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.
I think it $$$ for IPad wireless key. + Smart Cover and then $580 plus good surface RT cover be more valued.
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.
Try getting a hdmi and plug the thing into a TV, better now?
I'm not sure why you would want AirPlay instead of a direct connection to the monitor. Keyboard/mouse/trackpad would of course be wireless (do they make them wired anymore?). Even if you do AirPlay, your iPad will sit flat on your desk. If docked, you can still use it as a iChat screen or run an app, etc., and see it easily while you work.
Also, I was talking more any player to this market, not just Apple.
It be a option and etc., you can either way still.
Because it's wireless and allows your iPad to be anywhere in WiFi range instead of a few feet of you TV?
Or have a 50 foot cord(perfurably retractable.
Microsoft has a ok device, good competitor to the weird who are thinking of IPad 2(many think $50 is way different than $100) bit IPad air can beat this.
It be a option and etc., you can either way still.
Anything can be, but why would you want to. If you have to have a cable to charge the iPad while on your desk, and why wouldn't you, then why not have that cable plug into the monitor for data anyway? Really? Why have two power cables (monitor and iPad) and then AirPlay from a foot away? Makes no sense.
Wouldn't a comparison to an 11" Macbook Air been more interesting if you wanted to focus your review on "productivity and multi-window multitasking"...? I would much rather use an air which can dual boot Mac OS X and Windows and can comfortably be used on a lap. This thing doesn't seem to do anything particularly well which is it's downfall. What's the point of it being a tablet if you need a keyboard and to sit it on a desk? Ironically, an actual Macbook Air seems more portable than this thing...
Surface's problems go above and beyond if it's productive enough or not. Not everyone drones away in an cubicle Office Space style. Microsoft Office interests me as much as stapling papers together and licking stamps.
The problems are pretty simple, and dire. They have no apps, their ecosystem is stitched together with little cohesion with their desktop systems, the OS itself is a frankenstein of two different interfaces each able to accomplish the same thing, nobody cares about tile world. Top it off their marketing is abysmal and their supporters are just as obnoxious as many of the crazies here if not more so because they are deluded into thinking Microsoft is still dominant.
"The Surface 2 also has a bigger screen than the iPad, though, measuring 10.6 inches with a 1080p high-definition resolution."
No it only has a wider screen not bigger, the surfaces screen is 38.95 in^2, the iPad while narrower has a diff screen ratio but it's size is 45.18 in^2.
That means the surface screen is only about 86% the size of the full size iPads, while the iPad mini is 77% the size of the surface.
The issue of having to charge a bluetooth keyboard is a non-issue for me. I have a Logitech keyboard cover and have only had to charge it around once every couple of months.
Honestly, I can't understand/agree with your post.
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).
Since we are seeing Apple doubling performance each year, even if they "only" increase performance 50% this time next year, intel is totally behind on mobile. This is a different situation from what happens in the PC industry where Apple pushes the envelope and ditches discrete graphics on high end systems, so everyone follows the lead and intel gets a big boost because every OEM is behind their back.
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.
I think that's missing my point. A7 doesn't help the Surface at all for one, and while I'm sure Qualcomm will get there soon the point is that Intel is already competitive with them. Short term, ARM chips may keep getting wins, but in the long view of Intels roadmap I think they'll dominate this space just like they dominated AMD. It's hard for anyone to compete with a company that can drop 5-6 billion on a new uarch and think nothing of it. Just ask AMD.
Surface (RT and Pro) look like design school exercises to answer the challenge: "Design a device that melds the best features of a tablet and a laptop". The question though that is just as critical, and which probably didn't even occur to MS, is "Does such a design make sense?" or in Apple-speak "Does it deserve to exist?"
Can't really blame them for trying, MS was coming in late to the market, so they had to offer something unique and compelling. They got the 'unique' part, the other part? -- Initial verdict is currently on appeal.
So the takeaway is that both iPads and Surface RT suck for trying to do productive work on, try Windows Pro?
Actually I think you meant to say Surface Pro which the MBA will trump for a number of reasons.
1. It really IS a laptop, which means it can be used on your lap and off of a desk. The Surface Pro cannot be used with its keyboard anywhere but on a surface.
2. The MBA can be booted up to run OSX and/or Windows 8.1 or 7.0 whatever you feel you need to be running at the time. The Surface Pro cannot run OSX, and more importantly for a company standardized on Win 7, The Surface Pro cannot run that previous system.
3. While the build quality of the Microsoft Surface Pro is probably high, as is the MBA, Other brands of Intel based tablets are of unknown quality. So in comparisons between Apple and Microsoft hardware, Apple will win out for having the highest-rated customer service in the industry.
Why not, you can't just answer no without a little information to back it up. Here is an example of the same CPU displaying different benchmarks on separate platforms. The Nexus 10 has a Sun Spider benchmark of 1384.1, the Samsung Chromebook XE303 is 711. As you can see there is a quite a difference when two different platforms are used, if a Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 processor was used in the Chromebook I have no doubt that the benchmarks would be as fast as the Apple iPhone 5s or faster. Using this this benchmark graph from AnandTech the Snapdragon is at 614.8 and the iPhone is 416, but the tests for the Qualcomm CPU was done on a Android phone, which is perfect acceptable as the iPhone is a phone. Use a different platform though such as the Chromebook and it will be a whole different story. Yes, absolutely the iPhone 5s is probably the fastest Mobile, however the A7 is certainly not the fastest ARM CPU on the market and defiantly not,"inferior to Apple" as the poster I was replying to stated. If you look at the Surface 2 Sun Spider benchmarks which isn't an Android platform but has the newest Nvidia Tegra 4 CPU, the score it's 397 but another tablet with the Tegra 4 that is running Android,Toshiba Excite Pro is 837.1. Big difference again, so Android with it's virtual machine is defiantly the bottleneck for these benchmarks in which we are all seeing when compared to the Apple iPhone 5s.
I'm not down playing Apples A7 CPU, it's defiantly fast but I'm seeing a lot posts about how it's architecture is the fastest. This is just not the case.
There is no room in the market for a device that tries and fails to be "in between" pure tablet and laptop.
Well that's not true, for example; Asus, Lenovo, Acer and Samsung have many tablet/notebook hybrid offerings. The Surface is a tablet and not a hybrid though, the keyboard is an extra accessory, not needed for it's operation just like a Logitech bluetooth keyboard isn't needed for the iPad.
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.
Microsoft has a docking station for the Surface with all the connections needed. So you can do your work and when finished detach and use it as a tablet and no the keyboard case is not needed for anything.
Because MS's ads depict the Surface with a keyboard and specifically spotlights the "click" sound the keyboard and Surface makes when connecting.
It's just a commercial, if the keyboard was truly needed or if Microsoft was trying to sell the Surface as a Hybrid they would have included the keyboard. Personally I would skip the keyboard all together and just get the docking station for when I need to get real work done. The keyboard is uncomfortable to use and frankly a nuisance, when on the go the virtual keyboard is just fine. Like with my iPad I can now type 40 words a minute when I set the keyboard to split.
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 so do you, because the Thunderbolt monitor and 27" iMac (2560 x 1440) and the 21.5" iMac (1920 x 1080) has that same aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (16:9). Besides, there's nothing magical about any aspect ratio. The MacBook Pros have an aspect ratio of 1.6:1 (2880 x 1800 in newer models and 1440 x 900 in older models) and the iPad has the old standard definition TV resolution of 1.33:1 (2048 x 1536).
The question is, "what can I put on the screen at the same time to increase my productivity". One can make the case with a wider screen, you can more easily put two full pages on the display. But of course, when you can't multitask, that becomes a moot point. In the case of an iPad, where portability is important, 1.33:1 may indeed be the right size because to support the MBP AR, you'd have to make the iPad either wider or shorter (when holding it in portrait mode). But that doesn't make the Microsoft device the wrong size.
Besides, 16:9, while the aspect ratio of HDTV, is not the perfect size to watch widescreen movies, because most modern widescreen movies are 2.4:1 and non-widescreen digitally shot and 35mm spherically shot movies are 1.85:1. That's why you see black bars when you watch a widescreen movie at its proper aspect ratio on any 16:9 device. Only HD television shows are 16:9.
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.
You obviously don't know what 64 bit chips are for. "Breaking" the 4gb barrier is only one if them. And in this case not a very important one.
Why not, you can't just answer no without a little information to back it up. Here is an example of the same CPU displaying different benchmarks on separate platforms. The Nexus 10 has a Sun Spider benchmark of 1384.1, the Samsung Chromebook XE303 is 711. As you can see there is a quite a difference when two different platforms are used, if a Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 processor was used in the Chromebook I have no doubt that the benchmarks would be as fast as the Apple iPhone 5s or faster. Using this this benchmark graph from AnandTech the Snapdragon is at 614.8 and the iPhone is 416, but the tests for the Qualcomm CPU was done on a Android phone, which is perfect acceptable as the iPhone is a phone. Use a different platform though such as the Chromebook and it will be a whole different story. Yes, absolutely the iPhone 5s is probably the fastest Mobile, however the A7 is certainly not the fastest ARM CPU on the market and defiantly not,"inferior to Apple" as the poster I was replying to stated. If you look at the Surface 2 Sun Spider benchmarks which isn't an Android platform but has the newest Nvidia Tegra 4 CPU, the score it's 397 but another tablet with the Tegra 4 that is running Android,Toshiba Excite Pro is 837.1. Big difference again, so Android with it's virtual machine is defiantly the bottleneck for these benchmarks in which we are all seeing when compared to the Apple iPhone 5s.
I'm not down playing Apples A7 CPU, it's defiantly fast but I'm seeing a lot posts about how it's architecture is the fastest. This is just not the case.
When you look at the clock speeds of the various chips running, you see the A7 is probably the "fastest" architecture. Even when you remove that pig Android. Dual core about 1.3 ghz vs quad core 2+ ghz.
You obviously don't know what 64 bit chips are for. "Breaking" the 4gb barrier is only one if them. And in this case not a very important one.
It's amazing that sort of "it's just a marketing gimmick" crap still exists, especially on a 'tech' forum. Running comparative tests you can easy see the benefits of Objective-C with AArch64.
The only thing I haven't seen posted anywhere else (except by me) is the possibility that Touch ID required AArch64 to benefit from the improved cryptography.
You obviously don't know what 64 bit chips are for. "Breaking" the 4gb barrier is only one if them. And in this case not a very important one.
I am fully aware of what 64bit chips are and the benefits, I have been writing program specifically for 64bit architecture for 15 years. In a mobile setting, as of yet it brings little to the speed or improvements to the platform. Not to say someone doesn't have to start to start this movement but iOS apps will be 32bit for a very long time to come.
I was wrong there is no "4GB wall" on ARMv7, as many ARMv7 cores support LPAE (Large Physical Address Extension), which is a concept symilar to PAE on x86, except LPAE uses 40-bit addressing. Meaning, that LPAE equipped ARMv7 can address up to 1TB of RAM.
It's also important to mention that upcoming ARMv8 cores, including A7, will not use 64-bit physical addressing. Most likely A7 will use either 40-bit or 44-bit physical addressing. Later giving access to at most 16TB RAM.
Of course either with LPAE on ARMv7 or in AArch32 mode on ARMv8, applications are still 32-bit, so the application itself can only access 4GB at a time. But I don't think it would be an issue on mobile devices any time soon.
You worry that apps will use more memory (64-bit pointers), but that won't be the case it the apps run in 32-bit mode (AArch32).
On the other hand ARMv8 provides other architectural improvements over ARMv7, which are not related to AArch64.
Even on systems with more than 4GB RAM it provides no significant advantage over LPAE for 32-bit apps. And 64-bit apps aren't coming anytime soon.
I would still say and so does evey programmer I know the biggest advantage over 32 bit for 64 bit processors is the movement of memory, and not the size of memory. While it's true that 32 bit can impose a 4GB limit on direct access. There are many hardware/software solutions to get around that limit.
64 bit processors can simply read/write more data in a single processor operation. It allows the assembly code to perform operations on 8 byte blocks. This can have a great performance advantage over 32 bit processors. Floating point calculations are faster on 64 then 32, and when the CPU uses dual registers it can operate on 128 bit data blocks.
64 bit processors also have wider bandwidths to physical memory. If you have a camera that records 1080p and want to edit that video. Performing an operation on a 1GB video file will simply be faster on 64-bit.
The more bits you add to the pipeline of a CPU the more data that the CPU has to move. The CPU can not narrow that bandwidth down to 16 or 32. So this creates a problem for software developers. Most software (your calendar, notes, etc..) don't depend upon a lot of data, and as a result 64 bits would involve a lot of wasted bandwidth. This can start to hinder performance and battery life. So the CPU manufactures have to find a balance between bandwidth and software requirements.
I'm amazed that Apple released a new 64 processor so soon in the life of mobile computing. I think their real motivation for this is 3D graphics. With a 64 bit processor the phone can move more data to the GPU quickly. This will allow for fast 3D games and more impressive graphics but again it will be a long while before we see this.
When you look at the clock speeds of the various chips running, you see the A7 is probably the "fastest" architecture. Even when you remove that pig Android. Dual core about 1.3 ghz vs quad core 2+ ghz.
Those benchmarks you are seeing are almost always browser related, until I see Apples A7 on a developers board being benchmarked against similiar CPU's on the same board there is truly no way to know. The examples I showed above with the Chromebook and Nexus 10 was the closest I could find of having the same CPU with different OS's and it showed it makes a big difference.
Comments
I think it $$$ for IPad wireless key. + Smart Cover and then $580 plus good surface RT cover be more valued.
Try getting a hdmi and plug the thing into a TV, better now?
I would have said the same for phablets but maybe any computer like device might reach a point for it.
It be a option and etc., you can either way still.
Or have a 50 foot cord(perfurably retractable.
Microsoft has a ok device, good competitor to the weird who are thinking of IPad 2(many think $50 is way different than $100) bit IPad air can beat this.
I didn't realize your posts were sarcasm. My apologies.
Any post I are sarcastic in I use the /s
Anything can be, but why would you want to. If you have to have a cable to charge the iPad while on your desk, and why wouldn't you, then why not have that cable plug into the monitor for data anyway? Really? Why have two power cables (monitor and iPad) and then AirPlay from a foot away? Makes no sense.
This thing doesn't seem to do anything particularly well which is it's downfall. What's the point of it being a tablet if you need a keyboard and to sit it on a desk? Ironically, an actual Macbook Air seems more portable than this thing...
The problems are pretty simple, and dire. They have no apps, their ecosystem is stitched together with little cohesion with their desktop systems, the OS itself is a frankenstein of two different interfaces each able to accomplish the same thing, nobody cares about tile world. Top it off their marketing is abysmal and their supporters are just as obnoxious as many of the crazies here if not more so because they are deluded into thinking Microsoft is still dominant.
No it only has a wider screen not bigger, the surfaces screen is 38.95 in^2, the iPad while narrower has a diff screen ratio but it's size is 45.18 in^2.
That means the surface screen is only about 86% the size of the full size iPads, while the iPad mini is 77% the size of the surface.
Honestly, I can't understand/agree with your post.
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).
Since we are seeing Apple doubling performance each year, even if they "only" increase performance 50% this time next year, intel is totally behind on mobile. This is a different situation from what happens in the PC industry where Apple pushes the envelope and ditches discrete graphics on high end systems, so everyone follows the lead and intel gets a big boost because every OEM is behind their back.
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.
I think that's missing my point. A7 doesn't help the Surface at all for one, and while I'm sure Qualcomm will get there soon the point is that Intel is already competitive with them. Short term, ARM chips may keep getting wins, but in the long view of Intels roadmap I think they'll dominate this space just like they dominated AMD. It's hard for anyone to compete with a company that can drop 5-6 billion on a new uarch and think nothing of it. Just ask AMD.
Surface (RT and Pro) look like design school exercises to answer the challenge: "Design a device that melds the best features of a tablet and a laptop". The question though that is just as critical, and which probably didn't even occur to MS, is "Does such a design make sense?" or in Apple-speak "Does it deserve to exist?"
Can't really blame them for trying, MS was coming in late to the market, so they had to offer something unique and compelling. They got the 'unique' part, the other part? -- Initial verdict is currently on appeal.
Actually I think you meant to say Surface Pro which the MBA will trump for a number of reasons.
1. It really IS a laptop, which means it can be used on your lap and off of a desk. The Surface Pro cannot be used with its keyboard anywhere but on a surface.
2. The MBA can be booted up to run OSX and/or Windows 8.1 or 7.0 whatever you feel you need to be running at the time. The Surface Pro cannot run OSX, and more importantly for a company standardized on Win 7, The Surface Pro cannot run that previous system.
3. While the build quality of the Microsoft Surface Pro is probably high, as is the MBA, Other brands of Intel based tablets are of unknown quality. So in comparisons between Apple and Microsoft hardware, Apple will win out for having the highest-rated customer service in the industry.
No!
Why not, you can't just answer no without a little information to back it up. Here is an example of the same CPU displaying different benchmarks on separate platforms. The Nexus 10 has a Sun Spider benchmark of 1384.1, the Samsung Chromebook XE303 is 711. As you can see there is a quite a difference when two different platforms are used, if a Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 processor was used in the Chromebook I have no doubt that the benchmarks would be as fast as the Apple iPhone 5s or faster. Using this this benchmark graph from AnandTech the Snapdragon is at 614.8 and the iPhone is 416, but the tests for the Qualcomm CPU was done on a Android phone, which is perfect acceptable as the iPhone is a phone. Use a different platform though such as the Chromebook and it will be a whole different story. Yes, absolutely the iPhone 5s is probably the fastest Mobile, however the A7 is certainly not the fastest ARM CPU on the market and defiantly not,"inferior to Apple" as the poster I was replying to stated. If you look at the Surface 2 Sun Spider benchmarks which isn't an Android platform but has the newest Nvidia Tegra 4 CPU, the score it's 397 but another tablet with the Tegra 4 that is running Android,Toshiba Excite Pro is 837.1. Big difference again, so Android with it's virtual machine is defiantly the bottleneck for these benchmarks in which we are all seeing when compared to the Apple iPhone 5s.
I'm not down playing Apples A7 CPU, it's defiantly fast but I'm seeing a lot posts about how it's architecture is the fastest. This is just not the case.
What a joke.
There is no room in the market for a device that tries and fails to be "in between" pure tablet and laptop.
Well that's not true, for example; Asus, Lenovo, Acer and Samsung have many tablet/notebook hybrid offerings. The Surface is a tablet and not a hybrid though, the keyboard is an extra accessory, not needed for it's operation just like a Logitech bluetooth keyboard isn't needed for the iPad.
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.
Microsoft has a docking station for the Surface with all the connections needed. So you can do your work and when finished detach and use it as a tablet and no the keyboard case is not needed for anything.
Because MS's ads depict the Surface with a keyboard and specifically spotlights the "click" sound the keyboard and Surface makes when connecting.
It's just a commercial, if the keyboard was truly needed or if Microsoft was trying to sell the Surface as a Hybrid they would have included the keyboard. Personally I would skip the keyboard all together and just get the docking station for when I need to get real work done. The keyboard is uncomfortable to use and frankly a nuisance, when on the go the virtual keyboard is just fine. Like with my iPad I can now type 40 words a minute when I set the keyboard to split.
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 so do you, because the Thunderbolt monitor and 27" iMac (2560 x 1440) and the 21.5" iMac (1920 x 1080) has that same aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (16:9). Besides, there's nothing magical about any aspect ratio. The MacBook Pros have an aspect ratio of 1.6:1 (2880 x 1800 in newer models and 1440 x 900 in older models) and the iPad has the old standard definition TV resolution of 1.33:1 (2048 x 1536).
The question is, "what can I put on the screen at the same time to increase my productivity". One can make the case with a wider screen, you can more easily put two full pages on the display. But of course, when you can't multitask, that becomes a moot point. In the case of an iPad, where portability is important, 1.33:1 may indeed be the right size because to support the MBP AR, you'd have to make the iPad either wider or shorter (when holding it in portrait mode). But that doesn't make the Microsoft device the wrong size.
Besides, 16:9, while the aspect ratio of HDTV, is not the perfect size to watch widescreen movies, because most modern widescreen movies are 2.4:1 and non-widescreen digitally shot and 35mm spherically shot movies are 1.85:1. That's why you see black bars when you watch a widescreen movie at its proper aspect ratio on any 16:9 device. Only HD television shows are 16:9.
You obviously don't know what 64 bit chips are for. "Breaking" the 4gb barrier is only one if them. And in this case not a very important one.
When you look at the clock speeds of the various chips running, you see the A7 is probably the "fastest" architecture. Even when you remove that pig Android. Dual core about 1.3 ghz vs quad core 2+ ghz.
It's amazing that sort of "it's just a marketing gimmick" crap still exists, especially on a 'tech' forum. Running comparative tests you can easy see the benefits of Objective-C with AArch64.
The only thing I haven't seen posted anywhere else (except by me) is the possibility that Touch ID required AArch64 to benefit from the improved cryptography.
You obviously don't know what 64 bit chips are for. "Breaking" the 4gb barrier is only one if them. And in this case not a very important one.
I am fully aware of what 64bit chips are and the benefits, I have been writing program specifically for 64bit architecture for 15 years. In a mobile setting, as of yet it brings little to the speed or improvements to the platform. Not to say someone doesn't have to start to start this movement but iOS apps will be 32bit for a very long time to come.
I was wrong there is no "4GB wall" on ARMv7, as many ARMv7 cores support LPAE (Large Physical Address Extension), which is a concept symilar to PAE on x86, except LPAE uses 40-bit addressing. Meaning, that LPAE equipped ARMv7 can address up to 1TB of RAM.
It's also important to mention that upcoming ARMv8 cores, including A7, will not use 64-bit physical addressing. Most likely A7 will use either 40-bit or 44-bit physical addressing. Later giving access to at most 16TB RAM.
Of course either with LPAE on ARMv7 or in AArch32 mode on ARMv8, applications are still 32-bit, so the application itself can only access 4GB at a time. But I don't think it would be an issue on mobile devices any time soon.
You worry that apps will use more memory (64-bit pointers), but that won't be the case it the apps run in 32-bit mode (AArch32).
On the other hand ARMv8 provides other architectural improvements over ARMv7, which are not related to AArch64.
Even on systems with more than 4GB RAM it provides no significant advantage over LPAE for 32-bit apps. And 64-bit apps aren't coming anytime soon.
I would still say and so does evey programmer I know the biggest advantage over 32 bit for 64 bit processors is the movement of memory, and not the size of memory. While it's true that 32 bit can impose a 4GB limit on direct access. There are many hardware/software solutions to get around that limit.
64 bit processors can simply read/write more data in a single processor operation. It allows the assembly code to perform operations on 8 byte blocks. This can have a great performance advantage over 32 bit processors. Floating point calculations are faster on 64 then 32, and when the CPU uses dual registers it can operate on 128 bit data blocks.
64 bit processors also have wider bandwidths to physical memory. If you have a camera that records 1080p and want to edit that video. Performing an operation on a 1GB video file will simply be faster on 64-bit.
The more bits you add to the pipeline of a CPU the more data that the CPU has to move. The CPU can not narrow that bandwidth down to 16 or 32. So this creates a problem for software developers. Most software (your calendar, notes, etc..) don't depend upon a lot of data, and as a result 64 bits would involve a lot of wasted bandwidth. This can start to hinder performance and battery life. So the CPU manufactures have to find a balance between bandwidth and software requirements.
I'm amazed that Apple released a new 64 processor so soon in the life of mobile computing. I think their real motivation for this is 3D graphics. With a 64 bit processor the phone can move more data to the GPU quickly. This will allow for fast 3D games and more impressive graphics but again it will be a long while before we see this.
When you look at the clock speeds of the various chips running, you see the A7 is probably the "fastest" architecture. Even when you remove that pig Android. Dual core about 1.3 ghz vs quad core 2+ ghz.
Those benchmarks you are seeing are almost always browser related, until I see Apples A7 on a developers board being benchmarked against similiar CPU's on the same board there is truly no way to know. The examples I showed above with the Chromebook and Nexus 10 was the closest I could find of having the same CPU with different OS's and it showed it makes a big difference.