[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

Many people will sacrifice performance for ergonomics. 10 years ago very few people even used laptops because they didn't afford enough performance. If the device is fast enough for what you're using it for, a 2x performance boost isn't that big of an issue. It's not true of everyone, but the majority of PC/tablet owners need little performance.

When there's no prior experience with a recent laptop I can fully understand it; but if someone is using f.e. even a core i3 notebook with a decent enough add in GPU and then goes to a windows-whatever tablet the WTF effect will be there and not even talking about any advanced or complicated tasks either.

Originally Posted by silent_guy

Try using a laptop as a cookbook in the kitchen.

These are subjective matters. I don't need a cookbook to start with, since I had worked in the past for more than half a decade as a professional. But even if I couldn't imagine what the benefits of a tablet would be in such a case.

Not joking actually: it's one of the daily uses of one of ours. Same thing for bathroom usage (clunky with a laptop), bedtime reading (us), bedtime cartoons (kid), car entertainment (kid), economy airplane seats, etc.

Subjective as above; I use all 10 fingers to type and to that quite fast. Unless a tablet has a dock with a keyboard (which bounces back to laptop ergonomics anyway), browsing (which in my case also involves a lot of typing) isn't going to cut it on a tablet yet for my needs. Frankly I don't need any device on the shitter, since thank God it's usually an affair of a couple of minutes; as for the rest I can understand a tablet when there are a lot read only browsing sessions which in my case doesn't apply. Again see what I wrote: for my needs.

My 15" laptop and iPad are both stashed under the bed and get about 50/50% usage. Just depends on what you're doing. Somehow, for web stuff, I don't feel the iPad 3 is considerably slower than the quad code i5 of the laptop, so the speed argument doesn't bother me there. That's even more so for web stuff with dedicated apps (e.g. dedicated forum reading apps, RSS feeds, etc. which accounts for 80% of my web consumption anyway.)

Still comes down as to what you're doing with each device and what the laptop hw exactly consists of; there are quite a few things tablets can't do for their own benefit. You're not obviously going to burn a DVD for instance on a tablet while simultaneously doing N other tasks, nor do tablets have yet any super fast hard drives. Whether notebook or PC using SSD hdds overcomes in many cases in overall responsiveness quite a few other hw upgrades/differences.

Given the topic your iPad or any iOS device isn't a fair metric for comparison anyway. Try placing upcoming win8 powered notebooks against upcoming win8 powered tablets within give or take the same price point and it's not going to cut the cake for the latter if there's a Tegra3, OMAP5, Qualcomm S4 or anything comparable inside. Once you have an adequate experience on windows platforms (and no I'm not exactly talking about everyone's grandma - and before I get misunderstood I actually admire elderly folks that try to keep up with technology) any differences are more than easy to detect. If its a conscious choice to use that tablet just for a fancy e-book reader or generic infotainment device than fine; for anything else somewhat experienced users are aware of any tradeoffs they're going to face.

[wco81]

Originally Posted by MfA

That's just the biggest fucking failure, no one can compete with Apple on screens because no one has the volume they do ... the momentum they build up from iPod to iPhone to iPad is almost impossible to overcome in that respect. No one can afford to pay for the tooling for a complete display manufacturing line of their own but Apple. With the processor though they could have had the competitive advantage, even if Intel had to throw FinFETs at it to make it happen I'm pretty sure they would have.

Well, Google and MS both have the cash to make upfront payments of billions like Apple regularly does.

But they obviously won't do that unless they anticipate demand in the millions of units per quarter.

[Squilliam]

My personal verdict is to wait for either the iPad 5 vs Surface 2.0 comparison and/or see how the haswell?? version of the surface performs. I wonder actually if Microsoft will release a mildly revised version with the lessons learnt from the RT for the Pro.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

My personal verdict is to wait for either the iPad 5 vs Surface 2.0 comparison and/or see how the haswell?? version of the surface performs. I wonder actually if Microsoft will release a mildly revised version with the lessons learnt from the RT for the Pro.

Whether Microsoft, Intel or anyone else when you start out fresh in a market it's reasonable to not go "all the way out" from the start. A toe in the water will show how the temperature looks like and depending on that it'll show how fast they're gonna dive in.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Whether Microsoft, Intel or anyone else when you start out fresh in a market it's reasonable to not go "all the way out" from the start. A toe in the water will show how the temperature looks like and depending on that it'll show how fast they're gonna dive in.

Yep, the whole tick/tock design philosophy has really taken off, see iPad 1 vs 2 which is still IMO the biggest leap in the iPad lineup for instance.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

If its a conscious choice to use that tablet just for a fancy e-book reader or generic infotainment device than fine; for anything else somewhat experienced users are aware of any tradeoffs they're going to face.

Hey, you asked for reasons why anyone would prefer a tablet over laptop. I gave you some. That's all. A tablet is a non-essential luxury device for most.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

Hey, you asked for reasons why anyone would prefer a tablet over laptop. I gave you some. That's all.

I said specifically that I can't think of much use for tablets over laptops and I don't sense much from your reply to it than typical e-book reader use for the tablet. It's not that I don't value your response. To add in fact to your reply, for those folks that take fairly long trips to and back from their work with public transportation a tablet is nearly a "must have" especially those that would otherwise pack a crapload of magazines, newspapers to read for their actual work. I drive to and back to work and it's usually just a painless 15-20 minutes drive on a national road.

A tablet is a non-essential luxury device for most.

How could someone disagree to that? One of the exceptions is above.

[zed]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

I said specifically that I can't think of much use for tablets over laptops

This reply sent in bed on my back, sure i could use a laptop also but then also i could use a desktop, nah mate this tablet thing is the best (cept this touchscren typing)

Edit i should take a picture of me using it but how, facetime? No i need a seperate camera

[Ailuros]

I've used more than one tablet on a trial basis and while it might be marvellous for you, it isn't obviously for me.

[Jubei]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

Jubei was talking like contrast doesn't matter at all, and resolution (along with cleartype) is the only relevant factor. He then took exception to my statement that contrast can make a Lumia 900 display look better than a iPhone4 display, saying nobody credible would agree.

Funny how you accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then go and do the very same thing. I never agreed or disagreed about your opinion regarding contrast. My exact quote was: "nobody would claim Lumia 900 has a sharper screen than iPhone 4 wich is what Microsoft has been claiming with Surface". I never took a stance on contrast or what screen "looks better" wich is a subjective opinion based on specific criterias. I only objected against ClearType + optically bonding = as sharp as iPad 3

You quoted me and changed the subject to contrast and then accused me of putting words in your mouth when i went back to the very topic i was discussing.

[Mintmaster]

Originally Posted by Jubei

You quoted me and changed the subject to contrast and then accused me of putting words in your mouth when i went back to the very topic i was discussing.

I did not change the subject. The subject was about, as dlm and you said, "visual quality". You then challenged his claims by focusing solely on resolution (which, to your credit, you apologized for), and now when I joined the same original topic of visual quality, you jumped into the same argumentation pattern you did against dlm: You directly quoted my statement about resolution and contrast both impacting overall display quality and retorted that nobody would find the Lumia sharper.

I made no claims to that effect and in fact stated that the iPhone4 is higher res, so why would you again be emphasizing sharpness unless you feel that's the only thing that matters?

Anyway, getting back to the Surface, it seems the display is very good, and it's not the factor holding it back. Apps are the issue. I don't think Windows RT has much life in it. By the time apps start making up ground, Clovertrail tablets will come down in price with the ability to run all existing x86 programs. I really think the non-pro Surface is just MS making a statement that it can make a great mobile device if they're put on the same playing field as Google+OEMs and Apple. They're not expecting it to take off.

Surface Pro is where MS is creating a product with a long term impact on the marketplace, not only through direct sales but also as an inspiration for OEMs.

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

Anyway, getting back to the Surface, it seems the display is very good

But it's not good enough for the price ... lets paraphrase what Anand said :
Microsoft couldn't use as good a processor as Apple so instead of getting a really good display they had to polish a turd ... and it's polished really really well.

I'm sorry that they misjudged the way Apple would push the high end tablet so completely, I really am ... but they did and by Microsoft sticking to their price point they are just setting themselves up for a huge fucking catastrophe.

A tablet is mostly for reading websites and watching movies in bed ... for half it's use case resolution is so fucking dominant they might as well not have even bothered coming to the high end price party without full HD. Adding on piss poor laptop capabilities doesn't really even it out.

[Laurent06]

Originally Posted by Mintmaster

Anyway, getting back to the Surface, it seems the display is very good, and it's not the factor holding it back.

First Anand didn't say "very good" but "quite good"

Second he writes this:

With the exception of text on web pages, the lower resolution Surface display isn’t overly bothersome.

To me it's a major point: when you read web pages, all what matters is text. I guess I'll have to check a real device to see if this point really is a problem.

[Jubei]

Microsoft was stuck between a rock and a hard place. They probably couldnt get 5 million S4 Pros in time for launch so their only option was Tegra 3 out of the vendors with ready windows drivers. They couldnt price it cheap because that would cause a riot in the OEM ranks. Either this will be another Zune or they will sell their stock and make a handsome profit while building their brand awareness slowly

But if they are serious about RT, they better start working for more powerful hardware. The majority of the reviews i have read complain about lag in desktop mode and slow apps. Maybe its the early software

[MfA]

They are in between a rock and a hard place of their own making ... they are trying to compete with Apple on their turf ... and to do that they have to act like a real vertically integrated company and say FU to the OEMs.

If they don't want to do that they have to differentiate ... the best way to do that would to not have jumped on the ARM bandwagon, with x86 they could have maintained compatibility. If they had pushed Intel would have had a better Atom SOC for tablets by now, or they could have gone with the AMD Z-60. Microsoft has the size to make things happen just a little bit faster, but instead they are just following.

[HMBR]

from the reviews I've read the Asus VivoTabRT seems like a better choice,
but I have to say, I'm impressed with Windows RT.

[Laurent06]

Originally Posted by MfA

If they don't want to do that they have to differentiate ... the best way to do that would to not have jumped on the ARM bandwagon, with x86 they could have maintained compatibility. If they had pushed Intel would have had a better Atom SOC for tablets by now, or they could have gone with the AMD Z-60. Microsoft has the size to make things happen just a little bit faster, but instead they are just following.

With x86 it's hard to differentiate no matter who you are, especially when dealing with Intel (unless you want "small" updates such as L3 cache sizes, number of GPU units, etc.). In fact going with ARM opens up a panel of providers, and one can go even further by picking an architecture license, which MS did.

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Laurent06

With x86 it's hard to differentiate no matter who you are, especially when dealing with Intel (unless you want "small" updates such as L3 cache sizes, number of GPU units, etc.). In fact going with ARM opens up a panel of providers, and one can go even further by picking an architecture license, which MS did.

I don't mean differentiate hardware wise, that's a battle they can't win without ditching OEMs and becoming fully vertically integrated ... and even then they can only hope to tie. If Samsung can't compete with Apple what makes you think Microsoft can? Only if there is some game changing technology they can get the exclusive licensing rights for (a CMY electrowetting display for instance) do they stand much chance.

For the moment they have to differentiate software wise and the easiest way to do that is leveraging the x86 legacy, instead of ditching it.

[Gubbi]

I too think that AMD's Z-60 is a much better match, perfect even, for a low end Surface device, but AMD is dying, betting on a limp horse is a sure way to lose.

Also I see the ARM Surface RT as a whack up the back of Intel's head to provide a credible low power solution. Atom isn't it, and never will be.

Cheers

[Laurent06]

Originally Posted by MfA

For the moment they have to differentiate software wise and the easiest way to do that is leveraging the x86 legacy, instead of ditching it.

But does x86 compatibility matter for lower end tablets? I guess this is the main question. I feel that the answer is no, because existing apps probably aren't designed for tablets and anyway most potential end users don't have any x86 software (except those discussing on hardware tech forums ).

Assuming the answer is no then IMHO going to ARM was a very wise move as if Windows RT succeeds, it will create a software ecosystem which won't run only on x86 CPUs and put pressure on Intel (no one in the industry, even MS, wants Intel to be the only actor).

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Laurent06

But does x86 compatibility matter for lower end tablets?

It would have saved them a ton and a half of work ... also just plain better performance.

[Laurent06]

Originally Posted by MfA

It would have saved them a ton and a half of work ... also just plain better performance.

I guess we really disagree on that subject

For tablets they needed a lot of work because their existing OS was not designed for tablets (in the same way existing apps aren't) or low power. They also took the opportunity to make all of their OS (from WP8 up to Windows 8) very close.

As far as performance goes, Intel is no better (or not significantly) than ARM for low power devices (smartphones and lower end tablets).

[Mintmaster]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

Everybody? Because a cell phone is right at your face?

Apple - leader of the high resolution push by telling consumers what they want - couldn't even be bothered with 720p for the iPhone5. Having two sides letterboxed instead of four solely for applications without resolution scaling was a more important design criteria than resolution.

but who's talking about getting work done? This is a tablet. The thing that's not supposed to be useful for content creation. It's for enjoyment.

Those whole raison d'etre of Surface is to be able to take on some productivity tasks of a notebook that tablets currently suck at. I would like higher resolution, but the market has been fine with 1366x768 for years for the majority of notebooks.

Clearly, because there's no other explanation is possible.

There really isn't. You mentioning Dell is not evidence. Lenovo has often given options for better displays, as have others. There's so much competition that laptop makers would jump on any chance of differentiation leading to even a few dollars higher profit. You don't think manufacturers pay attention to consumer choice when laptops are lined up next to each other in Staples or Best Buy?

Exactly: it is pretty much irrelevant for current high quality panels with excellent contrast.

Maybe I value indoor contrast more than most, but bring it outside and no display has excellent contrast. It's varies from okay to bad.
http://www.displaymate.com/Mobile_Br...ShootOut_2.htm

[Mintmaster]

Originally Posted by MfA

A tablet is mostly for reading websites and watching movies in bed ... for half it's use case resolution is so fucking dominant they might as well not have even bothered coming to the high end price party without full HD. Adding on piss poor laptop capabilities doesn't really even it out.

The double blind test above shows that they really aren't losing much for movies by lacking full HD. Apple's $429 price point for the iPad Mini 32GB (and $399 for the 16GB iPad2), 1024x768, wifi tablet isn't really making the Surface pricing look bad, and only helping the case that 1366x768 is fine for a lot of people.

But in the larger picture, as I said before, Surface RT is just a transitional product to say "we can match Apple's battery life, weight, build quality" etc. MS sees no future in ARM for their OS, including Windows Phone a few years down the road.

Originally Posted by MfA

It would have saved them a ton and a half of work ... also just plain better performance.

I don't think they put that much extra work into it. They needed it for phones anyway, so incrementally it was minimal.

[MfA]

As I said, Apple screws it's low/middle end customers ... but that is neither here nor there.

PS. if Android 4.1 can remove the response issues the Asus TF700T will be a much better product to show a quality alternative to the iPad ... or to Surface for that matter.