When I said "better" I was thinking in purely a performance context. If you want to get to the subjective nature of computing devices and how one might be better for one user and not the next, please read the parting words of my post you responded to. The point of the parent's post seemed to be that capability wise the surface pro was on par with a 2 year old netbook. This is absurd. He writes that his netbook is fine "for him" at running a series of performance related tasks, at which the Surface Pro excels performance wise compared to any 2 year old netbook.
There is a very subjective element to the surface pro which is its form factor. If the tablet form factor does not work for you, then the conversation simply stops there. There is no reason at all to buy the surface pro over any machine regardless of the specs if you do not want a tablet form factor. But there is a very strong narrative running on Slashdot that the Surface Pro is not good for anything, and this is just not the case, as I've experienced using mine over the past two months.
So is arguably worse than existing Android/iOS tablets on price and hardware.
Which might clue you in that perhaps Surface RT is not meant for the enterprise. Which is why Microsoft offers
1. Powerful yet expensive core i5 powered tables capable of ultrabook type computing, with all the enterprise benefits of Windows (Surface Pro)
2. Light and cheap atom powered tablets that can at least run legacy x86 applications but have the battery life of ARM powered devices (Latitude 10)
This is what enterprise is now interested in. That's why 32% of mobile tech workers want a Windows tablet as their next device, compared to 26% for iPad and a mere 12% for Android. (Source: http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/Forrester_2013_Mobile_Workforce_Adoption_Trends_Feb2013.pdf)
Windows RT is microsoft's answer to the iPad home market. It's lacking apps now, yeah that's a given as Metro is a new platform. But there's nothing specifically that Windows RT cannot do that iPad can. Windows RT outshines iPad in several areas like being able to use two apps side by side, being able to use multiple accounts, having an open filesystem for using USB drives, and being able to view flash content like Hulu. It's probably not on equal footing yet, mostly because of the apps, but that will grow in time. But don't confuse Surface RT as Microsoft's answer to the iPad in the enterprise. Windows 8 tablets are for that purpose.
I have a stack of ~$250 2 year old netbooks next to me right now from various manufacturers we used for educational purposes. They are thick, heavy, pieces of cheap plastic compared to the Surface Pro. Take special note of this last bit; netbooks are cheap and their construction and build quality is correspondingly so. Surface Pro is a solid device built from better materials, and it looks and feels as much. If your amazing netbook is anything like the ones I have (and please, I'd love to know specifically which one you're talking about because I pretty much have them all from that time period), for $250 It's also got a slow as hell HDD, or a small slow SSD (even smaller than the Pro's). Please let me know which one yours has.
And by the way, the Pro works fine in bed with the kick stand. I watch netflix and hulu every night on mine. Honestly it sounds like you've never used or seen a Surface Pro tablet. If that's the case, please keep your assessments about how useful it is to yourself. And by all means stick to your 2 year old netbook if it fulfills your computing needs.
The very heart of these lawsuits is the bittorrent protocol, IP address tracking, and wireless networks. These lawsuits are a dirty disgusting consequence of the technology *we* created. And the reason nerds should be more interested in these lawsuits than others is because we fully understand how absolutely absurd it is to say just because you saw an IP address on a tracker doesn't mean the subscriber to the account that was assigned that address is an infringer.
So while the Prenda lawsuits are not failing on the technical lack of merits of their absurd claims, it is nice to see this law firm imploding nonetheless.
There are a number of problems with this subpoena.
First, once Cooper and Godfread filed their notice of removal, the state court lost all jurisdiction over the matter (at least unless or until the case is sent back) and all proceedings in state court halted by operation of law — including the obligation to respond to outstanding discovery. Prenda Law would need to re-issue the subpoena in the federal proceeding.
Second, though I am looking into it, it's not clear to me whether Prenda Law followed the requisite procedure under the Uniform Interstate Discovery Act required for them to serve a subpoena on a California company in an Illinois case. We'll see.
Third, the subpoena is ridiculously overbroad. It asks for the IP addresses of everyone who visited the sites, not just people who made specified comments — let alone comments that could plausibly be deemed defamatory. Moreover, it demands IP addresses for a period in 2011 before Prenda Law existed, and therefore before it plausibly could have been defamed or wronged.
Fourth, under emerging doctrines governing attempts to discover the identity of anonymous commenters, it is doubtful that Prenda Law can justify its broad subpoena. Prenda's lawsuit, as I earlier pointed out, is a mish-mash of complaints about statements of fact (which could conceivably be defamatory) and statements of opinion (which cannot). Under these circumstances a court should quash the overbroad subpoena under the increasingly prevalent rule that a plaintiff must make some sort of preliminary showing to discover information about the identities of anonymous speakers.
I still cannot fathom what the actual logic is behind these lawsuits. Traffic to FTC has increased 10x since the lawsuits were filed, and there has been almost daily coverage on far more popular sites like Techdirt, Arstechnica, Pophat, Boing Boing, Torrentfreak, and of course Slashdot. This is the Streisand effect in action.
Microsoft does *not* do the same thing. That's what this is all about. Microsoft scans email for viruses and spam. It does not go the extra step of delivering ads based on the contents. That is the problem.