They have different levels from the one I have, with practically no insulation (perfect for the great northwet, where it's rarely very hot or very cold) to fully insulated. The one I have is also good if you have pets since it does not attract fur. Most of their others become fur magnets, and when you have 5 extremely furry pets, that becomes a nightmare.
Of course you'd use your desktop with large screen when you're at home for that type of work, but my point is a laptop with a large screen is perfectly usable for that type of work when on the go. A 10" 16:9 screen is not suitable for that type of work regardless if you have the processing power and resolution to run that stuff. Yes most people run spreadsheets or word processing on their portable computing devices vs CAD/CAM but the difference is you don't need a lot of processing power to run the former so why would you buy the Pro to do that type of stuff? If the RT cannot run simple spreadsheets or wordprocessing then MS is intentionally gimping RT in order to sell more Pro units. What I think they should be doing is make mobile apps that are able to run the basic functions of those programs designed to run on RT version of W8 or W8 phone.
Excellent point which I also alluded to earlier. People who claim they're comfortable running full blown Windows apps with all the features on a tiny little 10" 16:9 screen need to prove themselves by how many units of the Pro will be sold vs the RT. For devices with tiny little 10" widescreens I'd say the majority of people who would want to do work on them would prefer to use mobile apps designed to do the same thing as full blown desktop apps but streamlined to use less resources, less features etc. This is why Apple created iMovie instead of creating a "desktop replacement" iPad Pro to run Final Cut Pro...
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
What rock have you been living under? Nobody sells 4:3 notebooks anymore. AFAICS, every current notebook from Lenovo, HP, Asus, Dell, and Acer is 16:9.
I do tons of work on a 1366x768 16:9 notebook and so do most people, because most sub-$1k notebooks (and virtually all $500 notebooks) are the same. If I had a 1080p 10" screen, I would be MORE productive than on my 13.3", not less.
There's nothing wrong with 16:9, either. If you have it and put your taskbar on the side, you'll have a better aspect ratio for your work area than a typical 16:10 setup with the taskbar in the default position. 16:9 is actually better for side-by-side windows anyway.
LOL of course it helps. Where's your formula that says going from a 1080p 23" desktop down to a 768p 13.3" still makes a notebook useful for work, but going down to a 1080p 10.6" makes it useless? There's some magical sweetspot at 13.3" where resolution doesn't matter anymore, and there's a steep cliff below that size for productivity? Give me a break.
You really need me to walk you through this step by step, don't you.
Why does an Ultrabook command a premium over a regular notebook? Because it's more portable.
Why is the iPad a hit, despite losing tons of functionality compared to other $500 notebooks/netbooks? Because it's more portable.
So what on earth is stopping you from seeing that a Surface-like form factor has a desirable portability advantage over every small notebook in its price range?
You're missing the point dude. I'm not talking about running Word or Excel on Netbook sized widescreens...
Who said there was something wrong with 16:9? I said at 10" a 16:9 screens is not suitable for real work unless your definition of real work is writing emails.
You're still dodging the question. What REAL WORK do YOU do on a tiny 10" widescreen that requires the processing power you're paying for in the Pro???
Apparently you need your hand held here. Yes Ultrabooks are more portable because they are LIGHTER and THINNER not because they're LIMITED to TINY Netbook sized 10" widescreens....*facepalm*...which means I could buy an Ultrabook to do real work...which means the extra premium makes sense.....make sense?
Who the hell wants to TILE two windows on a itty bitty 10" widescreen and pretend they'd be comfortable doing real work?
Tiling only makes sense when you have SIZE.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
Well said. One more factor that you forgot but also supports your argument is the smartphone. The ARM tablet is clearly the most redundant device.
So far I am impressed with the hardware and software design on the Surface tablets.
Regarding the Surface RT tablet, it should do fine provided that Microsoft markets it and prices it intelligently. The industrial design and flexibility is in some ways a step up above most current Android/ipad tablets.
The Surface RT tablet is a consumer-focused device. It will include a touch optimized version of MS Office Student and Home edition (including MS Word, MS Excel, and MS PowerPoint) pre-installed. Lack of legacy [x86] app support is irrelevant, because it will be used in the same manner that existing tablets are used: movies, video, internet, email, social networking, games, apps, etc. with the added productivity benefit of having Word/Excel/PowerPoint for no extra charge, and with the added productivity benefit of having a choice between Touch and Type keyboard. Any new applications that are created for the RT tablet should be touch optimized applications. So again, no need for legacy app support on this device.
Regarding the Surface RT tablet, it should do fine provided that Microsoft markets it and prices it intelligently. The industrial design and flexibility is in some ways a step up above most current Android/ipad tablets.
The Surface RT tablet is a consumer-focused device. It will include a touch optimized version of MS Office Student and Home edition (including MS Word, MS Excel, and MS PowerPoint) pre-installed. Lack of legacy [x86] app support is irrelevant, because it will be used in the same manner that existing tablets are used: movies, video, internet, email, social networking, games, apps, etc. with the added productivity benefit of having Word/Excel/PowerPoint for no extra charge, and with the added productivity benefit of having a choice between Touch and Type keyboard. Any new applications that are created for the RT tablet should be touch optimized applications. So again, no need for legacy app support on this device.
One more thing I forgot to mention. With the integrated kickstand as a support mechanism, the Surface RT (and Pro) tablet with Touch/Type keyboard attached will be stable on one's lap (as opposed to the current Asus Transformer hybrid tablets that are a bit unstable when used on one's lap).
Regarding Sunspider, did you try on various machines/browsers? Did you see multiple cores working?
Instead of trying to compare different architectures, which always is difficult, it might be more interesting to compare for instance quad core and dual core Samsung phones based on their Exynos chips. Both are very close. See this. The difference is mostly due to CPU frequency.
Instead of trying to compare different architectures, which always is difficult, it might be more interesting to compare for instance quad core and dual core Samsung phones based on their Exynos chips. Both are very close. See this. The difference is mostly due to CPU frequency.
When I said I know what is being or has been done it's because I know people working at Intel (both in CPU design and on Android port), Google (Android and v8 engine), Linaro (compiler and Android) and obviously ARM. I might be biased (everyone is after all), but in that particular case I don't think I am.
I gave you my own speculation (which is based on the fact I do technical benchmarking during my day job), you disagreed, and I failed at convincing you, so there's no other way but to wait
And at the risk of quoting myself, there is yet another thing I failed to mention. The magnesium alloy used on the Surface RT (and Pro) tablet is wear and scratch resistant (as opposed to some current aluminum case designs like ipad, Transformer Prime, etc. that are easily prone to scratching).
Mintmaster
Veteran
How am I missing the point? Your point, emphasized in capital letters, was that 4:3 makes a "BIG DIFFERENCE". Unfortunately for you, that point is dead wrong because the market size for 4:3 notebooks is next to zero.
Yes, I know that's what you said, and you provided zero justification for it. Why is a lower resolution 13.3" 16:9 screen so much more useful? You get less information, and 1080p on a 10.6" isn't below
I've never had a 10.6" 1080p screen, so I can't definitively answer that. I suspect it would be everything that I do on my 768p notebook, which in turn is everything I do on my desktop when it's not available: Excel, Word, Powerpoint, MATLAB, coding, circuit design, PCB layout, AutoCAD, etc.
I had a 10" HP netbook, and screen size wasn't a problem. Resolution (1024x576) and the slowass SSD was. I gave it to my sister (who used it to replace her broken 14"), and she felt no need to buy a notebook after I put a better SSD in there. She does finds her ARM tablet (which she got for free) to be rather limiting, however.
Uhh, ultrabooks ARE limited in screen space compared to 15" or 17", genius. Ask yourself why the vast majority of them target smaller screens. Once again, you dodge the question: Why is 13" the magical size for you? Why do you think 13" has no disadvantage over 17" or 24" for desktop applications, but 11" is completely unusable?
Andrew was being nice to you. You're not digging yourself into a hole, your digging a canyon.
The only reason I got a 13.3" was because I wanted a discrete GPU (Allendale's GPU sucks), but most people don't have that requirement. I would have bought an M11x if it wasn't thicker, heavier, and slower than the 13" Acer I got. That I got a larger screen in the smaller package was just icing on the cake, not the primary reason for purchasing. The reason 12" and 11" aren't more popular is that they didn't exist with a decent CPUs until recently.
I'm really liking the design of the Surface, it's definitely exotic. It kind of reminds me of the ZuneHD design which is good. The fact that MS uses more expensive Magnesium for weight and strength instead of aluminum definitely shows there's passion and thought behind the hardware design. I still have an old laptop from 2000 that has a magnesium cover so I could certainly appreciate the greater benefits of the material.
Mintmaster
Veteran
I've been trying to find examples of that, but it's too difficult to get apples to Apples. Even with your example, how do you know which Galaxy SII is in that chart? It's made with three different SoCs. Moreover, dual core vs. single core from the same CPU core would be most relevant to this discussion, not dual vs quad. That's why I pointed out that HTC Flyer link, as it has a single core Scorpion. From various benchmarks I've seen, Cortex-A9 seems to be 40% faster per clock at Sunspider, not 60%.
I think we're getting sidetracked into details, though. My point is that for tablet tasks, you won't be sacrificing anything tangible by going to Clover Trail instead of ARM except maybe cost (which I doubt will be a problem given how cheap netbooks are). Avg power consumption will be similar unless Intel somehow really screws up, and thus so will thickness and weight. Cedar Trail tablets' abilities will be a strict superset of ARM tablets'.
I'll take your opinion more seriously now that I think you're so well connected, but why do you think ARM has so much more room for optimization than Intel?
Having owned and used small 4:3 notebooks vs Netbooks it makes a huge difference because screen size is always measured diagonally. A 12" 1024x768 4:3 screen is much more usable than a 10" 16:9...makes no difference whether they're being made anymore...the point is still valid..
My iPhone has a Retina display so the resolution is great but if it could run full blown CAD/CAM apps why the hell would I want to do that type of work on it? Perhaps if I attached it to some goggles and strapped it to my head the screen would appear bigger and I would want to run SolidWorks on it? Even surfing the internet is a chore on the iPhone's Retina display because even though I could display a full webpage in portait mode due to the high resolution the text is TINY and hard to read unless I bring the phone closer to my face or constantly zoom in/out.
At the end of the day higher resolution means everything is smaller when running software made for desktops...icons...buttons...labels...etc...definitely not comfortable doing work on a small little 10" widescreen regardless of resolution. Hell..increase the resolution to 2K on a 10" screen and everything is even smaller! Sorry but I don't want to mount a 10" Pro Surface 5 inches from my face to make it usable.
I currently own an Acer Aspire One 10" netbook with screen resolution of 1024x600...not usable for serious stuff like CAD/CAM...screen is way too small. It's not about resolution or processing power it's about overall size. Just because I could doesn't mean I'd want to torture myself.
That's not what I said...what I said was it's not limited to a itty bitty 10" widescreen! Yes 13" is smaller than 15 or 17 but 13 is the THRESHOLD for usability with respect to serious desktop software..big difference! If I want a 15" Ultrabook I could buy one if I want a MS Surface Pro bigger than 10" I cannot! Get it now??? Why do you think I've been asking for Surface Pro with a larger screen?
And you're still missing the point even though you insist I'm the one who doesn't get it...read and UNDERSTAND what is be written...
Last edited by a moderator:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
13" may be your threshold for useability but it isn't the case for everyone. And that is a perfectly fine and valid restriction, for you. I know plenty of people that traded in their 13-15" notebooks for 10-11" ultrabooks with no reduction in useability or productivity. Their lower limit on screen useability is obviously lower than yours.
Granted one or two of the older fellows had to use his reading glasses after the transition, but they were all quite satisfied with the reduction in weight and size when on the go. Especially since they also feel the need to pack around an iPad or in very rare cases an Android slate.
Many of those same people are eyeing the Surface Pro (or alternative OEM Win8 Pro slates) in the hopes they will then only have to ever carry around one device.
Not all of them obviously as some are heavily invested in their iPad, but quite a few of them are seriously considering it. And these users cover everything from graphic artists (VERY interested) to students to professors to engineers to field agents (insurance mostly), etc.
I even have some gamer friends waiting to see if any OEM releases a gaming capable slate. At which point they hope to replace their desktop, laptop, and iPad/Android slates.
Regards,
SB
And what software were they using? That's the million dollar question. I don't doubt that many people don't have a problem running non demanding desktop software like Word/Excel/Powerpoint etc on small 10" widescreens but like I said, those types of software could be run on the RT so there's really no compelling argument in getting the Pro to run those unless these people don't already have a current desktop which is silly.
I'm willing to bet that my threshold is the bare minimum screen size for most people who do actual work using the type of software that I use while on the go.
And I already addressed that point....in order to replace the desktop they will need to buy a bunch of external storage devices if they want to do serious desktop stuff and this all adds to the total cost of ownership. If they already have a powerful desktop with loads of storage and capabilites like me why would they ditch it just so they could claim "My Pro tablet is used as my desktop workstation now"? Doesn't compute. Sure you could sell your existing desktop but you'll be losing money AND paying more money to buy all this extra stuff just so you could call your portable a desktop replacement.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
Who cares what you think if nobody else shares that opinion? Virtually the entire notebook market has decided against them. Nobody builds them anymore because nobody wants to pay even a few dollars extra for them.
No it isn't! 960x640 is worse than netbooks. You cannot fit enough information on there to do anything useful (which is why not even the cheapest budget monitors had resolutions that low for two decades), and even web browsing is heavily compromised. Moreover, going from 13" to 11" is slightly different than going from 13" down to <4". Just slightly...
And finally I've cornered you into admitting the baseless assumption that you've been making all along. What study says that? Why does Apple sell millions of Air 11's for $1000+? Why do two of the 5 top rated laptops on CNET have 11.6" screens?
So please enlighten us as to why 13" is the threshold, Mr. God of Usability.
This is your big point? Are you serious? So I guess the iPad won't sell because it doesn't come in 7"? The iPhone won't sell because it doesn't come in 4.5"?
Nobody here claimed that the Surface Pro will solve EVERYONE'S needs. You, however, insist that almost nobody will buy it because YOU have some bizarre vendetta against sub-13" notebooks.
Mintmaster
Veteran
Would you please explain why Apple is selling a MacBook Air 11 for $1000? Why AMD shipped 10's of millions of Brazos chips in 2011, most of which wound up in well reviewed 10/11/12 inchers like the dm1z and X120e?
Why is Taiwan producing more 12" and smaller notebooks than 13"?
(FYI, Taiwan produces 90% of worldwide notebooks)
Last edited by a moderator:
WTF are you talking about? The only reason why computer screens are going 16:9 is the fact they're copying TVs...lol...and you somehow come to the conclusion that tiny 10" 16:9 screens are more productive due to this forced trend?
Get it through your head dude, it has NOTHING to do with resolution! The iPhone could have friggen 2K resolution but the overal size will still be...gasp...3.5"!!!! It wouldn't make one hell of a difference I'd still have to stick that little 2K screen to my face. With a 10" 16:9 1080P screen I'd have to stick it about 5-12 inches from my face...lol.
WTF does selling Mac Airs for $1000 have anything to do with using small screens for REAL WORK??? Where is your study that says all of those Mac Airs being used for CAD/CAM? Millions of netbooks have been sold too I guess millions are running SolidWorks and AutoCAD on them right? How the hell do you make the connection??
Also just because Apple is able to sell high priced notebooks in huge numbers doesn't mean MS will be able to do the same....iPod vs Zune anyone? iPhone vs Windows Phone? Been there done that.
Maybe if you new how to read that Cnet list that you yourself linked to you'd be enlightened...lol. The link shows the top having 13" screens and up! Thanks for proving my point...lol. Might want to click "Most Popular" next time...
1 Acer Aspire S5 13.3
2 Apple MacBook Air 13
3 HP Folio 13
4 Apple MacBook Pro 15.6
5 HP Envy Sleekbook 6 15.6
6 Dell Inspiron 14z 14
7 Lenovo IdeaPad U310 13.3
8 Samsung Series 7 Gamer 17.3
9 Sony Vaio T Series 13.3
10 Apple MacBook Pro 13
There are only 4 notebooks with smaller than 13" screens in the top 30 Most Popular....4 out of 30 seems to indicate I'm closer to the truth and being Mr God of Usability than you.
So now my question to you is...are YOU seriously running AutoCAD on a 10" netbook?
I have to say that is quite silly, bizarre and questionable unless its all 2D stuff with lots of scrolling and zooming around or not using the netbook nearly as often as you want everyone to believe for that application...
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
