3 ms·

The "super tablets" that the article claims as the next step are what every nearly tablet before the iPad tried to be, and they universally fell on their face.

• ams6110 12y ago
  In arguing for "super tablets" the author writes: PCs are expensive, prone to failure, easy to break and magnets for viruses and malware. After just a bit of use, many PCs are susceptible to constant freezes and crashes. I don't see how a super tablet addresses any of that except perhaps cost. Ever drop a tablet? Have it fall into water? Ever see people using phones and tablets with shattered glass? I don't see them being less "breakable" than a PC, in fact much moreso because they are being moved around a lot more. They are also a lot more likely to be stolen, misplaced, or lost. And a tablet, especially one that runs MS Office, would not be any less of a target for malware than a PC, nor any more immune to it.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    Ever drop a tablet? Have it fall into water? Yes, both in bath and in a stream. My Nexus 7 survived just fine, and didn't even shutdown. By not needing to vent heat like most laptops, the tablet is actually pretty well isolated. It only had a few drops of water seep inside even after submerging completely.
  • bztzt 12y ago
    You're right that there's nothing inherent to the tablet form factor per se that makes it less vulnerable to malware. It's just that the different input mechanism and smaller screen size makes backward compatibility less useful, and it's easier for platforms (including Windows RT) to build security into their app models if they don't have to worry about compatibility.