News Microsoft Surface Pro 2 gets sneaky CPU upgrade

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that one's own morality was dependent on that of others. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go and steal me some stuff because others do it too.

The Sales of Goods act (1979) states that the goods sold must function as per their intended purpose. If a firmware update shops them from functioning, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to fix or exchange the product.

That's not Microsoft's problem. They got what they understood they were buying. The Honda Civic 2011 revision, although still the same model, included a lot of little extras that my Honda Civic 2009 model did not have. Such is life.

 

And where does a person get their morals from ?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives the following description

No. The manufacturer isn't responsible your rights are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer, and so you must make any claim against the retailer.

Well it is Microsoft's problem if people start to think im not buying one of those as they may add a load of new features a couple of months after i bought one.
Its expected that a 2011 car may differ from a car two years older, but we are not talking years here we are talking about two months, should we call one Surface Pro 2 the Surface Pro 2 October revision and the other one the Surface Pro 2 December revision ? How about we name each Surface Pro 2 after the month it was sold like we do with years for cars ?

We could even put a plate on them to show what month it was made in the same way we use licenses plates to identify the year when a car was made.

 

Actually the 2009 and 2011 model look virtually identical. The latter does come with hidden extras. And of course, in the computer world things move faster.

The point remains: if Microsoft sells the Pro 2 with an X list of specs, and people buy it in awareness and acceptance of those specs, then it does not matter if Microsoft later ups those specs. Otherwise how long should Microsoft leave it before upgrading? How long should Apple have left it to go from iPad 3 to the iPad 4? What difference does it make to existing owners whether their model is superseded three months or twelve months down the line? Or is it about a subjective feeling that they paid to be top dog for more than a few months? I mean, for real?

As a psychologist I could go on for a few hours about that, but I won't. If you are arguing that it is OK to deliberately break your tablet to get an upgrade under warranty, then that's your moral standard and I'm not going to argue with you about those. But the law says it is just as wrong as the acts that you hold up as example, and which incidentally people go to prison for. Just sayin'.

And who do you think that the retailer claims against? Same difference.

It is not a clever move by Microsoft, but it does not warrant the huge outrage either. People got what they understood they bought, and they got an outstanding piece of kit. Then the world moved on. The wise master says: be an early adopter at your own risk. He also says: stop acting like a spoilt brat and count your blessings.

 

I would agree that is a problem, because in effect you don't know what you are buying.

I wouldn't, because I knew what I was buying at the time, even if three months later things may change. If the new model gets mixed in with the old and it is pot luck which one you get, then I'd object.

 

Its not about when a previous model is superseded its about distinguishing between one model and another so the customer knows what they are paying their money for and not taking a lucky dip.

Sorry but at any point did I say I would break it or anyone else should ? IIRC i said...

And just to clarify maybe has the definition of Perhaps; possibly.

No. It all depends on what legal or otherwise agreement the retails has with the manufacturer who is under no obligation to reimburse the retailer should they wish.

Just not as "outstanding" as one bought 2-3 months down the line.

 

Yup, and then you went on to defend that action, and I went on to challenge it.

A manufacturer has product liability towards the supplier/retailer as well as the customer.

Isn't that always the case with technology?

 

Sorry maybe i missed the part where i defended that action, and even if i did im not sure a possibility can be defended as until it happens it remains exactly that, a possibility not an action.

No. The only liability a manufacturer has with a retailer is when individuals are harmed by an unsafe product, a retailer has no legal standing if the manufacturer decides its not going to reimburse the retailer for exchanging a product not covered by its warranty

When a new product comes out yes, but as has been said many times this isn't being sold as a new product so the customer has no way of knowing if they are getting the Surface Pro 2 or the 2.5

 

With the Intel 4400, you should be able to achieve intel intru 3d display output.

 

"But they're bad guys too!", remember? And of course the morality of a possible action can be defended or challenged. You know, like hypothetically?

So you're saying that a manufacturer is liable for faulty products (as in: not fit for purpose, or malfunctioning)?

Now they don't, but when they bought one before this upgrade occurred they knew exactly what they were getting, and for those customers it does not matter whether an improved version has come on the scene a few months later.

 

Could someone who isnt discussing morals, and squabbling over alternative i5 tablets past and present... point me in the direction of somewhere to discuss this article?

I came into this thread not looking at the comment count, read most of it and thought to myself 'probably nobody else gives a damn anyway' and find 50 posts! wow, i was mistaken... except there isnt even 1 post in all this discussing the article.

 

Yes and i also remember saying that is it any wonder people think its OK to commit fraud when they see politicians and big company's doing the exact same thing and getting away with it, apart from the odd time someone is made an example of.

Well that depends on if we are still discussing the sales of goods act, or the manufactures warranty.

And you know this how ? either way selling the same model of product but with two very different feature sets and CPU speeds causes nothing but resentment and confusion about the product.

 

I'm saying that when you buy a product knowing what it is you're buying, you have no entitlement to a free upgrade when an improved version of said product comes out somewhere down the line, whether that is in a year's time or in two months' time. Have a snit, argue that "they're doing it too!" and all the other overentitled child reasoning, but that doesn't change the fact it is overentitled child reasoning.

 

You know if you have to result to insulting people some would say its you acting childish, but that's kinda par for the course with you isn't it.

Either way you seem to be happy with, to use your example. Being sold a 2009 spec Honda Civic re-badged as a 2011 model, after all they are both cars and you knew you were buying a car so you're happy even though the next customer gets the upgraded version of your car for the same money.

 

No, I have already agreed with Gareth that it is a problem when the two versions are sold concurrently without the buyer knowing which one they are getting.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted if I criticise an attitude that you illustrated (I mean, really?). I was under the impression that we were talking about hypotheticals.

 

Ha ha ha ha... I pity you all, arguing over the semantics of a few throwaway comments made days ago, because none of you can bear to be proved wrong... Ha ha ha ha ha ha haa..... The article reported what happened, and people have different views on its implications, but bickering for days is just silly.

 

It all depends on whether Intel have something new to announce in all their markets, isn't the end of January normally when the firesale happens and they release what's new?

If so then it's Microsoft's stupid idea to use the same name on a different and better product and make customers play a lottery. I know I wouldn't bother with one until all the old stock was cleared/returned and that could take until Easter, if not later.

 

Dude. This is Bit-Tech forums!

 

To be honest, from those features VT-d is super-pointless in a tablet. Why, you may ask. Well, what devices can you assign to virtual machine via VT-d on a tablet ? SATA controller ? Uhm no, that needs to stay with the base OS, or it wouldn't run. Graphics adapter ? Same problem. And we could go through all components of Surface Pro, and you would find there is actually nothing you can use VT-d for. There are simply no PCI-E devices in Surface Pro you could take from the base OS and assign it to the virtual machine.

And for assigning USB to the VM, you don't even need VT-d. And VT-x for CPU virtualization is there in older CPU too.