How Much Would You Pay For Microsoft Surface?

[UngainlyTitan]

I put down $1000 as my max but that would only be if there is an application or series of applications I want to use it for.

 

[Edgewood]

The first issue I have with this thing is that it has Microsoft's name on it. They don't exactly have the best reputation for manufacturing software that works very well or hardware (XBox 360 I'm looking at you) that doesn't fail due to overheating or whatnot.

My current game and gaming table are getting along just fine without Microsoft Surface and will continue just fine and dandy after it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The thread title pretty much says it all. What's the maximum amount you'd be willing to shell out to buy a Microsoft Surface (whether for gaming or other uses)?

It's actually hard to answer this strictly as given. Right now it's essentially worthless. Even if it were available for purchase there's nothing special that you could do with it. It'd be a horizontal TV and there's bigger, FAR better, and far cheaper TV's to be had. What would make it worth consideration is the applications available for it - software. Games, productivity stuff of some kind... it simply needs to do more than be a fat, flat, photo display widget.

I gave my answer on the assumption that it can run a full-blown game of 4E D&D (though I'd prefer that it support older editions just as fully) and that the software for that would be sort of rolled into the amount I'd pay. That in turn sort of assumes I'd be paying WotC for some kind of subscription, but perhaps not. All in all, while I'm willing to pay for it being 1st generation consumer technology it really can't be more costly than buying a whole new computer in order to run a bleeding-edge computer game.

I chose $1500 but I suppose I'd pay as much as $2000. And I'd be hard put to pay that if it's for a screen no bigger than 30". I sort of assume that's just because they're using a DLP short-throw projector and unless I miss something it ought to be applicable to MUCH larger LCD's or plasma screens more conducive to tabletop gaming. But if they can quickly hit that kind of price point it becomes, to me anyway, viable consumer product.

 

[tomBitonti]

This I agree with. A lot of the rest of your post is a bit out of date.

Paper is an ecological blight upon developing nations rivaled only by textiles, and it isn't doing us any favors, either. Chesapeake Bay isn't exactly enjoying the effect of the toxic waste generated by paper milling and recycling.

Electricity is, potentially, the greenest tech there is since you can produce it from tides, wind, running water, sunlight, bacteria and algae, nuclear reactions, and several other methods. There are plans for a massive solar farm in the Sahara which will generate enough power for meet, at last estimate I saw, 130% of Europe's current electricity needs. And that's using solar tech that is only sort of new-ish. We're discovering new ways to make solar more efficient constantly. We also have dozens of ways around the variability in output. For example, peak production will far exceed usage, and the excess electricity can be used to hydrolyze water to charge hydrogen fuel cells, which then is consumed during the night to meet energy demands when the sun isn't out.

Or look up the tidal power generation going on in the Orkneys.

Using 1991 tech, we could have powered the entire U.S. using wind farms just in Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota. Using modern tech, there's enough usable wind power in Texas alone to meet 100% of the U.S. electricity need. That would require a massive infrastructure change, so I'm not advocating that as a silver bullet solution, but it does suggest that if we start mixing methods better we could generate a LOT of electricity with renewables.

Electricity is potentially 100% renewable, without even getting into elaborate ideas like orbital solar farms. Paper on the other hand... Look up "paper mill pollution" and prepare to get ill.

Also, tree farms are completely ineffective as carbon sinks. If I fly home for the holidays, I can technically offset that carbon by planting a tree. But here's the kicker. It took me 4 hours in the air to release that carbon. It takes the tree almost 100 years to actually offset it. This is a losing proposition, especially if someone cuts it down and makes it into paper in less than 100 years.

If you want a plant that will actually offset carbon, we need to look into algaetecture or algae farming, which are both expensive at this time.

Sorry... this is one of my hot button issues. Energy policy gets my back up. I'll settle down now.

Veers into politics ... ought to have been caught by the mods and yanked.

Btw, the device manufacture and disposal probably is vastly more than a few sheets of paper. (Silicon mfg byproducts are not the bees knees.)

 

[jaerdaph]

I'm confused - is this "$1,500" price some folks are mentioning for just the guts without the shell (i.e. without the actual "table", which could cost just about anything depending on what you want), or was a "0" dropped off inadvertently somewhere?

I was under the impression this thing was going to retail for about $10,000.

 

[Treebore]

I'm confused - is this "$1,500" price some folks are mentioning for just the guts without the shell (i.e. without the actual "table", which could cost just about anything depending on what you want), or was a "0" dropped off inadvertently somewhere?

I was under the impression this thing was going to retail for about $10,000.

As I understand it the $10,000was the price to buy the test units.

The $1500 dollar model is mentioned in the "Update" thread, but I didn't go look for it.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Veers into politics ... ought to have been caught by the mods and yanked.

My professional inclination towards education is rearing up. If you want to discuss any of it, feel free to PM me, but I'm not going to respond further here since the mods did, in fact ask us to drop it. It's at best tangential to the discussion, even when I'm careful to keep it to facts.

 

[VictorC]

I said $500. I know, I know it's worth a lot more than that. But the only use I'd have for it, is gaming. That coupled with the fact I don't have an overwhelming need for it currently.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Just for clarity, for those curious:
It's a 30" DLP screen embedded in a 40" tabletop
1024x768 display on ATI x1650 w/ 256MB
2.13Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
Base: 2Gig RAM, 250G Drive (upgradeable)

Well if I can update that absolutely crap res (30 displays are normally 2560x1600) I would pay a lot. But as it stands, with such a small screen.. nope. With 4E I have found our equivalent of probably 50 inch matt is too small at times!

 

[Mistwell]

It does seem that Microsoft is planning to reduce the price to $1,500.