My god the people who work at MS are idiots. Why in the world would they compare the battery life of the Pro to the RT? If they has said it gets the same battery life as Ultrabooks it would have sounded so much better than saying it gets half the battery life of RT.
On a brand new desktop with fresh installed Windows 8 Enterprise 64-bit, Office Pro Plus 2010 fully patched and upgraded to Office Pro Plus 2013, you lose about 20GB on Windows (17GB), Program Files and Program Files (86) folders (3GB total).
MS did promise improved updates, but at this stage, we can only guess how will they grow Windows folder size.
Agree. But then, tablets are cool, right? And to be honest, they are handier than laptops for some things, especially on the move. Reading contract, rehearsing presentation, checking (but not replying) to emails, video conferencing... in car, bus, train... is more comfy on tablet. One reason or another, some people simply must have them. For some of them, this (and all the other Pro tablets) might be a good compromise. It is still within acceptable tablet size, but functionality from business perspective is well above any other tablet on the market.
The problem is that both Lenovo and Sony (and I am sure many others, those are just the ones I know of) sell convertible ultrabooks, which seem nicer, have a real keyboard (and a digitizer stylus), much more robust batteries, weigh about the same, and cost in the same ballpark. Why is MS competing so incompetently with its own OEMs is anyone's guess.
Everybody. They are really quite nice and fast -- the performance is the same as a MBP (which I am typing on) for the price of an Air. The browser works the same as on the Air, and Office works better (through no fault of Apple's, it has to be said). Adobe suite is a year ahead of the Mac version (at least -- thanks, Steve (blessed be his name, etc)) Mathematica and Matlab are identical. Xbox play is nice, if you like that sort of thing.
what about when your son wants to listen to music, play games, show his tablet to his girl, use tablet apps instead of phone apps, etc. will you be ok with it?
But that's just it, I think most people will be served better by two devices that are designed to excel with a UI and HW for the intended I/O. This is just not it. It's like only having a Swiss Army Knife for being a lumberjack and a handyman. Sure, the SAK has a saw and screwdriver and I guess you can use it to bash in nails but it's not exactly a great tool for any specific occupation. Unfortunately what has MS been telling us is that Surface is the ideal tool for notebook and tablet users... but it's not. It's only great for very specific use cases and because of that it won't ever sell a lot of units.
I remember when I bought the iPad 1 -- I really had hopes that I would stop lugging the laptop around. Never happened, now I carry both (well, not the iPad 1, but you know what I mean, as well as an iPhone). I am sure so do many of the rest of the people here, and this is the problem MS has tried to solve. Their solution may not be great, but they are right that there is a problem.
The Surface is DOA before arrival. A tablet PC that costs twice as much as a PC laptop with half the specs and Windowz 8. That's a formula for success.
Everybody. They are really quite nice and fast -- the performance is the same as a MBP (which I am typing on) for the price of an Air. The browser works the same as on the Air, and Office works better (through no fault of Apple's, it has to be said). Adobe suite is a year ahead of the Mac version (at least -- thanks, Steve (blessed be his name, etc)) Mathematica and Matlab are identical. Xbox play is nice, if you like that sort of thing.
"Since the Oct. 26 launch of Windows 8, consumer notebook and desktop sales in the U.S. have fallen 21% compared to the same period last year, said Baker. Laptop sales were down even more -- 24% year-over-year -- while desktop numbers were off considerably less, just 9%."
at best, truth is Ultrabooks are a niche market, and a niche ain't "everybody" by any stretch of the imagination. even if you include Apple's laptops within that definition.
PS later: let's look at the whole "ultra" laptop category, combined figures for both Windows Ultrabooks and all the Mac laptops. they all run on Intel chips, and basically, they're all the higher-end laptops. i Suppli is projecting about 10 million Windows Ultrabook 2012 sales, and Apple is on track to sell over 15 million OSX laptops this year. which gives Apple about 60% of this overall "ultra" market.
good luck with that "everybody" thing. some alternate universe?
The Surface is DOA before arrival. A tablet PC that costs twice as much as a PC laptop with half the specs and Windowz 8. That's a formula for success.
actually, the proper term for this is "stillborn."
It sounds like its a low end laptop, then they ripped the keyboard off, replacing it with a touchscreen wanted a fancy keyboard to make the thing usable but wanted more money soon instead of a $400 laptop with similar specs went to a $800 tablet with similar specs, so it added up is = 70% tablet 30% laptop equalling worst tablet and still bottom 10% of laptop. I know they are just following there first try yet its price and comparison to other devices creates a loose loose situation, Price point is low yet they could have a 32gb at $700 to atleast grab a ok market because for laptops at the market I expect = Price==laptop==========tablet = $100==old reused=======about 2 years old =====================slightly used ==========features varying on both===== $200==slightly used======ebook, simple ======very low end======tablet ======varys===========5-7 inch screen =====================8-16 gb $300==low end/ lightly used=low/mid range ======7-10 inch screens==Apple quality is + ======32-200 gb========7-8 inch====== ======some ports is +====16 gb-32g===== $400==low side of mid range=low/mid range= ======9-13 inch screens==Apple is + ======64 gb-400gb======16gb-64gb===== ======some ports is +====7-9 inch======= ======cellular truly is here for both======== $500==midrange=========Apple is + ======9-15 inch screens==mid range====== ======100gb-700gb======16gb-128gb=== ======some ports is+=====7 to 10 inch=== ======================cellular======= $600==Midrange=========highend======= =====10-17 inch=========Apple is +===== =====150gb-700gb=======16gb-128gb=== =====some ports are+=====10 inch====== $700==mid/highend========highend==== =====11-17 inch==========10-11 inch=== =====200-800gb==========32-128gb==== =====some ports are plus===Apple is + ====================cellular for rest of p. $800========highend for both========== ====11-17 inch===========10-12 inch== =====200gb-1TB==========64-128 gb== ===========ports + on both=========== ======================apple is +==== $900========highend for both========= =====11-13 inch==========10-12 inch== =====200 gb-2tb==========64 to 128 gb= ==========ports on both============= $1000==highend for both============== =====11-(18 inch for rest of page)======= ======100 gb-2.5 tb=======Tablets column =====+ for apple==========now ending. ==========ports on both==(no longer mentioned========================== =====(Now skipping $1100) model======= $1200===highend(no longer mentioned)=== ======13 inch- ======200gb-3TB =+ for spple(till further noticed not mentioned) $1300===13-inch==200gb-(3TB till end)=== $1400===15-inch==300gb-=== $1500===15 inch==300gb-=== $1600===13 inch==300gb=== $1700===13 inch==500gb=== $1800===13 inch==600gb=== $1900===13 inch==600gb=== $2000===15 inch==600 gb $2100====15 inch=500 gb $2200===15 inch =600 gb $2300====15 inch=700gb $2400===15 inch=800 gb $2500===17 inch=1 tb =I'm done It took me a while yet here it is a special chart of a expectantly made through many company's giving this impression, user of a gateway desktop, Hp laptop, IPhone 5, previously using IPhone 4 and 3 years ago a dell, finding apple computers 3 times as old than a three year old windows product, still more advanced/faster/easier. Now I am a true Apple fan thinking of getting IPad getting some MacBook, and a little bit about a IMac, was thinking Apple TV but have lost interest, I do not want a Hp, gateway, or Dell again(all replaced by Apple hopefully, yet a steeper price is behind apple, yet has reasoning so there's controversies, like I love the thought to have a optical drive but with a apple $80 one, the computer is already hard to hit so either $100 worth of disk go by or another $80 plus a computer $$.
With regard to the iPad's storage size, it really wouldn't be a horrible idea to go 32-64-128, at least on the 9.7" size. It would further differentiate it from the iMini, especially when/if it also gets a RD.. and then there's the fact that there would be more room for storing things.. things bought in the App and iTunes stores.
I use the iPad for a lot more than just streaming, emailing and surfing so a 16 Gb version would be pretty useless.
So do I. Your point is what? I can get about 30 movies on mine (first-gen 64, so maxes at 720). Thousands of high-res pictures. Countless songs. Dozens of apps, multiple gigabytes each. And huge books.
If you use it for whatever light, you wouldn't even need internal storage beyond the OS. The iPad is meant to be actually used as a computer.
But regardless of what you use it for it has the same memory limitation as the 64 Gb surface that people are ragging on.
Except you can actually use the space in the iPad instead of half the space being taken up by the OS. But of course you're ignoring this because you couldn't care less about having all the facts; same as in the use case of a 16 GB iPad.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
I loved my Mom....the only women I ever trusted! I should never have moved out!
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Nobody loves me but my mama --- and she may be jivin', too...
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
My god the people who work at MS are idiots. Why in the world would they compare the battery life of the Pro to the RT? If they has said it gets the same battery life as Ultrabooks it would have sounded so much better than saying it gets half the battery life of RT.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Ultrabooks get several hours, so that would not be a great comparison
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
On a brand new desktop with fresh installed Windows 8 Enterprise 64-bit, Office Pro Plus 2010 fully patched and upgraded to Office Pro Plus 2013, you lose about 20GB on Windows (17GB), Program Files and Program Files (86) folders (3GB total).
MS did promise improved updates, but at this stage, we can only guess how will they grow Windows folder size.
Agree. But then, tablets are cool, right? And to be honest, they are handier than laptops for some things, especially on the move. Reading contract, rehearsing presentation, checking (but not replying) to emails, video conferencing... in car, bus, train... is more comfy on tablet. One reason or another, some people simply must have them. For some of them, this (and all the other Pro tablets) might be a good compromise. It is still within acceptable tablet size, but functionality from business perspective is well above any other tablet on the market.
We'll see.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }The problem is that both Lenovo and Sony (and I am sure many others, those are just the ones I know of) sell convertible ultrabooks, which seem nicer, have a real keyboard (and a digitizer stylus), much more robust batteries, weigh about the same, and cost in the same ballpark. Why is MS competing so incompetently with its own OEMs is anyone's guess.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
If Microsoft can add another 64 Gb by $100 why does Apple charge that much for an extra 16 Gb.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Why does a dog lick its balls?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Fat, ugly, ugly stupid OS, will not feel any faster than the iPad, worse tablet experience, worse battery life, AV needed, will run very hot.
Stupid device for stupid people. the worse of both worlds.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }And who are you to judge, exactly?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
who is buying them?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Everybody. They are really quite nice and fast -- the performance is the same as a MBP (which I am typing on) for the price of an Air. The browser works the same as on the Air, and Office works better (through no fault of Apple's, it has to be said). Adobe suite is a year ahead of the Mac version (at least -- thanks, Steve (blessed be his name, etc)) Mathematica and Matlab are identical. Xbox play is nice, if you like that sort of thing.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
what about when your son wants to listen to music, play games, show his tablet to his girl, use tablet apps instead of phone apps, etc. will you be ok with it?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }"Show his tablet to his girl"? He didn't mention his son being a dweeb...
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But that's just it, I think most people will be served better by two devices that are designed to excel with a UI and HW for the intended I/O. This is just not it. It's like only having a Swiss Army Knife for being a lumberjack and a handyman. Sure, the SAK has a saw and screwdriver and I guess you can use it to bash in nails but it's not exactly a great tool for any specific occupation. Unfortunately what has MS been telling us is that Surface is the ideal tool for notebook and tablet users... but it's not. It's only great for very specific use cases and because of that it won't ever sell a lot of units.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I remember when I bought the iPad 1 -- I really had hopes that I would stop lugging the laptop around. Never happened, now I carry both (well, not the iPad 1, but you know what I mean, as well as an iPhone). I am sure so do many of the rest of the people here, and this is the problem MS has tried to solve. Their solution may not be great, but they are right that there is a problem.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
They should advertise that as a 48GB model. MS doesn't count the space taken by the Surface OS (Windows RT), which takes up some 12 GB..lol
They've already been hit with a lawsuit over it.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Really? What's the link?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by drwam
A laptop you cannot use on your lap. All for more money than MB Air when you add the keyboard. Hard to see how this is a winner.
AGREED!!!
Yeah. MS charging people 150 bucks to turn their 900+ dollar "tablet" into a "laptop". And they say Apple overcharges…
Has Microsoft been doing you lately?
Oh, and everything MS DOES IS LATE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Everybody. They are really quite nice and fast -- the performance is the same as a MBP (which I am typing on) for the price of an Air. The browser works the same as on the Air, and Office works better (through no fault of Apple's, it has to be said). Adobe suite is a year ahead of the Mac version (at least -- thanks, Steve (blessed be his name, etc)) Mathematica and Matlab are identical. Xbox play is nice, if you like that sort of thing.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
"Everybody" is buying Ultrabooks? even assuming you don't mean that literally - which would be ultra absurd - you must have missed the news:
104
comments
Ultrabook sales forecast slashed in half for 2012
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/technology/ultrabook-sales-forecast/index.html
and here:
"Since the Oct. 26 launch of Windows 8, consumer notebook and desktop sales in the U.S. have fallen 21% compared to the same period last year, said Baker. Laptop sales were down even more -- 24% year-over-year -- while desktop numbers were off considerably less, just 9%."
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234145/Windows_8_brings_zero_pop_to_consumer_PC_sales
at best, truth is Ultrabooks are a niche market, and a niche ain't "everybody" by any stretch of the imagination. even if you include Apple's laptops within that definition.
PS later: let's look at the whole "ultra" laptop category, combined figures for both Windows Ultrabooks and all the Mac laptops. they all run on Intel chips, and basically, they're all the higher-end laptops. i Suppli is projecting about 10 million Windows Ultrabook 2012 sales, and Apple is on track to sell over 15 million OSX laptops this year. which gives Apple about 60% of this overall "ultra" market.
good luck with that "everybody" thing. some alternate universe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dookie Howsre
The Surface is DOA before arrival. A tablet PC that costs twice as much as a PC laptop with half the specs and Windowz 8. That's a formula for success.
actually, the proper term for this is "stillborn."
=
70% tablet 30% laptop equalling worst tablet and still bottom 10% of laptop.
I know they are just following there first try yet its price and comparison to other devices creates a loose loose situation, Price point is low yet they could have a 32gb at $700 to atleast grab a ok market because for laptops at the market I expect
=
Price==laptop==========tablet
=
$100==old reused=======about 2 years old =====================slightly used
==========features varying on both=====
$200==slightly used======ebook, simple
======very low end======tablet
======varys===========5-7 inch screen
=====================8-16 gb
$300==low end/ lightly used=low/mid range
======7-10 inch screens==Apple quality is +
======32-200 gb========7-8 inch======
======some ports is +====16 gb-32g=====
$400==low side of mid range=low/mid range=
======9-13 inch screens==Apple is +
======64 gb-400gb======16gb-64gb=====
======some ports is +====7-9 inch=======
======cellular truly is here for both========
$500==midrange=========Apple is +
======9-15 inch screens==mid range======
======100gb-700gb======16gb-128gb===
======some ports is+=====7 to 10 inch===
======================cellular=======
$600==Midrange=========highend=======
=====10-17 inch=========Apple is +=====
=====150gb-700gb=======16gb-128gb===
=====some ports are+=====10 inch======
$700==mid/highend========highend====
=====11-17 inch==========10-11 inch===
=====200-800gb==========32-128gb====
=====some ports are plus===Apple is +
====================cellular for rest of p.
$800========highend for both==========
====11-17 inch===========10-12 inch==
=====200gb-1TB==========64-128 gb==
===========ports + on both===========
======================apple is +====
$900========highend for both=========
=====11-13 inch==========10-12 inch==
=====200 gb-2tb==========64 to 128 gb=
==========ports on both=============
$1000==highend for both==============
=====11-(18 inch for rest of page)=======
======100 gb-2.5 tb=======Tablets column =====+ for apple==========now ending.
==========ports on both==(no longer mentioned==========================
=====(Now skipping $1100) model=======
$1200===highend(no longer mentioned)===
======13 inch-
======200gb-3TB
=+ for spple(till further noticed not mentioned)
$1300===13-inch==200gb-(3TB till end)===
$1400===15-inch==300gb-===
$1500===15 inch==300gb-===
$1600===13 inch==300gb===
$1700===13 inch==500gb===
$1800===13 inch==600gb===
$1900===13 inch==600gb===
$2000===15 inch==600 gb
$2100====15 inch=500 gb
$2200===15 inch =600 gb
$2300====15 inch=700gb
$2400===15 inch=800 gb
$2500===17 inch=1 tb
=I'm done
It took me a while yet here it is a special chart of a expectantly made through many company's giving this impression, user of a gateway desktop, Hp laptop, IPhone 5, previously using IPhone 4 and 3 years ago a dell, finding apple computers 3 times as old than a three year old windows product, still more advanced/faster/easier.
Now I am a true Apple fan thinking of getting IPad getting some MacBook, and a little bit about a IMac, was thinking Apple TV but have lost interest, I do not want a Hp, gateway, or Dell again(all replaced by Apple hopefully, yet a steeper price is behind apple, yet has reasoning so there's controversies, like I love the thought to have a optical drive but with a apple $80 one, the computer is already hard to hit so either $100 worth of disk go by or another $80 plus a computer $$.
With regard to the iPad's storage size, it really wouldn't be a horrible idea to go 32-64-128, at least on the 9.7" size. It would further differentiate it from the iMini, especially when/if it also gets a RD.. and then there's the fact that there would be more room for storing things.. things bought in the App and iTunes stores.
Originally Posted by tjwal
I use the iPad for a lot more than just streaming, emailing and surfing so a 16 Gb version would be pretty useless.
So do I. Your point is what? I can get about 30 movies on mine (first-gen 64, so maxes at 720). Thousands of high-res pictures. Countless songs. Dozens of apps, multiple gigabytes each. And huge books.
If you use it for whatever light, you wouldn't even need internal storage beyond the OS. The iPad is meant to be actually used as a computer.
But regardless of what you use it for it has the same memory limitation as the 64 Gb surface that people are ragging on.
Except you can actually use the space in the iPad instead of half the space being taken up by the OS. But of course you're ignoring this because you couldn't care less about having all the facts; same as in the use case of a 16 GB iPad.