That's funny, what I can clearly see is that everyone else on this thread recognizes you as a troll, and is responding thusly.
I don't actually think you ever worked next to a video production company using Surfaces by the way. I think you made all that up, just like you made up the fact that I spent 40 years in grad school, or that I'm not actually a video professional, and probably everything else you have claimed in this thread -- pure lies. And why not, it's the internet and you're just doing your job as a troll and MS fanboy.
Yup, I'm just some "MS fanboy" who makes things up and obviously you're right that no one anywhere has ever used a Surface for video editing. You clearly have me figured out.
Not everyone is working with RAW 4K footage. Other than the built-in storage (goes up to 1TB), USB, and SD cards, the Surface Pro does have a gigabit network port on the dock.
gigabit network port is NOT high speed - maybe if you had several ports and bonded them you could consider it high speed.
I think you're referring to usage cases that don't apply to devices like this.
Get real. Uncompressed 4K video is a standard usage case for Final Cut over TB 2; the best Surface Pro will do is highly compressed 4K, so in effect, it isn't really a valid editing platform for anything but low end editing. You might get closer ingesting USB 3.0, but for streaming uncompressed video, latency might rear its ugly head. But of course, the iPad Pro has USB 3.0 as well, so its a wash.
Gee, all those Apple products with TB 2 must make you feel so, abbreviated, in you abilities; and now TB 3 is out, with even more bandwidth, but TB is missing from all Surface products. Sucks to compete with Apple in pro video.
But of course, the iPad Pro has USB 3.0 as well, so its a wash.
Does it support USB 3.0 as a host (being able to access a USB drive)? Or only for being accessed as a disk from a PC or Mac (and with an adapter that apparently doesn't exist yet)?
But yeah, neither of these devices is meant for online 4K editing.
Does it support USB 3.0 as a host (being able to access a USB drive)? Or only for being accessed as a disk from a PC or Mac (and with an adapter that apparently doesn't exist yet)?
But yeah, neither of these devices is meant for online 4K editing.
And that was basically where I was getting to. Earlier in this thread you were claiming that the Surface Pro was great because it was being used for professional video/editing company. Although something might be able to be used in some specialized very low end of a market does not make it suitable for a "professional market". An analogy would be a chef going out and buying a home range / cooking equipment and installing it in the restaurant. It might work for a few months but there are things that are missing or of insufficient quality for that purpose that eventually you start having problems.... things like pushing the devices far beyond what they were designed for, grease buildup because the devices were not designed for that environment and thus are not easy to clean regularly.... Eventually it gets to the point and the chef starts cooking, the grease catches on fire and the restaurant burns down and both the customers and the chef are killed..... just because it can be used in a professional environment at the very low end does not suddenly make that range a professional grade device on which to base a company....
Yes, you can probably edit compressed video and output something that will get buy as a throwaway / single use situation (advertising agency, news footage) or web video..... but what you are really using is something that is aimed at the high end consumer and not the professional market. When you talk about professional you should at least be able to serve the middle of that market. When you are producing professionally you are creating an asset - which you are aiming for profitability in the first release... but you are expecting to be able to count it as an asset which also makes money in syndication etc. Same with professional software development you are building an asset that depreciates over time (and you have to invest at least the amount it is depreciating to hold it's value). 4K is here now - and although you may not release it in 4K (compressing it down and releasing it in HD because of market dynamics) if you raw footage really should be shot in at 4K now so that your asset is worth something in the future. Many times during transitional periods people have been short sited and figured the market is not there now so we will save 5% on production now and made it worth much less as an asset (black and white -> colour film and TV; TV recorded on low res video tape; analogue TV to HD). Not being a professional in that market I can only guess, but if it is anything like my industry the cost of salaries / benefits (i.e. people) dwarfs the technology costs, so yes you can save money by aiming at today and providing nothing for next year (which might be important if your company is hanging by a thread) doing so on average tends to be more costly in that you have a library of near worthless assets on your books.
You brought up a 2D CAD application on Surface; my retort was a full MCAD solution available for iOS including iPhone, iPad and iPad Pro.
I brought a CAD application because that was what the writer mention, not because a personal preference.
Quote:
MS made a conscious decision to stick with Intel, and I believe that will impair their mobile effort. You seem to be happy with your "not doing bad" devices, but my opinion is that the market is moving faster than Windows will adapt.
My happiness is not based in sales, instead how good a device is in my workflow. And right now, the Surface Pro looks like an option. And Windows is moving very quick, specially Windows 10.
Quote:
Sure, applications from major software vendors are being updated for Surface, but these same companies are also creating new products not only for iOS, but specifically for the iPad Pro.
This is a flawed comparison because the A9x is running iOS which is a mobile operating system, while the surface pro is running Windows 10. The A9x is a great chip but it is optimized for iOS. In the real world it can't even compete with Intel's core M processor nor less the i-series chips, because it cannot effectively run OS X. If it could then Apple would have put it in the new MacBook. I am sure Apple tested the A9x in the MacBook, but ultimately OS X was to much for it.
This is a flawed comparison because the A9x is running iOS which is a mobile operating system, while the surface pro is running Windows 10. The A9x is a great chip but it is optimized for iOS. In the real world it can't even compete with Intel's core M processor nor less the i-series chips, because it cannot effectively run OS X. If it could then Apple would have put it in the new MacBook. I am sure Apple tested the A9x in the MacBook, but ultimately OS X was to much for it.
That is a facetious argument ..... Yes, OS X can run just fine on the A9X.... it is the same operating system kernel with a few optimizations (CPU side taken care of). It has a thinner window management system but if you have seen some of the handling of 3D images rotating etc. on applications demonstrated on there... it can easily handle a 2D window management system. The reason is simple why they have not used it - consumer confusion of having different applications for different Macs. The lack of applications in the app store since the app store is still a work in progress for apps from multi architecture deployment. The fact that no 3rd party applications would be there at the beginning and using old ways of doing redeployment of existing apps would mean they would not be on the platform for a year at least - and be at the discretion of the developer which would not do it unless the QA costs (significant) clearly would give them a profit worth pursuing. No the ARM in there is not sufficient to overcome the lose of execution speed by having to simulate in software the x86 processor... but then the Core-M would be impacted the same way if it had to simulate ARM architecture.....
The simple reason why they did not do it is because it would at this time be more problematic than profitable for them -- not because the A9X cannot handle it.
This is a flawed comparison because the A9x is running iOS which is a mobile operating system, while the surface pro is running Windows 10. The A9x is a great chip but it is optimized for iOS. In the real world it can't even compete with Intel's core M processor nor less the i-series chips, because it cannot effectively run OS X. If it could then Apple would have put it in the new MacBook. I am sure Apple tested the A9x in the MacBook, but ultimately OS X was to much for it.
The benchmarks say you are wrong, plain and simple.
Were Apple to switch Macs to AX processors, every. Single. App. would need to be recompiled, or run in emulation. The ARM platform Apple is running is not fast enough yet to allow a seamless emulation environment a la Rosetta in OS X up to Snow Leopard.
It would also make running Windows in Boot Camp impossible - not sure how relevant this is to Apple's market anymore these days, but a while ago, this was important.
Further, it would hinder cross-platform development of Windows/Mac apps - though that would probably be offset by making iOS/Mac cross-platform development easier.
In short, the reason Apple isn't building AX-based Macs isn't hardware, it's SOFTWARE.
I am sure Apple tested the A9x in the MacBook, but ultimately OS X was to much for it.
You are simply talking shit. That is plain and simple, and I can tell you that as a person with M.S. in computer science.
Geekbench tests Flpoint and Int performance + memory system (and memory management) performance as well. So, if a set of computations take shorter time to compute on iOS than on other OS, than it is what it is. In other words, on that OS that set runs faster. Period.
You are simply talking shit. That is plain and simple, and I can tell you that as a person with M.S. in computer science.
Geekbench tests Flpoint and Int performance + memory system (and memory management) performance as well. So, if a set of computations take shorter time to compute on iOS than on other OS, than it is what it is. In other words, on that OS that set runs faster. Period.
I do believe that Geekbench markets itself as a CPU benchmarking application so they are likely also doing benchmarking of the operating system and compilers in relation and then factoring out the OS and compiler bias -- which can from time to time have to be corrected because of compiler optimization [compiler optimizations can have massive effects in skewing results] changes etc. (it is more of a guess on what all is done). They are also attempting to select use cases to simulate average usage since different mixes of instructions can have differing results across processor families. So yes -- you have to take the results with a small grain of salt since it is not exact (maybe 5% plus or minus)... but then you also have to take them in the same with a similar grain of salt if you are comparing different families (e.g. Haswell and Skylake). Same with operating systems and associated compilers. I still come back to the same point though -- 90% of the people do not push the extremes of any of the processors (with the exception of things like games / video computations etc.) and the CPU alone is not a great indicator of each of the use cases. I do remember back back far in the past when intel shipped 80x86 processor and then optionally you could pop in an 80x87 floating point processor separately (which was a rare case).... and Intel (and intel fanboys) was complaining because benchmarking was unfairly skewing them badly because part of the CPU benchmarking was based on math best done on an FPU.... I still trust a variety of benchmarks more than the manufacturers....
You might be very surprised. The top two applications for the vast majority of corporate users are email and web browsers. We have several financial services clients that do not allow laptops at all. People have desktops and iPads. The iPad is far and away the easiest device to lockdown and manage in an enterprise. These are firms with thousands to tens of thousands of employees. Most of the people that are describing tasks that can't be done on an iPad are also describing tasks most people wouldn't do on anything but a very high end laptop or a desktop machine. Sure you can run Autocad on a surface pro, nobody does for anything but viewing and you can view those same unmodified drawings on an iPad.
I agree. But, the problem with email, calendar, contacts, Safari and perhaps a few other "standard" apps is they have limited functionality under IOS than the same named products under OS X .
Only two alerts can be set up in Calendar under iOS, while under OS X more than two. More complex repeats can be set up under OS X than iOS. The weekly calendar can to setup to place today in the leftmost column under OS X, while under iOS, the leftmost day is always Sunday (or whichever day you specified to be your first day of the week).
In Contacts, entries can be placed in multiple groups, but I have not found how to do the same under iOS.
In email, I can read most any attachment under OS X, while iOS is limited. For example, I recently received an OpenOffice attachment. iOS email is unable to process it, while, of course, OS X emal has no problem.
Safari? Everyone knows, and nobody even expects Safari on the iOS to handle pages containing Flash or java-applets.
In any case, though some of the limitations associated with iOS can be removed by simple enhancements to existing software, there are other limitations, of a pure consumption type, for which even OS X running in an iPad device cannot be a solution.
The iPad Pro is only niche in that next year the main (non-niche) iPad Air 3 will come out incorporating much of the new technology into the standard sized iPads.... iPad sales are still very sizable.... I agree with Tim Cook it has more to do with the upgrade cycle with iPads being longer, and the eventual iPad Air 3 will be the first test of that theory since the advancements for that model are the first real reason to upgrade faster.
The upgrade cycle is the key. The ipad2 is the most used device. It's clearly good enough for most people.
This article is a joke. The base i5 model with 4GB RAM and 128GB HDD is $899, and that includes a stylus and 4x more storage than the base model iPad Pro.
To get the iPad Pro with the same amount of storage and the Pencil will cost you $1049.
Now we've cleared that up you can see that the Surface Pro 4 is cheaper and more powerful when comparing similar price points.
Sweet, now install the Adobe CC suite... oh right.
Same reason why Windows is such a poor development platform..... install bash shell with all the utilities and all the unix utilities etc..... oh yeah.... right.... a few attempts to make it bearable but all utter failures.... It is why Windows is just not suitable....
Comments
That's funny, what I can clearly see is that everyone else on this thread recognizes you as a troll, and is responding thusly.
I don't actually think you ever worked next to a video production company using Surfaces by the way. I think you made all that up, just like you made up the fact that I spent 40 years in grad school, or that I'm not actually a video professional, and probably everything else you have claimed in this thread -- pure lies. And why not, it's the internet and you're just doing your job as a troll and MS fanboy.
Yup, I'm just some "MS fanboy" who makes things up and obviously you're right that no one anywhere has ever used a Surface for video editing. You clearly have me figured out.
(Posted from my iPhone 6S)
?
Not everyone is working with RAW 4K footage. Other than the built-in storage (goes up to 1TB), USB, and SD cards, the Surface Pro does have a gigabit network port on the dock.
gigabit network port is NOT high speed - maybe if you had several ports and bonded them you could consider it high speed.
I think you're referring to usage cases that don't apply to devices like this.
gigabit network port is NOT high speed - maybe if you had several ports and bonded them you could consider it high speed.
Even RAW 4k is going to be about 700Mb/s, so gigabit supports it. Final 4k product is 50-100Mb/s, so that's no problem.
Even RAW 4k is going to be about 700Mb/s, so gigabit supports it. Final 4k product is 50-100Mb/s, so that's no problem.
http://www.mellanox.com/blog/2014/04/4k-video-drives-new-demands/
Depends what you mean by RAW, but no way uncompressed 4K video works on Gb ethernet.
Google it, like I did.
I think you're referring to usage cases that don't apply to devices like this.
Get real. Uncompressed 4K video is a standard usage case for Final Cut over TB 2; the best Surface Pro will do is highly compressed 4K, so in effect, it isn't really a valid editing platform for anything but low end editing. You might get closer ingesting USB 3.0, but for streaming uncompressed video, latency might rear its ugly head. But of course, the iPad Pro has USB 3.0 as well, so its a wash.
https://blogs.intel.com/technology/2013/09/the-4k-universe-just-got-better-thunderbolt-2-products-come-into-focus/
Gee, all those Apple products with TB 2 must make you feel so, abbreviated, in you abilities; and now TB 3 is out, with even more bandwidth, but TB is missing from all Surface products. Sucks to compete with Apple in pro video.
Did you quote the wrong post?
Does it support USB 3.0 as a host (being able to access a USB drive)? Or only for being accessed as a disk from a PC or Mac (and with an adapter that apparently doesn't exist yet)?
But yeah, neither of these devices is meant for online 4K editing.
Did you quote the wrong post?
Does it support USB 3.0 as a host (being able to access a USB drive)? Or only for being accessed as a disk from a PC or Mac (and with an adapter that apparently doesn't exist yet)?
But yeah, neither of these devices is meant for online 4K editing.
And that was basically where I was getting to. Earlier in this thread you were claiming that the Surface Pro was great because it was being used for professional video/editing company. Although something might be able to be used in some specialized very low end of a market does not make it suitable for a "professional market". An analogy would be a chef going out and buying a home range / cooking equipment and installing it in the restaurant. It might work for a few months but there are things that are missing or of insufficient quality for that purpose that eventually you start having problems.... things like pushing the devices far beyond what they were designed for, grease buildup because the devices were not designed for that environment and thus are not easy to clean regularly.... Eventually it gets to the point and the chef starts cooking, the grease catches on fire and the restaurant burns down and both the customers and the chef are killed..... just because it can be used in a professional environment at the very low end does not suddenly make that range a professional grade device on which to base a company....
Yes, you can probably edit compressed video and output something that will get buy as a throwaway / single use situation (advertising agency, news footage) or web video..... but what you are really using is something that is aimed at the high end consumer and not the professional market. When you talk about professional you should at least be able to serve the middle of that market. When you are producing professionally you are creating an asset - which you are aiming for profitability in the first release... but you are expecting to be able to count it as an asset which also makes money in syndication etc. Same with professional software development you are building an asset that depreciates over time (and you have to invest at least the amount it is depreciating to hold it's value). 4K is here now - and although you may not release it in 4K (compressing it down and releasing it in HD because of market dynamics) if you raw footage really should be shot in at 4K now so that your asset is worth something in the future. Many times during transitional periods people have been short sited and figured the market is not there now so we will save 5% on production now and made it worth much less as an asset (black and white -> colour film and TV; TV recorded on low res video tape; analogue TV to HD). Not being a professional in that market I can only guess, but if it is anything like my industry the cost of salaries / benefits (i.e. people) dwarfs the technology costs, so yes you can save money by aiming at today and providing nothing for next year (which might be important if your company is hanging by a thread) doing so on average tends to be more costly in that you have a library of near worthless assets on your books.
You brought up a 2D CAD application on Surface; my retort was a full MCAD solution available for iOS including iPhone, iPad and iPad Pro.
I brought a CAD application because that was what the writer mention, not because a personal preference.
MS made a conscious decision to stick with Intel, and I believe that will impair their mobile effort. You seem to be happy with your "not doing bad" devices, but my opinion is that the market is moving faster than Windows will adapt.
My happiness is not based in sales, instead how good a device is in my workflow. And right now, the Surface Pro looks like an option. And Windows is moving very quick, specially Windows 10.
That was the point in my original post.
This is a flawed comparison because the A9x is running iOS which is a mobile operating system, while the surface pro is running Windows 10. The A9x is a great chip but it is optimized for iOS. In the real world it can't even compete with Intel's core M processor nor less the i-series chips, because it cannot effectively run OS X. If it could then Apple would have put it in the new MacBook. I am sure Apple tested the A9x in the MacBook, but ultimately OS X was to much for it.
That is a facetious argument ..... Yes, OS X can run just fine on the A9X.... it is the same operating system kernel with a few optimizations (CPU side taken care of). It has a thinner window management system but if you have seen some of the handling of 3D images rotating etc. on applications demonstrated on there... it can easily handle a 2D window management system. The reason is simple why they have not used it - consumer confusion of having different applications for different Macs. The lack of applications in the app store since the app store is still a work in progress for apps from multi architecture deployment. The fact that no 3rd party applications would be there at the beginning and using old ways of doing redeployment of existing apps would mean they would not be on the platform for a year at least - and be at the discretion of the developer which would not do it unless the QA costs (significant) clearly would give them a profit worth pursuing. No the ARM in there is not sufficient to overcome the lose of execution speed by having to simulate in software the x86 processor... but then the Core-M would be impacted the same way if it had to simulate ARM architecture.....
The simple reason why they did not do it is because it would at this time be more problematic than profitable for them -- not because the A9X cannot handle it.
The benchmarks say you are wrong, plain and simple.
Were Apple to switch Macs to AX processors, every. Single. App. would need to be recompiled, or run in emulation. The ARM platform Apple is running is not fast enough yet to allow a seamless emulation environment a la Rosetta in OS X up to Snow Leopard.
It would also make running Windows in Boot Camp impossible - not sure how relevant this is to Apple's market anymore these days, but a while ago, this was important.
Further, it would hinder cross-platform development of Windows/Mac apps - though that would probably be offset by making iOS/Mac cross-platform development easier.
In short, the reason Apple isn't building AX-based Macs isn't hardware, it's SOFTWARE.
"However, the i5-powered Surface Pro 4 costs $500 more than an iPad Pro."
The 128GB i5 Surface Pro cost $999.00 or $1299.00 for the 256GB/8GB model.
The 128GB iPad Plus cost $949.00 $99.00 for the pen (sorry pencil) which the Surface includes.
So it's either $1048.00 (iPad) vs $999.00 (Surface), or $1048.00 (iPad) vs $1299.00 (Surface).
At MOST the Surface cost $251.00 more while getting 128GB additional storage and 4GB additional memory.
At best the Surface is actually cheaper.
I am sure Apple tested the A9x in the MacBook, but ultimately OS X was to much for it.
You are simply talking shit. That is plain and simple, and I can tell you that as a person with M.S. in computer science.
Geekbench tests Flpoint and Int performance + memory system (and memory management) performance as well. So, if a set of computations take shorter time to compute on iOS than on other OS, than it is what it is. In other words, on that OS that set runs faster. Period.
You are simply talking shit. That is plain and simple, and I can tell you that as a person with M.S. in computer science.
Geekbench tests Flpoint and Int performance + memory system (and memory management) performance as well. So, if a set of computations take shorter time to compute on iOS than on other OS, than it is what it is. In other words, on that OS that set runs faster. Period.
I do believe that Geekbench markets itself as a CPU benchmarking application so they are likely also doing benchmarking of the operating system and compilers in relation and then factoring out the OS and compiler bias -- which can from time to time have to be corrected because of compiler optimization [compiler optimizations can have massive effects in skewing results] changes etc. (it is more of a guess on what all is done). They are also attempting to select use cases to simulate average usage since different mixes of instructions can have differing results across processor families. So yes -- you have to take the results with a small grain of salt since it is not exact (maybe 5% plus or minus)... but then you also have to take them in the same with a similar grain of salt if you are comparing different families (e.g. Haswell and Skylake). Same with operating systems and associated compilers. I still come back to the same point though -- 90% of the people do not push the extremes of any of the processors (with the exception of things like games / video computations etc.) and the CPU alone is not a great indicator of each of the use cases. I do remember back back far in the past when intel shipped 80x86 processor and then optionally you could pop in an 80x87 floating point processor separately (which was a rare case).... and Intel (and intel fanboys) was complaining because benchmarking was unfairly skewing them badly because part of the CPU benchmarking was based on math best done on an FPU.... I still trust a variety of benchmarks more than the manufacturers....
I agree. But, the problem with email, calendar, contacts, Safari and perhaps a few other "standard" apps is they have limited functionality under IOS than the same named products under OS X .
Only two alerts can be set up in Calendar under iOS, while under OS X more than two. More complex repeats can be set up under OS X than iOS. The weekly calendar can to setup to place today in the leftmost column under OS X, while under iOS, the leftmost day is always Sunday (or whichever day you specified to be your first day of the week).
In Contacts, entries can be placed in multiple groups, but I have not found how to do the same under iOS.
In email, I can read most any attachment under OS X, while iOS is limited. For example, I recently received an OpenOffice attachment. iOS email is unable to process it, while, of course, OS X emal has no problem.
Safari? Everyone knows, and nobody even expects Safari on the iOS to handle pages containing Flash or java-applets.
In any case, though some of the limitations associated with iOS can be removed by simple enhancements to existing software, there are other limitations, of a pure consumption type, for which even OS X running in an iPad device cannot be a solution.
The upgrade cycle is the key. The ipad2 is the most used device. It's clearly good enough for most people.
To get the iPad Pro with the same amount of storage and the Pencil will cost you $1049.
Now we've cleared that up you can see that the Surface Pro 4 is cheaper and more powerful when comparing similar price points.
Sweet, now install the Adobe CC suite... oh right.
Same reason why Windows is such a poor development platform..... install bash shell with all the utilities and all the unix utilities etc..... oh yeah.... right.... a few attempts to make it bearable but all utter failures.... It is why Windows is just not suitable....