When Steve Jobs told us was there room for a third category of device between our phones and laptops, many people were skeptical. Back at the start of 2010, they thought the iPad would be a niche.
Now that the iPad has successfully defined the category, Microsoft is basically trying to sell us a fourth category of device between the tablet and the laptop. Here is where I think Microsoft is going to run into trouble: it's not the best of one or the other, and lacks no unique virtues of its own. In other words, it ends up as a clumsy compromise between the categories. A tablet-ized Netbook running not-quite real Windows OS.
If Microsoft wants to double-down on this, let them.
Let's be real: If you're serious about productivity, and your daily workflow is even moderately complex, you're not going to rely solely on either an iPad or a Surface in their current state.
Many of us have been saying that for a very long time. Tables are the escape from work, not the extension of it. Sure, you might check the company email, review a presentation or spreadsheet, but that is consuming content, not creating or modifying it, which has never been argued to be better on a tablet vs. notebook or desktop.
Furthermore; until tables are able to easily dock, so that they have 24"-27" monitors keyboard/mouse/trackpad, they will not be used for real work. By this time we should be at the A8 or A9 level processors (although the A7 is quite capable) so the horsepower should be there also. Again, this won't replace your work notebook/desktop for the huge spreadsheets and other large tasks, but will allow you to also dock that work notebook into the above.
I see the next iteration home computing having a central desk with the above peripherals that any member of the family can dock into when needed to do school work, banking, or career work. Gaming can be done there as well, but I see that moving to the Apple TV like devices. Monitors need replacing less often than devices. Overall, this will save money, be more personal, portable, and upgradable.
If Microsoft was first in this space, they would have a real compelling ecosystem, as you can duplicate the above in most work environments also.
1. A 10" screen is not where you are going to "get things done" and "be more productive" (MS speak for "create spreadsheets") because it's just too small. There are much better choices to create large spreadsheets and documents.
2. If MS was serious that they've built a work machine, then what's with the 16:9 screen? That's for watching movies. Why make a "productivity" machine the perfect size for watching widescreen movies? That size doesn't work well for anything else. Goes to show that MS has their head up their ass pretty much all the time. They just make shit up as they go.
And as for sacto joe's comment about the MacBook Air:
Why would someone looking at a Surface RT jump to a laptop without a touch screen?
Certainly you mean they'd be better off with a Surface Pro (which is cheaper than a MacBook Air) and still functions as a tablet with a Wacom-based Pen.
Ha! Have you ever tried to use Windows on a 10" screen with a pen? I challenge you to get through a whole day without throwing the device in the trash. Windows on small touch screen with a stylus is singularly one of the most frustrating and waste-of-time experiences known to man. It's just a bad concept.
Ha! Have you ever tried to use Windows on a 10" screen with a pen? I challenge you to get through a whole day without throwing the device in the trash. Windows on small touch screen with a stylus is singularly one of the most frustrating and waste-of-time experiences known to man. It's just a bad concept.
Actually, if you want the full power of Photoshop with a wacom pen on a screen, it's your only option. That's reality.
Actually, if you want the full power of Photoshop with a wacom pen on a screen, it's your only option. That's reality.
I wouldn't choose to run Photoshop (or anything else) on a 10" Windows touch screen with or without a Wacom. Trying to navigate Windows menus and click the right choice in too difficult. Photoshop needs a large screen. That's the thing. MS and their advocates always talk about "being productive" on their Surfaces. But seriously, how productive can you be on a screen that small? You can't, and I cringe every time I hear someone suggesting that it's a good alternative. Screen size was one of the big reasons netbooks failed. Surface Pro is an updated netbook.
Its a nice whatever it is, but nothing to play Candy Crush on the toilet with or read in bed, or my easy chair. I have my Apple Bluetooth keyboard that I use with it when I am writing in the coffee shop, The Windows thing has a nice screen resolution but like the writer concluded it is too much a laptop to be a good tablet.
1. A 10" screen is not where you are going to "get things done" and "be more productive" (MS speak for "create spreadsheets") because it's just too small. There are much better choices to create large spreadsheets and documents.
2. If MS was serious that they've built a work machine, then what's with the 16:9 screen? That's for watching movies. Why make a "productivity" machine the perfect size for watching widescreen movies? That size doesn't work well for anything else. Goes to show that MS has their head up their ass pretty much all the time. They just make shit up as they go.
Nearly every laptop sold has a 16:9 ratio. Even Apple uses a 16:10 ratio. I haven't seen a 4:3 ratio laptop in 10 years if not longer. Around 2003 there was a move towards 16:10 then in 2007 most moved to 16:9. Either one allows side by side work to be done unlike a 4:3 ratio.
1. A 10" screen is not where you are going to "get things done" and "be more productive" (MS speak for "create spreadsheets") because it's just too small. There are much better choices to create large spreadsheets and documents.
2. If MS was serious that they've built a work machine, then what's with the 16:9 screen? That's for watching movies. Why make a "productivity" machine the perfect size for watching widescreen movies? That size doesn't work well for anything else. Goes to show that MS has their head up their ass pretty much all the time. They just make shit up as they go.
10" is more than enough to get work done, I've been using 11" on my MacBook Air for years and recently a 10" Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 which is an absolute joy to use Office on. I am able to achieve everything I need to in complete comfort. My iPad is strictly for entertainment purposes, which 4:3 seems to be perfectly fine for, I will never go back however using that aspect ration for spreadsheets though, you want a long screen for that, ugh I shudder the thought with going back to 4:3.
Almost every single monitor found in desktops and laptops today are 16:9, including Apples offerings, the iPad is unique with it's 4:3 screen ration, so I'm not sure what your talking about. Apple chose 4:3 because it seemed better suited for reading websites and eBooks on the iPad, not because it is a better working resolution or monitor manufacturers wouldn't have abandoned it years ago. Check for yourself, search for "NEW" 4:3 monitors and see how many you find.
It's amusing all the comments calling the review "objective" and "fair"...
Of course, Windows RT has its flaws, but the final "conclusion" of this review came down to a price comparison that was completely off-base.
$580 for a 32GB Surface and attachable TypeCover.
$570 for a 16GB iPad Air and a battery-powered Apple bluetooth keyboard.
That's comparing Apples to oranges.
It'd be $700 for a 32GB iPad Air and the Logitech keyboard the reviewer mentions.
And as for sacto joe's comment about the MacBook Air:
Why would someone looking at a Surface RT jump to a laptop without a touch screen?
Certainly you mean they'd be better off with a Surface Pro (which is cheaper than a MacBook Air) and still functions as a tablet with a Wacom-based Pen.
Please crawl back to wherever you came from - you have no clue what you are talking about and have totally missed the point. The point is that if you are primarily interested in productivity within the Office framework, the MacBook Air is a far far better choice! Not some lame half ass implementation of windows with office crippled cor touch screens - so you would need a touchscreen because??????? The Air has a touchpad superior to their touchscreen!
Its a nice whatever it is, but nothing to play Candy Crush on the toilet with or read in bed, or my easy chair. I have my Apple Bluetooth keyboard that I use with it when I am writing in the coffee shop, The Windows thing has a nice screen resolution but like the writer concluded it is too much a laptop to be a good tablet.
I really don't why everyone thinks you need a keyboard when using a Surface. Even though I bought the keyboard dock for my Thinkpad Tablet 2 I have probably used it all of 5 times. They work just fine without it and I actually prefer using the onscreen keyboard. Which means they are tablets and not more of an Ultrabook unless the user defines that purpose for himself.
Almost every single monitor found in desktops and laptops today are 16:9, including Apples offerings, the iPad is unique with it's 4:3 screen ration, so I'm not sure what your talking about. Apple chose 4:3 because it seemed better suited for reading websites and eBooks on the iPad, not because it is a better working resolution or monitor manufacturers wouldn't have abandoned it years ago. Check for yourself, search for "NEW" 4:3 monitors and see how many you find.
Desktops and laptops aren't made to be flipped around with the user using portrait and landscape interchangeably.
That's why the iPad kicks everybody else's butt. 16:9 in any tablet is a joke, and it's yet another reason why everybody else makes crappy tablets. The HP Touchpad was 4:3, but that failed because of many other reasons.
Apple pulled a number on intel with the arm A7 64bit chip. Not only did the A7 "catch up" to intel, it surpassed them in performance (on some tests) while expanding the other set of advantages (efficiency, cost, etc).
It's safe to say that Qualcomm and others will keep improving, even if their chips are inferior to Apple (not only in performance but especially as a complete package), so ARM is stronger than ever.
More competition is always a good thing. I wouldn't call Qualcomm's ARM CPU's inferior to Apple's, they make pretty wonderful chips. The problem with comparing benchmarks here is that Apple controls both the software and hardware, if you were to put Qualcomm's newest, fastest chip in an iPhone I would have no doubt that it would perform as well or better. Just because the chip isn't 64bit means absolute nothing, frankly adding 64bit support to an ARM chip this early in the game is just marketing and pretty silly, especially when Apple hasn't even broken 1GB of ram yet. When phones and tablets start needing more than 3GB of memory than it would start making sense.
So the takeaway is that both iPads and Surface RT suck for trying to do productive work on, try Windows Pro?
I think it depends on what you classify as "productive work". For some, it's using an Office app, for others it might be using a specialized app for a specific work related task. I think if you consider "productive work" using Office apps, then you'd probably be correct on that assumption. When i use a spreadsheet app, I use BIG spreadsheets and there is NO F=ing way I can look at my spreadsheets on a 10" screen or smaller. I used to use a 17 monitor and then graduated to a 27inch, and guess what? It's STILL not be enough. I have to still scroll up and down as my spreadsheets are LARGE. so, yea, for some people tablets still suck, BUT, for other productivity apps, they might be the perfect solution. I've seen apps used in the video production industry that were iPad based and apparently the users think they are indispensable due to the nature of the app and how it works. It's actually a productivity app that's BETTER on a tablet than a laptop. Light Iron is the developer of those apps.
So, I think it means what do you mean by a "productive work" or "productivity apps". Hospital's are starting to use iPad based apps that are taking the place of laptops and desktops and from what I've read and heard, they are more productive with the iPad based apps than the traditional desktop/laptop based apps.
Comments
I'm sorry, I thought I came to Appleinsider.com to read Apple news. I must have clicked the wrong bookmark or something.
When Steve Jobs told us was there room for a third category of device between our phones and laptops, many people were skeptical. Back at the start of 2010, they thought the iPad would be a niche.
Now that the iPad has successfully defined the category, Microsoft is basically trying to sell us a fourth category of device between the tablet and the laptop. Here is where I think Microsoft is going to run into trouble: it's not the best of one or the other, and lacks no unique virtues of its own. In other words, it ends up as a clumsy compromise between the categories. A tablet-ized Netbook running not-quite real Windows OS.
If Microsoft wants to double-down on this, let them.
Many of us have been saying that for a very long time. Tables are the escape from work, not the extension of it. Sure, you might check the company email, review a presentation or spreadsheet, but that is consuming content, not creating or modifying it, which has never been argued to be better on a tablet vs. notebook or desktop.
Furthermore; until tables are able to easily dock, so that they have 24"-27" monitors keyboard/mouse/trackpad, they will not be used for real work. By this time we should be at the A8 or A9 level processors (although the A7 is quite capable) so the horsepower should be there also. Again, this won't replace your work notebook/desktop for the huge spreadsheets and other large tasks, but will allow you to also dock that work notebook into the above.
I see the next iteration home computing having a central desk with the above peripherals that any member of the family can dock into when needed to do school work, banking, or career work. Gaming can be done there as well, but I see that moving to the Apple TV like devices. Monitors need replacing less often than devices. Overall, this will save money, be more personal, portable, and upgradable.
If Microsoft was first in this space, they would have a real compelling ecosystem, as you can duplicate the above in most work environments also.
No, but thanks for playing.
Go Schmidt all over C|Net.
1. A 10" screen is not where you are going to "get things done" and "be more productive" (MS speak for "create spreadsheets") because it's just too small. There are much better choices to create large spreadsheets and documents.
2. If MS was serious that they've built a work machine, then what's with the 16:9 screen? That's for watching movies. Why make a "productivity" machine the perfect size for watching widescreen movies? That size doesn't work well for anything else. Goes to show that MS has their head up their ass pretty much all the time. They just make shit up as they go.
And as for sacto joe's comment about the MacBook Air:
Why would someone looking at a Surface RT jump to a laptop without a touch screen?
Certainly you mean they'd be better off with a Surface Pro (which is cheaper than a MacBook Air) and still functions as a tablet with a Wacom-based Pen.
Ha! Have you ever tried to use Windows on a 10" screen with a pen? I challenge you to get through a whole day without throwing the device in the trash. Windows on small touch screen with a stylus is singularly one of the most frustrating and waste-of-time experiences known to man. It's just a bad concept.
Ha! Have you ever tried to use Windows on a 10" screen with a pen? I challenge you to get through a whole day without throwing the device in the trash. Windows on small touch screen with a stylus is singularly one of the most frustrating and waste-of-time experiences known to man. It's just a bad concept.
Actually, if you want the full power of Photoshop with a wacom pen on a screen, it's your only option. That's reality.
Actually, if you want the full power of Photoshop with a wacom pen on a screen, it's your only option. That's reality.
I wouldn't choose to run Photoshop (or anything else) on a 10" Windows touch screen with or without a Wacom. Trying to navigate Windows menus and click the right choice in too difficult. Photoshop needs a large screen. That's the thing. MS and their advocates always talk about "being productive" on their Surfaces. But seriously, how productive can you be on a screen that small? You can't, and I cringe every time I hear someone suggesting that it's a good alternative. Screen size was one of the big reasons netbooks failed. Surface Pro is an updated netbook.
Its a nice whatever it is, but nothing to play Candy Crush on the toilet with or read in bed, or my easy chair. I have my Apple Bluetooth keyboard that I use with it when I am writing in the coffee shop, The Windows thing has a nice screen resolution but like the writer concluded it is too much a laptop to be a good tablet.
1. A 10" screen is not where you are going to "get things done" and "be more productive" (MS speak for "create spreadsheets") because it's just too small. There are much better choices to create large spreadsheets and documents.
2. If MS was serious that they've built a work machine, then what's with the 16:9 screen? That's for watching movies. Why make a "productivity" machine the perfect size for watching widescreen movies? That size doesn't work well for anything else. Goes to show that MS has their head up their ass pretty much all the time. They just make shit up as they go.
Nearly every laptop sold has a 16:9 ratio. Even Apple uses a 16:10 ratio. I haven't seen a 4:3 ratio laptop in 10 years if not longer. Around 2003 there was a move towards 16:10 then in 2007 most moved to 16:9. Either one allows side by side work to be done unlike a 4:3 ratio.
1. A 10" screen is not where you are going to "get things done" and "be more productive" (MS speak for "create spreadsheets") because it's just too small. There are much better choices to create large spreadsheets and documents.
2. If MS was serious that they've built a work machine, then what's with the 16:9 screen? That's for watching movies. Why make a "productivity" machine the perfect size for watching widescreen movies? That size doesn't work well for anything else. Goes to show that MS has their head up their ass pretty much all the time. They just make shit up as they go.
10" is more than enough to get work done, I've been using 11" on my MacBook Air for years and recently a 10" Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 which is an absolute joy to use Office on. I am able to achieve everything I need to in complete comfort. My iPad is strictly for entertainment purposes, which 4:3 seems to be perfectly fine for, I will never go back however using that aspect ration for spreadsheets though, you want a long screen for that, ugh I shudder the thought with going back to 4:3.
Almost every single monitor found in desktops and laptops today are 16:9, including Apples offerings, the iPad is unique with it's 4:3 screen ration, so I'm not sure what your talking about. Apple chose 4:3 because it seemed better suited for reading websites and eBooks on the iPad, not because it is a better working resolution or monitor manufacturers wouldn't have abandoned it years ago. Check for yourself, search for "NEW" 4:3 monitors and see how many you find.
Oh and welcome to the forum.
Please crawl back to wherever you came from - you have no clue what you are talking about and have totally missed the point. The point is that if you are primarily interested in productivity within the Office framework, the MacBook Air is a far far better choice! Not some lame half ass implementation of windows with office crippled cor touch screens - so you would need a touchscreen because??????? The Air has a touchpad superior to their touchscreen!
... which is an absolute joy to use Office on.
No. That is impossible.
Its a nice whatever it is, but nothing to play Candy Crush on the toilet with or read in bed, or my easy chair. I have my Apple Bluetooth keyboard that I use with it when I am writing in the coffee shop, The Windows thing has a nice screen resolution but like the writer concluded it is too much a laptop to be a good tablet.
I really don't why everyone thinks you need a keyboard when using a Surface. Even though I bought the keyboard dock for my Thinkpad Tablet 2 I have probably used it all of 5 times. They work just fine without it and I actually prefer using the onscreen keyboard. Which means they are tablets and not more of an Ultrabook unless the user defines that purpose for himself.
Almost every single monitor found in desktops and laptops today are 16:9, including Apples offerings, the iPad is unique with it's 4:3 screen ration, so I'm not sure what your talking about. Apple chose 4:3 because it seemed better suited for reading websites and eBooks on the iPad, not because it is a better working resolution or monitor manufacturers wouldn't have abandoned it years ago. Check for yourself, search for "NEW" 4:3 monitors and see how many you find.
Desktops and laptops aren't made to be flipped around with the user using portrait and landscape interchangeably.
That's why the iPad kicks everybody else's butt. 16:9 in any tablet is a joke, and it's yet another reason why everybody else makes crappy tablets. The HP Touchpad was 4:3, but that failed because of many other reasons.
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Apple pulled a number on intel with the arm A7 64bit chip. Not only did the A7 "catch up" to intel, it surpassed them in performance (on some tests) while expanding the other set of advantages (efficiency, cost, etc).
It's safe to say that Qualcomm and others will keep improving, even if their chips are inferior to Apple (not only in performance but especially as a complete package), so ARM is stronger than ever.
More competition is always a good thing. I wouldn't call Qualcomm's ARM CPU's inferior to Apple's, they make pretty wonderful chips. The problem with comparing benchmarks here is that Apple controls both the software and hardware, if you were to put Qualcomm's newest, fastest chip in an iPhone I would have no doubt that it would perform as well or better. Just because the chip isn't 64bit means absolute nothing, frankly adding 64bit support to an ARM chip this early in the game is just marketing and pretty silly, especially when Apple hasn't even broken 1GB of ram yet. When phones and tablets start needing more than 3GB of memory than it would start making sense.
So the takeaway is that both iPads and Surface RT suck for trying to do productive work on, try Windows Pro?
I think it depends on what you classify as "productive work". For some, it's using an Office app, for others it might be using a specialized app for a specific work related task. I think if you consider "productive work" using Office apps, then you'd probably be correct on that assumption. When i use a spreadsheet app, I use BIG spreadsheets and there is NO F=ing way I can look at my spreadsheets on a 10" screen or smaller. I used to use a 17 monitor and then graduated to a 27inch, and guess what? It's STILL not be enough. I have to still scroll up and down as my spreadsheets are LARGE. so, yea, for some people tablets still suck, BUT, for other productivity apps, they might be the perfect solution. I've seen apps used in the video production industry that were iPad based and apparently the users think they are indispensable due to the nature of the app and how it works. It's actually a productivity app that's BETTER on a tablet than a laptop. Light Iron is the developer of those apps.
So, I think it means what do you mean by a "productive work" or "productivity apps". Hospital's are starting to use iPad based apps that are taking the place of laptops and desktops and from what I've read and heard, they are more productive with the iPad based apps than the traditional desktop/laptop based apps.