diseases.

This would make sense if the phone makers and carriers had any history of innovation. The reason Apple was able to totally disrupt the market is because nobody was really trying anything. Now, with Android being wide open, the carriers lock the phones down and pre-load crapware like Blockbuster and Nascar apps.

Carriers want to sell $3 ringtones and $0.25 text messages. In their view (which extends to the end of the current quarter), disrupting their current business is only harmful to their bottom line.

x86 tablets have been for sale for 10 years now. Why are the new ones more exciting than the ones already on the market?

bash is almost as good as powershell, but if free is important (and it is), then it might be better.

Windows 8 Server edition can be configured to run without a GUI, only powershell. I think this is the first version of Windows that didn't force a GUI.

I would too. I think that is actually more than what the price difference would be.

Apple once said that if they made the iPhone in the US, it would $40 more per handset. The problem with building stuff in the US isn't the cost of labor, it's manufacturing flexibility and supply chain issues.

I think he was suggesting that a 7" tablet made in the US would be $299 and was asking if people would be willing to pay that just because it's made in America.

Flash was never suitable for phones because it is a major battery hog. Fixing the problem would mean shifting development from low-bid contractors to people who actually know what they are doing and that's very expensive. Adobe needs to earn money for their shareholders, so they really have no other choice.

IOW, the problem wasn't in the tech world, it was in the business world. Adobe made development decisions on how they would affect next quarter and the result was a product with no long-term future.

why not continue to develop the technology that sets the phone apart?

This is an easy one to answer: because it isn't profitable and it's pretty clear that it will be even less so in the future.