Talk:Microsoft PixelSense

Videos

Due to the nature the device, it is best "described" with videos of its usage. Two questions:

• Anyone know of any ogg format videos of Surface prototypes suitable for uploading?
• Would it be considered linkspam to add external links to sites with videos? (eg. [1])

-- Chuq (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow that was a quick write up, when I checked Wiki last night at about 2:00 AM nothing had been written. Does anyone know if there are any know retail prices for the item? --buzlink 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

5000-10000 kazolaas, so roughly the amount of change falling out of Bill's pockets everytime he fishes around for the keys. Jarwulf 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Price estimates should be added to the article (with sources given). 71.244.44.17 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the prices with a source. Chetblong 03:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the promo video or whatever it was, on collegehumor.com, but it was redubbed to sound like a useless money-grubbing machine... I thought it was a joke until I found this page u.u Kingoomieiii 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a video of Microsoft Surface explained in full - [2] --Complex-Algorithm-Interval 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Terms of use violation... --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just seen the linked video of the Surface the actual machine doesn't seem to be working properly (it doesn't respond to some gestures and touches for instance) so I assume it was a beta version of sorts. Does anyone have a video of a surface working without these problems? --Candy (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually how it is. It's not as smooth, responsive or polished as an Iphone's (or some other phone's) touch screen. Take a look at this video, for example. Microsoft Surface still needs a lot of work. 129.120.94.104 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

Parts of this article come very close to just being a regurgitation of the website, which, as well as being a potential copyright violation, is not exactly the best way to remain neutral about something like this. Examples:

• From the article intro: [Microsoft Surface] is expected to be released by commercial partners in November 2007. Initial customers will be in the hospitality businesses, such as restaurants, hotels, retail, and public entertainment venues.
• From the website: Microsoft Surface is designed for commercial partners like hotels, restaurants, retailers and public entertainment venues

• From the article (specifications): Surface is a 30-inch (76 cm) display in a table-like form factor
• From the website: Surface is a 30-inch display in a table-like form factor

• From the article (history): In 2003, the team presented the idea to the Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, in a group review [...] and a prototype nicknamed T1 was produced within a month. The prototype was based on an IKEA table with a hole cut in the top and a sheet of architect vellum used as a diffuser.
• From the website: In early 2003, the team presented the idea to Bill Gates, Microsoft Chairman, and within the month the first prototype was born, based on an IKEA table with a hole cut through its top and a sheet of architect vellum as a diffuser

• From the article (history): Over the next year, Microsoft built more than 85 early prototypes for Surface.
• From the website: The team built more than 85 early prototypes

• From the article (specifications): The Surface tabletop is acrylic, and its interior frame is powder-coated steel.
• From the website: The tabletop is acrylic, and its interior frame is powder-coated steel.

There's probably even more, so this article probably needs quite a bit of work done on it, rather than it mostly just being copied and pasted from the press releases/copyrighted website. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree -- there's only so much rewording that can be done, especially when details are scarce. How many different ways can one rephrase "The team built more than 85 prototypes"? I don't think this is what we mean when we talk about copyright violations... does the article need work? Sure! Is this a copyright violation? Definitely not. /Blaxthos 13:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Copyright Violation was perhaps not the best title for the section... my main concern was really that the article was basically a mirror of the press release, at the time (hence why I didn't tag the article as copyright violation, or anything like that). The new source you point out below though, should help improve the article in this respect though. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I expect we'll see a lot of work on this article as the product nears GA. /Blaxthos 15:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Han?

Isn't Jeff Han's Perceptive Pixel intimately involved in this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Han I'm pretty sure I saw him in one of the Surface videos.

New Source

Good segment on NBC Today show where Bill Gates gives first real interview about (and full demonstration) on Saturday, 2 June 2007. /Blaxthos 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Something for the History section

I'm pretty sure I saw Mr. Gates using the Surface (although it was unnamed at the time) at THE 2006 CES conference for his keynote. Maybe someone would like to look over that?--Surfaced 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception etc

It's possibly worth mentioning that before unveiled it was initially believed to be an iPhone competitor [3] (which also uses multi-touch technology), and that public perception appears to continue in that direction as illustrated in this spoof [4]. - AlKing464 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

iPhone competitor? Are you kidding? We dont report anything just for reportings sake. There must be substance in what we are reporting. --soum ^talk 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

...I believe the ability to prove it using sources is more significant that your personal perception of whether it is notable information. The point is it reflects the trend towards multi-touch technology evidenced elsewhere in the industry. I don't feel strongly either way, but if there were to be a section on public perception, then this is an element of the public perception. - AlKing464 03:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "point" is original research, and I really don't think there is much public confusion about "Microsoft Surface" being a telephony product. Idiots with blogs (who might confuse the two) really don't count as reliable sources... see WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:OR. /Blaxthos 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said that people confused it with the iPhone. I said that, pre-unveiling - i.e. before people actually knew of its current form - it was believed to be a competitor (note that that blog links to a ZDnet article showing this, so it isn't merely 'idiots with blogs'), and that post-unveiling its reliance on similar technologies creates the perception that it's Microsoft's 'answer' to the iPhone if not a direct competitor: people don't have to believe it's a telephony device to see them as converging technologies. As I said, I don't feel strongly about it's inclusion, I'm just responding to misinterpretation of my original point - AlKing464 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you're meaning all this in good faith. I think the most relevant thing here would be our rules on speculation our rules on speculation (thanks Blaxthos). We try not to include speculation in Wikipedia. Most of the pre-release stuff that focused on it being an iPhone competitor was speculation. And the link afterwards, was, of course, a parody (and unexpectedly funny to me. I've added the site to my bookmarks), rather than any serious comparison. It would be like including a section of that Paris Hilton jail parody music video in her article, really. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded like I thought your post was in bad faith (I certainly did not think that). I think the Dreaded Walrus did a better job of answering your query more clearly than I could ever do.  :-) /Blaxthos 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Debut Date?

Just figured I'd point out that the Overview states the revealed date as May 30th and the history states the date as May 29th. 74.230.218.48 02:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

fair use "shit"?

the second image, whoever uploaded it used "shit" on the page. Is that necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.113.190 (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the image upload comment on Image:Surfacecomputer.jpg, where the uploader (User:Demosthenesdown) states "this is a promotional picture from microsoft itself... take it down if you will, im sure someone is better at this fair use shit than myself."

While such surplus profanity (swearing for the sake of it) is discouraged in articles (for example, we wouldn't say "Manchester United F.C. is a fucking football club"), we can't really control what wording an editor chooses to use in their upload summaries, or on their user pages e.t.c., unless they are defamatory or contain illegal content. Which, of course, swearing isn't. You may be interested in having a read through Wikipedia is not censored. Hope I could help. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for the deletion of that picture. --SealedSun 10:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First place

What is the absolute, very first place that is going to have this tech? I just have to be the first person to use one of these star trek tables! D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Microsoft Surface Logo.png

Image:Microsoft Surface Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

acrylic?

'Acrylic' in the Specifications section links to a disambiguation page. Please fix it. Thanks. Chininazu12 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. :)  — AMK1211^talk! 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Product Photo

I just removed the fake photo of Microsoft Surface being used as a PacMan table. - Ehavir 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Again removed the fake photo. Ehavir 16:35, 26 March 2009 (PDT)

History of multi-touch

I find it amusing that this page includes a section on the history of multi-touch interfaces which doesn't mention the iPhone. Denial is not just a place in Egypt you know. Gari22 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to refer to the iPhone? From my viewpoint this section is about the history of Microsoft Surface and not about the history of multi-touch in general.193.170.124.186 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it mentions the technology being worked on for 25 years by the University of Toronto and Bell Labs, and goes on to mention the use of similar, though unrelated, technology in the film Minority Report. Hardly seems like an explicit history of this one product. And if it were a history of one product, the title of the section shouldn't be history, it should be development. Gari22 (talk)

NPOV

This article reads very much like an advert - there is a total lack of criticism, and it is very scanty on technical details, specifications, comparisons, and criticisms. Phrases such as "partner companies", "specially designed", "conventional touchscreen", "unique features" are all expressions that deserve to be in martketing material, not an encyclopedia. Conrad.Irwin (on wikt) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

List of available applications and games

Shall we create list of applications and games available on Surface? --Abhishikt 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

Surface 2.0

We need a new section about this. I have gathered some news sources regarding this.

1. Microsoft gives LCDs the power to see with Surface 2.0 - http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/05/microsoft-surface-2/
2. Microsoft Surface is Now Thinner, Smarter & Cheaper - http://mashable.com/2011/01/06/microsoft-surface-2-0/
3. CES 2011: Microsoft Surface 2.0 revealed, - http://www.liveside.net/2011/01/05/ces-2011-microsoft-surface-2-0-revealed-windows-8-to-run-on-soc/
4. CES 2011: Microsoft Surface 2.0 with Gorilla glass - http://news.oneindia.in/2011/01/06/tech-microsoft-surface-2-review-specs-ces-2011.html
5. CES: What we know and don't about Surface 2.0 - http://ces.cnet.com/8301-32254_1-20027471-283.html

-Abhishikt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 09:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Surface 1.0 - upgradeable?

Is there any way to upgrade an original Surface, whether or not it's officially supported by Microsoft? Does Surface have room for a standard motherboard, or is everything custom built for the table? It would be a shame to have to toss out that $15k Surface simply because the CPU was obsolete.173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

What is a "360-degree user interface" ?

Is it for 360-degree users? Seriously, no clue here.

I think clarification is needed on what it means for the developer version to come with "five seats." I presume that means that five people are allowed to develop simultaneously, but with this product, it could be five nicely upholstered, pressure sensitive chairs... .--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No Top, Bottom, Left, Right orientation [Citation needed !] We sit round all sides. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Brand new Microsoft Surface Tablet

This article will have to be completely revamped because Microsoft just announced WinRT and Windows 8 tablets that are called Microsoft Surface. WinMetro (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC) This article's device is now known as Microsoft PixelSense.68.149.175.120 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

add stuff to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_surface_tablet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Developer or manufacturer?

Samsung is listed as a developer, but as they only produce the devices, wouldn't that make them manufacturers? --Lumia930uploader (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Surface computer

The content we find under the "Surface computer" is really talking about Microsoft's implementation of the product, not about what it basically is. The topic should then allow disambiguation between PixelSense or Microsoft Surface. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The subject in Surface computer is not company-specific, whereas Microsoft PixelSense is. Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above, the subject of Surface computer refers to a more generic product category. Microsoft PixelSense is a particular type or implementation of the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seba5tien (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is enough information for this article to stand on its own. I agree, it is also company specific and not the over all technology. MBlairMartin (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. PixelSense refers to a specific kind of technology combining sensors with a display -- cameras embedded into the display matrix, which made its first appearance in the Surface Table 2.0. Surface computing is more broad and general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:E02:FD90:7DD9:78B6:A836:7503 (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Surface computer is a concept, and not only executed by PixelSense. --Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 16:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused

according to Microsoft, my Surface Pro 4, the Surface book, and the Surface studio all have PixelSense. look at the bottom of this link with the devices told about  It seems weird to have a page just for these old Surface 1 and Samsung devices when PixelSense is still used in the latest versions, should more information of the PixelSense be used? here is the screen specs for the SP4: Screen: 12.3” PixelSense™ Display Resolution: 2736 x 1824 (267 PPI) Aspect Ratio: 3:2 Touch: 10 point multi-touch link to spec Dre~ (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 

i presume pixelsense now just means the touch screen technology on surface laptops compared to the old meaning of, yknow, the tables. 2001:8003:A028:7300:C944:ACCF:AEEB:DA54 (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)