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.
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
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
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).
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
Veteran
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.
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.
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?
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_Brightness_ShootOut_2.htm
Mintmaster
Veteran
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.
I don't think they put that much extra work into it. They needed it for phones anyway, so incrementally it was minimal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
Meh. Android 4.1 isn't going to make much difference in TF700T sales.
Clovertrail tablets are the iPad's real competition. When they hit $300 and less (inevitable, given that netbooks hit that price over a year ago), it's going to be harder and harder to look at the iPad as something worth $500 when it can't get close to x86 capabilities.
Clovertrail tablets are the iPad's real competition. When they hit $300 and less (inevitable, given that netbooks hit that price over a year ago), it's going to be harder and harder to look at the iPad as something worth $500 when it can't get close to x86 capabilities.
Yes, however Metro apps are tied to a single account, so there's no way to "share" app access across other profiles - another profile user would need to re-purchase the app.
GPU and bandwidth wise Clovertrail doesn't keep up with the iPad ... Z-60 with DDR3 is a different story.
Yep. Even years later, I have not seen a TV that compares well to my Kuro. Even the older 720p Kuro models were consistently outperforming 1080p panels in reviews and picture quality. For video content, contrast is king. Text, on the other hand, especially with Apple's rendering method (which looks like crap on low DPI screens) definitely looks better with higher resolution. Cleartype increases the horizontal resolution of a font, but not the vertical, and when you turn the screen sideways, I don't know if the Cleartype engine will correctly compensate. It also gives fonts, at least to my eyes, the look like they're red shifted on one side, and blue shifted on the other. However, in comparison to Safari's font rendering, on the same screen, a cleartype font is _much_ more readable and less strain on the eyes.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Mintmaster
Veteran
According to Apple, 91% of tablet traffic comes from iPads, so I guess 43 out of 48 of that percent goes to the trash?
Anyway, I think Silent_Buddha is right in the long term. A year or two ago $500 Android tablets - whose target audience is free from the brand and gadget lust of Apple fans - got a lot of crap from people like myself because they offered so little over $300 netbooks. They've become more logical purchases with the Fire, Nexus 7, etc with better screens and lower prices, but the x86 monster is coming after them again now that Intel decided they may as well devote some wafers to take over this market as well.
Anyway, I think Silent_Buddha is right in the long term. A year or two ago $500 Android tablets - whose target audience is free from the brand and gadget lust of Apple fans - got a lot of crap from people like myself because they offered so little over $300 netbooks. They've become more logical purchases with the Fire, Nexus 7, etc with better screens and lower prices, but the x86 monster is coming after them again now that Intel decided they may as well devote some wafers to take over this market as well.
I think its quite telling that kindle's are almost half of all andriod tablets sold .
This is also onyl a study of 9,513 adults and apparently only 4,638 of them are mobile device owners.
I was under the impression that Intel kept everyone in the dark about clovertrail and beyond. If intel played better ball there might not have been a surface RT .
Anyway the point of the Surface RT is its priced to high. If this was $400 and went against the ipad 2 then no one would say a peep. It would have had better ppi , a better arm chip more ram , twice the storage and so on .
MS just priced it $100 to high and it might bite them in the ass for it . On the other hand if they are only making 4-5million for this quarter and then lower numbers for post holiday sales they could be fine.
Surface RT 2 in the summer with a 1080p screen and kal-el or something else powering it would work fine .
Similar threads
