> How exactly they cared about surface? I think I found someone who dislikes Microsoft more than I do. Nice to meet you:-) LOL Seriously... you are mostly cor

> How exactly they cared about surface? I think I found someone who dislikes Microsoft more than I do. Nice to meet you:-) LOL Seriously... you are mostly correct about the hardware deficiencies, I won't argue this. The surface line started off very badly but... it engaged. To this date, I don't think you can even get Linux running on any of them w/o some effort. Mine's was a quick comment and had more to do with Microsoft redefining the hybrid Tablet/Laptop market. It was, I think the only time that I could recall, when they finally took the lead on something. Some hiccups, of course, but overall an industry defining success. It was odd - for me - to see Microsoft leading the field in anything. I always saw MS as a company that envied someone else's innovation and tried to replicate that success. From Office Programs early on, AOL competitor, VisiCalc/Lotus 1-2-3 competitor, Gaming, Browsers... the list is nearly exhaustive. Even small things like sound formats, image formats... they needed to upend someone else's established format and replace it with their own. Even their original OS - DOS - wasn't theirs but a hacked version of someone else's effort. I'm certain you know their history (comment meant for some others reading this). Finally with Surface, they designed and helped re/define the Tablet/Laptop market in a design pleasing way. They also added Surface Studio - which I thought was very effective. I remember seeing videos on their thought processes, who they consulted when they created Surface Studio. After years of envisioning brutes, they presented themselves as polished professionals during these formative 'Surface' years. Just wanted to expand on my previous quick comment for clarification.