yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-T989] g_amith:
Hi Everyone,

Bought a refurbished Telus S2x phone recently and I'm having issues with Static noise for incoming and outgoing calls. Rebooting fixes it but again i get the issue after few hours. The noise does not sound like underwater like stated in other forms but it is just pure noise, i absolutely cant hear anything proper, the ring nor the person on the other side. So i dont know what such kind of noise is called to search in the forms.

Any help will be helpful. I have tried applying different custom ICS roms with various combinations of radios etc but still the same. Please advice. Currently im on Darkside TTLE Rom with Telus radio.

Thanks for any help
[T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-T989] Teo032:
Uh maybe you should try contacting Samsung instead
[T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-T989] EnigmaticGeek:
does this happen on your stock rom as well? You mentioned you have tried with many different rom/radio set ups, but didn't mention how it responded on stock. If it's happening on stock as well, then i would suggest getting a refund or contacting Samsung.

sent from my T989 full of CM awesomeness and a touch of Venom from the Darkside!!
[Touch Cruise General] robertdbuckley:
I have an htc polaris which has a broken (or insenstive/deactivated) touch screen. I need to try to alter settings in the registry but have to do it via active sync.

How can I find the reg files? I have looked but find no reg files in the windows directory.

Thanks for any help,

Rob
[Microsoft Surface] yumms:
According to a source at engadget.

http://m.engadget.com/2012/08/14/microsoft-surface-199/?icid=eng_latest_art
[Microsoft Surface] H-Streety:
If it's true, then I am pre-ordering one!
[Microsoft Surface] groaner:
I am still waiting for pricing on the pro but this sounds sweet, why not get both!

Sent from my Radio Shack TRS - 80
[Microsoft Surface] ronaldheld:
Now if the Pro were so nicely priced...
[Microsoft Surface] cardman827:
I was waiting for the pro as well but how is this even remotely possible to be the price. A 10 inch tablet with decent specs . I will definitely buy at that price and if it stinks the kids will get it and its on to the pro for me.
[Microsoft Surface] The Janitor Mop:
I refuse to believe it. I'm still expecting $499 or around there and won't believe such ridiculously low prices unless they come with loads, and I mean loads, of evidence.
[Microsoft Surface] le0ch:
Yeah I sadly have to agree, especially since there aren't any other news sources corroborating the rumor. I would expect a price of at least $400 on this--although $199 would be awfully nice...
[Microsoft Surface] satchef1:
If it's $199 there needs to be some pay-off - a way to make the money back. When they did this with the Xbox they made money back from Xbox Live subs and software sales. In the case of Surface, if it costs $300 to bring each unit to market and they then go on to sell them for $199, they're gong to need to make at least $100 off each user. This won't happen from Windows Store revenue alone; Microsoft only bag a 30% cut (so on average, users would need to spend over $300 on the Store just to break even). They could be looking at a subscription model like the $99 Xbox 360? But what would they include? More SkyDrive storage? Office 365? Xbox Music? Unlike with the Xbox, there isn't any essential subscription to add on.
[Microsoft Surface] dave888:
You forgett one thing. Market shares. How do you put a price on market share. The next model will have x amount of free sales depends of success and marketshare by surface.
[Microsoft Surface] groaner:
It could easily be 200. Amazon did it with the Kindle and made thier money from book sales.

Microsoft will make it back in software from the surface store. That is if they get a solid backing from devs.

As was said above. Maybe I'll get this and get the pro after release.

Sent from my Radio Shack TRS - 80
[Microsoft Surface] The Janitor Mop:
Kindle Fire:

7" Display

1024 x 600 resolution

Last gen (even at the time it was released) 1 GHz dual-core A9 processor

512 MB RAM

8 GB storage

Micro-USB

No SD slot

No camera

Plastic

Surface RT:

10.6" Display

Likely 1080p resolution (or greater)

Full-sized USB

Micro SD slot

Built in kickstand

2 cameras

Proprietary VaporMg casing (vapor-deposited magnesium)

32 GB or 64 GB storage

Tegra 3+ likely

1-2 GB RAM

The Surface RT is not even remotely comparable to the Kindle Fire, and for that matter, even the Nexus 7, and people need to stop comparing those low-grade tablets to the RT. The only official thing we know about pricing from MS is that it is supposed to be priced similarly to comparable ARM tablets. Comparable ARM tablets are in the $499+ range, not anywhere near $200.

http://www.pc-tablet.com/4441-microsoft-surface-rt-tablet-200/

The casing and glass alone of the Surface RT is expected to cost $150. The entire BOM of the Kindle Fire was approximately $200. The BOM of the Surface RT should well exceed $300. It wouldn't just have to have a subscription model to be sold at $199, it would have to have a ridiculous subscription model to be sold at that price.

No one has even mentioned the other main red flag that pops up with this ridiculous rumored price: brand image. A $200 price tag is the absolute best thing for MS... if their main goal is to kill brand image. Yea, release hardware that is on par with $499-$699 devices and sell it for $200, that it just perfect if your goal is to cheapen brand image.

There's only 2 likely things to happen: 1) these low prices rumors are a bunch of BS (most likely), 2) an unexpectedly low price will be the actual price and it will be subsidized by a ludicrous subscription model.
[Microsoft Surface] jarnow94:
The Surface RT has a resolution of 1,366 x 768.
[Microsoft Surface] qwerty warrior:
there is something here that just doesnt make sense

why is there a huge price difference

the new intel atoms will be fanless

so i dont see how it will be that more expensive

i guess they are pushing ARM tablets/Win8 for market adoption purposes
[Microsoft Surface] Dadstar:
It has already been announced that Intel tabs are gonna be $300 more than their RT counterparts. I'll edit with source as soon as I can.
[Microsoft Surface] jarnow94:
http://m.engadget.com/2012/08/17/windows-8-rt-tablets-to-sell-for-300-less-says-lenovo/ I've got your source right here :thumbup:
[Microsoft Surface] ohgood:
markets:

laptop

ultra tiny pc

some phone (since wp7 didn't happen)

ipad ( like it or not, ownage)

some android 10" tab

some Android 7" tab

ohhhhhhh loooook 4.5" phone/tab!

wayyyyy up there, ultra tiny laptops happened. they run full windows ( or Linux, or Mac os, or bad) and cost $239.

where is the market for a ultra ultra tiny, non-full-os, fragile, too big to pocket ... machine?

the pro/dev device makes more sense, but surface at $5-700 , the ipad is a 800 lb gorilla in the room again, and much cheaper.

edited, guessing surface price lower
[Microsoft Surface] The Janitor Mop:
emote: very good, convincing points. I am now convinced that MS just might do this. $199 cheap? I'm still very hesitant, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised anymore if they released it at around $300 and not the $500 I have been expecting.

I still think $199 cheapens brand image. You have to understand what I mean: of course it isn't coming in and making an already established, and presumably high quality, brand cheaper. Yes, it is the first product of its brand for MS. What I mean is that it is coming in and instantly making that brand cheap. So, instead of cheapening an already established thing, it is the establishing thing and it is establishing the image of that brand as cheap out of the gates. Most $199 tablets are small. The Surface RT will be compared to the iPad because it is iPad sized. When people look at them side by side, and see the Surface is less than half the cost, they will absolutely you-cannot-contradict-this think it must be inferior to the iPad.

Basically: Apple has been building BMWs for a while. MS is just now entering the car game, and their first model is an Audi, on par with Apple's BMW. Except MS priced it like a Honda, and so everyone is confused and thinks Apple's BMW must be way better.
[Microsoft Surface] e.mote:
>I still think $199 cheapens brand image...it is the establishing thing and it is establishing the image of that brand as cheap out of the gates

Do you think Google's Nexus brand is cheapened because of the $199 N7? How about any subsequent tablet from HP because of the $99 TouchPad? Do you expect every HP tablet to be $99 from now on?

The first priority is the product's success, and whatever else comes after. If Surface RT flops, it won't matter what its brand image is.

For MS, even the product (Surface) isn't as important as the market. If Surface needs to be the sacrificial lamb so MS can establish Win RT, then it will happen. An easy fix to that is for Surface to become a "cheap" brand, and to establish a new "premium" brand. Remember, there is yet no equity invested in the Surface name.

>When people look at them side by side, and see the Surface is less than half the cost, they will absolutely you-cannot-contradict-this think it must be inferior to the iPad.

Then using your example, a Honda must be inferior to a BMW, since it costs less?

Obviously, that's not true in every aspect, or even in many aspects. The Honda is better in some things--reliability, practicality, fuel efficiency, bang/buck, etc. Each caters to a different demographic. Similarly, Nexus 7 can do some things better than iPad, and some worse. It's not as popular, but "inferior" is not in the perception mix. Ditto for a $199 RT if that happens.

How MS prices the RT depends on what it wants to do with the Surface line. If Surface was intended as a tech template for OEMs to follow rather than to grab market share, then price will be ~$500, and sales will be lackluster. But if the rumor is true of 3 million Surface tablets being made, this isn't the intent.

By tying the tablet platform to its Windows cash cow, MS was hoping to leverage the Windows userbase to push its tablet effort. But many indications are that Win8 itself will have a mixed reception, so it has no coattail to ride. There is precious little else MS can use to establish WinRT as a platform, other than going for low price. Google did the same for Nexus 7, and it's working so far.

I agree that a $199 RT isn't cast in stone, but it looks to be under consideration, rather than being another net rumor. Acer's CEO didn't just pull the $199 price point out of a hat in his rant against Surface. He must have been privy to the memo.
[Microsoft Surface] ohgood:
car analogies.... great!

toyota, honda introduce hybrids. not really electric, not really full size... ape **** demand, they sell and run forever.

skip forward TEN PLUS YEARS

Chevrolet: HEY LOOK WE MADE A HYBRID TOO!!! (fanfare, loud lies about paying back the loan, loud promises about being a new, swift corporation)

no one cares.

the price point matters about as much as if its painted brown or beige. getting to market while there still is indecision is the key. there is very little indecision now, today, when people look for a tablet.

ipad ... owns

someandroidthing..... 2nd place

surface ..... customer Google's, sees its really a $40000 table, not a tablet... back to I pad vs android.

next
[Microsoft Surface] Swamp_cz:
WP7, WP8 and W8, all the Metro OS's – they're all being misunderstood by the market. Geeky complicated Android or toy-iPad are being preferred over smooth, simple and very productive UI. And why? Because nobody knows about Microsoft devices, they're still invisible to ordinary people and only geeks know about them, while geeks like me usually prefer something more powerful (I'm an ICS user).

This is a great way to change it - if they really release the Surface RT at $200, the 3M of devices will be sold before Xmas and the Metro tablets will spread everywhere. I'm planning to buy at least one myself, at this price point.

The other way to get it in public is to port Metro UI in some OS which everyone uses. People would get used to it and some of them would even imagine that on a tablet or a phone. I think this is starts to look familiar ;)

Bottom line - I'm not sure about the price, but I think it would make some sense. I also think that it's a brilliant move from MS, either to actually sell for $200 or even just to spread the rumor. And for 200 bucks - I'm preordering it the very moment this gets available! :)
[Microsoft Surface] ka-la:
"... either to actually sell for 200 or even just to spread the rumor..."

spreading that rumor isnt going to help them if they sell it for 500 later on, people will be dissapointed and look elsewhere.

Although I agree with e.mote's opinion, its still hard to belive 200$ price point. Good quality tablet with Microsoft branding and full blown office for 200 seems like a too good dream. And even though they make 3M Surfaces, they cannot forget the OEM's, after all, its the main point why Windows has been so popular, OEM's. People like choices. I highlty doubt that Microsoft is going to kill OEM's just to put it's own tablet on the market.
[Microsoft Surface] e.mote:
>Good quality tablet with Microsoft branding and full blown office for 200 seems like a too good dream.

Yes, it would be "too good" if MS were the dominant player, but it isn't. MS is an underdog, and it's not the only one. Google is also ahead of MS. When you're at the disadvantage, you go with your strength. The one strength MS has is its deep pockets, and its willingness to spend to buy market share. It has done this over and over.

Anybody remembers the infamous Bing cashback promotion a few years back, when MS was handing out 33% cashback to every Joe and his sister? People have gotten thousands of dollars back. I've gotten a few hundreds. I can't imagine how much money was spent on that. And all this just to push Bing.

>And even though they make 3M Surfaces, they cannot forget the OEM's, after all, its the main point why Windows has been so popular, OEM's.

MS needs to establish the Win RT platform, and if going by conventional route, ie pricing tabs equivalent to iPad, the likelihood is high that the platform will fail. If that happens, OEMs will fail along with MS.

Android tabs failed last year trying to go price-parity against iPad. This year, the only successful Android tabs thus far are KF and N7, both at $199. It's not rocket science to see the same for WinRT.

Business relationships can be complicated. It's not a binary friend-or-foe issue. The crux is communicating with your partners, so everyone knows where the other stands. From reported OEM reactions (cf TheVerge), it sounds like MS has done that.

One way to do this, assuming a $199 RT, is to waive OEM licensing fees for this calendar year. Second, explain to OEMs that the $199 RT is a one-time promo deal. Third, allow OEMs to differentiate. This is already possible since Surface RT is only one model, and it will run on Teg3, which is a year-old SoC. OEMs can use more current & faster SoCs like the quad-Exynos or OMAP5.
[Microsoft Surface] ka-la:
Well why didnt MS try to make Zune popular the same way? Like selling it for 99$. It was priced as iPod Touch was. Im sure they wanted it to suceed, but it just didnt. Yes you could say that maybe they've learned from it, but wasnt the xbox story before it?`

Allow OEMs to differentiate. Yes they could use different chips, but tegra 3 doesnt cost few hundred bucks less that Samsungs Exynos or TI OMAP5. It is older generation, indeed. But if there would be these two comparisions:

1. Asus windows 8 RT tablet

exynos quad core (cortex A15) CPU

2gb ram

plastic case (or aluminum)

standard display (1360x768)

price : 500$

2. Microsoft surface for RT

Tegra 3

2gb ram

magnesium case

also standard display

price: 200$

Which one would you get? For normal customers, it doesnt really matter which CPU is in there as long as the system is responsive.Also ARM architecture is all new for customers, they can't really compare them to each other. For majoriy of people would go for the 200$ tablet.

Asus and other OEM's just cant cut the corners that much to make competetive product to surface and also make profit from it. Some say that MS makes money back from store sales so they could sell with 200$, but where it leaves OEM's?

Maybe the 200$ price could be as with the rumor that Pro costs 70$ now and 199$ next year.

There was also rumor already about that microsoft hires workers to work on surface 2, so maybe microsoft releases new surface (better) faster than we'd expect, and needs to get rid of these faster.

You know the saying: when something is too good to be true, it normally is. and that is what exactly is happening here.

Sorry for my bad english and my typos.
[Microsoft Surface] e.mote:
>Well why didnt MS try to make Zune popular the same way?...Yes you could say that maybe they've learned from it, but wasnt the xbox story before it?

Zune is an apt example of a like-priced (and entirely competent) device failing to get any mindshare, and MS may well have learned from that debacle of "conventional pricing." XBOX is an example of the razor-blade loss-leading strategy, but it didn't raise any eyebrow because this is standard MO for consoles.

Both Amazon & Google resorted to this same strategy with success for their tablet platforms, albeit not so far as to take a major loss on each sale. But the stakes are much higher for MS, since it involves the future of their cash cows, Windows and Office.

>$500 Asus RT vs $200 MS RT

How differentiation works can't be answered until we know what RT can do, and to date MS has kept RT mostly under wraps. But one thing we can answer is that a $200 RT will likely fare much better than a $500 one when going up against iPad (and Nexus 7).

A $200 RT solves the chicken-or-egg issue, which is to get a large enough userbase for devs to develop for the platform. Then, yet more users will buy in, and yet more devs will jump, and the cycle can become self-sustaining. OEMs will benefit if this happens, even if they take it in the shorts for this first iteration. We need to look beyond this particular launch.

At this juncture, having OEMs onboard isn't a big deal. Look at Google and Nexus 7. Having OEMs didn't help the Android tablet market in 2011.

Whatever the case, we'll know for sure in two months.
[Microsoft Surface] ka-la:
Im not saying that it is entirely inpossible, the 200$ price point, but its unlikeley. I havent yet decided in which side am I, really.

Yes 200$ rt would solve chicken-or-egg issue to get userbase and devs but whats the point if you loose all OEM's and sell the surface in some stores they have. Microsoft clearly said that they are going to sell these in their retail stores and in few online stores.

But here comes another reason that why it might be 200$, microsoft only markets it in their stores. But tablets sold on some 3rd part stores want to make profit too, so they add up to the tablet's real price.
[Microsoft Surface] The Janitor Mop:
I already said I totally agree that the $199 price might make sense. MS just better be quick to roll out a more expensive, premium line if the Surface is successful.
[Microsoft Surface] the92playboy:
I would like to discuss the car analogy a bit more...

People are saying that consumers prefer a BMW (iPad) over a Honda (Surface). I found Toyota sales figures easier than Honda, and for our purposes, they are interchangible, so I am rolling with that. So, people would like to have BMW's more than Toyotas. You bet. But at the end of the day, who is the bigger car producer? Which company makes more money? It's not even close, Toyota takes it.

So as much as everyone wants to drive a BMW, or even a Porsche or Lambo, at the end of the day, there are more people drive Toyota's than any of those other types. And it's because they are more affordable, and do exactly what people need, with the right amount of luxury tossed in.
[Microsoft Surface] The Janitor Mop:
Except the iPad, the BMW of the analogy, is actually the one that has Toyota-level sales numbers. The problem is that the expensive tier car is beyond what people can afford while an expensive tablet is a luxury the common man can afford. It's not even close, Apple is making more money than anyone else. The Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire are the only tablets that have had any degree of success resembling the ipads, so maybe going the Honda route is the only way to sell the kind of volume that makes Apple at all hesitant.
[Microsoft Surface] the92playboy:
Yes, obviously the iPad is selling more than the Surface right now. I don't think we need to discuss why that is.

Up until Surface, there has been no other real competition to the iPad. And now people here are saying that even if a strong competitor to the iPad came along (Surface), and cost over half as much, people wouldn't buy it because they would associate it with being cheap.

So basically what those people are saying is that if Toyota made a model of a car that was very competitive and comparable to a BMW but cost half as much, everyone would disregard it because it is a Toyota.

RE: iPad is a luxury the every man can afford, I see your point. But I think the same point could be made for MacBooks and iMacs, and they can't even be in the same discussion as Microsoft when it comes to market share. So, obviously economic sensibility does play a role in a lot of peoples, companies and schools minds, and that ultimately results in increased market share, which is Microsoft's goal with the Surface.
[Microsoft Surface] e.mote:
>economic sensibility does play a role in a lot of peoples, companies and schools minds, and that ultimately results in increased market share, which is Microsoft's goal with the Surface.

There is yet another possibility (since we're all guessing here) for RT launch, and that is to price it high and keep it a limited launch, ie to early adopters and ISVs only.

Reasons: RT is likely not ready, and neither is Office for RT.

. While Win8 x86 has made multiple public beta rounds since last year, RT has yet to have a public hands-on, and every public showing was carefully monitored. This normally indicates an early beta. That MS announced RTM for RT doesn't necessarily mean it's polished.

. Only a handful of OEMs are selected to release RT models. This points to a limited launch, which in turn usually means a product not polished enough for wide release.

. MS has itself announced that Office won't be ready for launch, and will only be available in "preview" version.

If RT is not ready, a wide release would hurt the cause more than it helps. More prudent would be a staggered launch, with a limited release to be ironed out by techies and early adopters, then a wide release after.

We should know if this is the case well before launch. If there is little advance marketing, I'd put money on a limited release.

If Win8 needs 3 public betas, WinRT can use at least one, and this initial launch can fit the bill. If such is true, one can argue for either "high" or "low" price points. High, to keep out regular users and avoid a public backlash. Low, to encourage and reward early adopters for their beta testing services.
[Microsoft Surface] ka-la:
I dont think people will disregard the surface if it will be 200$ just thinking, oh thats cheap. It's a quality product after all, with magneisum case and so on. The people who buy it love it and recommend it to other people also.I think people know that cheap doesn't always mean crappy.

BTW, its unlikeley the Windows 8 RT leaks anyway. Why should it? Its not like you can go and install it on any ARM development board. It comes preinstalled. And if its already RTM, I think it should be finished.