Talk:Microsoft Courier

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Courier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Stylus?

Now I haven't dug too deeply but I'm pretty sure that it's a digitizer pen. A stylus implies it is resistive, but the screen seems like it is a hybrid capacitive/digitizer touchscreen similar to some tablet PCs in the market. 128.238.252.122 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the demonstrations, an eraser in the back of the pen is shown. This means it's an digitizer pen and can't be resistive. Although I would still call it a stylus. Just an active stylus perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.238.83 (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources list it as a stylus -- are there other sources that say something different? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more semantics. I understood that above comment implied it shouldn't be named a stylus, because the screen probably is capacitive. In the courier demo video, you can see the back of the stylus is an eraser. This can't be done by a "dumb" stylus. Placelimit (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beta testing

If it really is being released this year, shouldn't it already be in some kind of beta test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.251.147 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it isn't in a beta test? Also, the hardware itself isn't the most spectacular part, it's the UI which is special here. They can test the UI even on a research device as simple as CODEX. Furthermore not exactly sure if the discussion page is meant for these kind of discussions? Placelimit (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a beta test, shouldn't the details be on the main page?173.58.251.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Only if it's published in a reliable source. Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the product, and Wikipedia is not the place to post every change in status during development. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only information that is Referenced from a Source

A few people seem to know inside information when making edits, do not break an NDA when filling in information. Others have removed info even if it was corrected, but lacked a valid source which is correct. If you know this info find a few sources that back it up so it doesn't look made up. --Templarian (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

Do we really need a Wikipedia article devoted to a product that doesn't exist, never existed (except as a concept), and is never going to exist?

I mean, it's kind of amusing to read about the design, features, and specs of a non-existent product, but I'd think the article should probably be deleted.

Please sign your comments. This product won't be released to the public, but development was far more then just a concept. (see sources) Also crude prototype were released in public already in January 2008. Furthermore, even if it was only a concept, it's still noteworthy. Wikipedia is filled with pages about concepts, prototypes, and even fictional devices. This doesn't matter, according to wikipedia's own definition Encyclopedia: "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" Since this article is (referenced) knowledge, wikipedia should hold it's knowledge.Placelimit (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also remember a submitter saying that the page for the nexus one should be deleted because it wasn't real, just shortly before the nexus one was released.24.255.229.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"End?"

The quotation in the "End of Courier" section of the article doesn't even imply this project ever existed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.108.145 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official Information on Cancellation

Official information has been provided as to why it has been cancelled. Read this for more info. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Neo

This article needs a section on how an evolution of the Courier was announced today.

Evieliam (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]