That is irrelevant since OS utilizes scheduler that affects performance and bootstrap - doesn't. And ALL of todays consumer grade OSs do have multitasking - hence they all rely on a task scheduler.
And when you run your app, that OS scheduler SCHEDULES your app to be run on a certain core(cores) in a specific order/time.
Factoring out that part of performance will give you unrealistic performance that you will never be able to achieve in a real world OS + app use.
If you run the same benchmark on a multiuser/scheduled system (unloaded), and do the same thing with another operating system you can figure out how the OS factors into it (as a whole). Yes, there the operating system may cause variances because of the scheduler in the background doing different things different times.... so the same thing run once on each could vary 5% 10% (error factor)..... but then if you run it 100x 1000x then that error factor should diminish and you are left with a function that you can apply to factor out the bias caused by the different systems.
If you run the same benchmark on a multiuser/scheduled system (unloaded), and do the same thing with another operating system you can figure out how the OS factors into it (as a whole).
I am sorry, in the previous post you said that GB was factoring out OS.
So, if it factors it out, how then would you test the case you just proposed?
so the same thing run once on each could vary 5% 10% (error factor)..... but then if you run it 100x 1000x then that error factor should diminish and you are left with a function that you can apply to factor out the bias caused by the different systems.
Exactly. I tested rendering for about 30 times during different days. 25 % was still there so we can safely assume it wasn't an error.
Exactly. I tested rendering for about 30 times during different days. 25 % was still there so we can safely assume it wasn't an error.
So for Geekbench to factor it out if it calculates a 25% difference between OS A vs OS B (based on their testbed) then one or the other would have to apply a function to the raw computed score to come up with the benchmark score. Somewhere in their code it would have to have take the raw number generated apply a function to that number based on the operating system and then give you a geekbench score. The score therefore is not necessarily a raw score of how well it is actually running on your system in it's entirety. Hence there are no guarantees that iPad Pro / iOS vs Mac OS or Windows x86 scores actually reflect real life user experience -- because that is not what the benchmark was designed for.
So for Geekbench to factor it out if it calculates a 25% difference between OS A vs OS B (based on their testbed)
Again, it doesn't make sense to calculate and factor out the difference.
What is the point of a benchmark that can't measure real-world performance?
I don't need a hypothetical performance - for that I can get how many cycles individual instructions take to complete. But that will not give me every-day performance.
The score therefore is not necessarily a raw score of how well it is actually running on your system in it's entirety. Hence there are no guarantees that iPad Pro / iOS vs Mac OS or Windows x86 scores actually reflect real life user experience -- because that is not what the benchmark was designed for.
Why not?
Why not just test how much time it takes to process, say 1 000 000 individual loads and then get an average for every system.
Than if a OS A is slower, than system B - so be it.
Don't see the reason why you need to factor out performance of an important component such as OS?
Measuring a hypothetical performance of a TLB makes as much sense as getting your hypothetical benchmark of a CPU without OS.
Again, it doesn't make sense to calculate that factor out the difference.
What is the point of a benchmark that can't measure real-world performance?
I don't need a hypothetical performance - for that I can get how many cycles individual instructions take to complete. But that will not give me every-day performance.
Well then, for what you want a benchmark for - Geekbench is likely not the best suited..... I am not saying that it should or it should not.... just repeating what they have stated on one of primatelabs' (Geekbench) blogs
Quote:
Since Geekbench is a processor benchmark and not a system benchmark, we wanted Geekbench scores to be similar across operating systems when run on identical hardware.
It also is a demonstration why people should not take a benchmark -- without understanding what it is benchmarking -- and then use it out of context of what it was actually benchmarking. Simply stated your requirements are not the requirements used in the development of the benchmark... and thus is not for you.
Why? Why would you factor out compiler "bias" if that compiler performance ultimately is what produces good (or bad) results by giving you better performance through better generated binary?
I believe you are wrong. GB doesn't market itself as such. They simply say that you can compare results from various platforms because they represent the same workload.
But if your operating system is very bad at scheduling task and as a result, performance of your app is bad, factoring that OS out makes NO SENSE whatsoever!
?
Right, but historically Windows would win in this area or at least be on par, though it's probably not really a factor either way. Which compiler (and language/runtime) they built the benchmark with could certainly be a factor though. If they're using the ideal compiler on one platform and a non-standard/non-ideal one for the other, it would make the benchmark less useful.
I question GeekBench numbers simply because they don't seem to map to any other tests you can do across platform. Of course, some tests like JavaScript benchmarks are hard to directly compare because they're subject to the performance of the JS runtime, but on the other hand it does reflect real-world performance for a large percentage of user time. In those cases, the Surface completely trounces the iPad Pro. This shouldn't be too surprising given that it's a faster CPU (especially at the i5 and i7 level) with a generally faster OS and JS engine.
"To get a Surface Pro 4 that has more CPU power than iPad Pro, you have to upgrade to the $1299 version powered by an Intel Core i5, which costs as much as Apple's 13 inch MacBook Pro."
No. You can get the $999 version, which is also powered by an Intel i5.
"However, the i5-powered Surface Pro 4 costs $500 more than an iPad Pro."
The $1299 model also comes with eight times the storage and twice the memory of the $799 iPad Pro. And includes the stylus, which is a $99 add-on for the iPad Pro.
If you compare the more similarly specced i5 / 4GB / 128GB model of the Surface Pro 4 instead, the iPad Pro is only $50 cheaper. Throw in the stylus and the iPad Pro is $50 more expensive. Add a keyboard to both and the iPad Pro is $90 more expensive.
You tell them, Matt! And then there's this "Even Apple's $499 iPad Air 2 beats the $899 Surface Pro 4 in multicore tests, while scoring slightly lower in single core performance, and delivers that compairable (sic) performance with a price tag that's $400 lower. "
The iPad Air 2 triumphantly "beats" the m3 Surface by less than 10% on the multicore geekbench test, while being 24% slower on the single core test is only "slightly lower." There's no mention that the m3 Surface trounces the the Air on the Sunspider, Octane and Kraken tests. I guess these tests either don't exist or don't count because iPads don't do well on them.
Plus, the Air costs $699 when you up its storage to 128 GB like the Surface has standard, and not $499. For its $200 higher price, the Surface gives you 1) better performance on a variety of tests, 2) twice as much RAM, 3) over 50% more screen area, 4) the ability to use a trackpad and mouse, 5) a Surface pen and the ability to use it, 5) real multitasking, rather the iPad limited bi-tasking, 6) the ability to add inexpensive storage (I got a SanDisk 128 GB microSD card for less than $50) and 7) the ability to use real computer programs.
Well, I use procreate and pixelmator along with my pencil to edit images for my work. There's that. Also my iPad pro is used for general communication. So I use it for Skype, email and even phone calls.
MS don't even need to develop their own chip, I'm sure Samsung would be happy to sell them their Exynos processors which are up there with the A9. Given that MS are trying to make W10 cross platform and run on their ARM based phones, a lot of the work is likely already done.
Hahaha! Exynos is "up there" with A9? Really? Show some benchmarks please.
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.
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. 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.
I do agree that the market will decide.
The problem with the Microsoft ecosystem is that touch centric application for tablet environment will not likely develop very rapidly as a majority of vendors will target the largest of that platforms market - which is laptop/desktop oriented and any touch type stuff will be a generally poorly designed add-on.
If you honestly believe that a professional CAD user would use an iPad Pro for anything but showing off a design or a quick edit, is frankly delusional . The iPad Pro is fine for content consumption but once you start getting into actually creating that content, other than artists, it's just the wrong platform to use. The number of compromises the user has to make using a mobile OS, especially iOS for professional content creation are simply to many to be considered a viable platform. I did try using my iPad Pro for simply productivity tasks and found the entire experience lacking, to the point where it just didn't make any sense to continue even trying. Even simple tasks like running a terminal in the background while it compiled an application located on a remote terminal wasn't possible. The iPad Pro has a lot of good uses but being used as a professional CAD system definitely isn't one of them.
Also, the Surface Pro 4 can be used with AutoDesk, very comfortably actually, it's not for large projects but it can be used, just do a Google search on the matter, there are a few reviews on the subject and their all favorable. It's fine that you do not like the Surface Pro but you don't need to embellish it's faults. 80% of everything said about it here is completely false. It's a fantastic little computer that is extremely capable, it might not be for everyone but it is in no way useless.
iOS dominates mobile use in the enterprise. The iPad has about 80% of the enterprise market, the iPhone around 65%.
Where do people come up with the stupid idea that the iPad Pro can't be used for real work (or used in a corporate environment)? With the iPad already the dominant tablet in the enterprise world, do you not think a larger, much more powerful iPad Pro will also find use in enterprise? Or that it will actually expand their usage by being able to be used for even MORE tasks than the current iPad?
There being used as simple input and data retrieval devices and other vertical market tasks, not as actual replacements for computers. IOS is simply missing way to many features for that to happen anytime soon. I mean the first time a sales rep trys to find every file on his iPad that contains a specific customers name within the files themselves you would see the thing fly out the window. The firm would have to spend thousands on just buying essential apps to fill in all of those missing feature holes, what do you mean I can't zip a file without contacting the IT department and requesting a third party zip app to be installed onto my device. How about NAS support, name a single app that can save directly to one, you know how annoying it would be to constantly have to Share a file to an App that does support it and than once it's in that app you have to delete the original, than upload that file to the NAS and than delete that copy. Yea, think about that for a second, you would have to create three versions of the same file to do a simple backup and you think you can use an iPad for real work. However all of that was moot because how would you even access your user directory on the firms NAS drive without LDAP support. Multi-user support? How do you change the default apps in iOS so you can set your firms proprietary mail client as the default. How would you display your firms custom apps in the dual app view when 98% of the apps in the App Store don't even support it yet. Could you work without a mouse, how about connecting a monitor, I have yet to seen have a monitor support the iPads desktop resolution without black bars not mentio a DPI so huge everything looks comical. Oh but you have MS Office you say, I have yet to have seen a large firm that don't use highly customized Excel spreadsheets with embedded macros , Visual Basic scripts in them and connections to MySQL/Oracle databases, which makes your mobile version pretty much useless. The list just goes on and on, you're not thinking. Your happy reading your websites, watching your movies, using FaceBook, etc. and think you can do it all but once you start working in a enterprise environment though, it's a complete new ball game. One day with an iPad Pro and you would quit but yet I keep seeing comments about there being a CAD program for iOS now, super but no engineer or architect would ever use an iPad Pro to design a toilet, let anyone an entire house or new subway station. It's meant as a presentation tool and hobbiest alike.
There are more workers that work in environments not behind a desk 8 hours a day than there are in-front of a desk 8 hours a day. A lot of jobs that could easily use a computer that is easily used while holding in your hands. The whole world does not revolve around rows of rows of people at desks doing data entry - and if it did .... the economy would be highly inefficient.
Yes, these days, reading, analysing, slightly modifying, deciding, forwarding, iterating, data is much more prevalent than the old one person does the whole thing PC world.
In this new agile engineering like world (which is now the lot of all business), big end point producers are less and less prevalent. Working cumulatively and iteratively on producing something is well tuned to mobile/tablets as a main UI.
Behind a desk job, no, however a job in which requires you to be on your feet and mobile, absolutely. Use the right tool for the job, no one want's to use just a touchscreen the entire day to edit documents, input data, etc. they just don't. No matter how glamorous of a vision you picture. Just using my iPad Pro with it's keyboard for 30 minutes was enough for me to want a mouse, I finially switched over to my MacBook 12. It was just more comfortable, not to mention a lot faster.
There is no trackpad support and lets not pretend that was Apple trying to make some cutting edge move, force touch came before 3D touch and Apple is making force touch trackpads for the iMac. Clearly Apple isn't trying to get rid of the trackpad, iOS can't support a trackpad, thats the reason why there isn't on on the keyboard, the OS is the limiting factor.
Actually, iOS works very well with a mouse, I use one with one my iPad Air's. It has to be JailBroken of course but it's just a matter of installing a free driver, that's it. I honestly don't like using my iPad Pro with one, I even have two keyboards for it, the Apple and the Logitech. I bought the Logitech first because it was backlit, had an extra row for function keys and it just felt better to type one, I never cared for keyboards with fabric covering. However I got tired of continuasly having to touch the display while editing code, the Apple Keyboard has the touch cursor feature so I bought that as well. The problem was, I was still constantly touching the display to select menu items, switch apps, etc. The ironic part about this dilemma is, Tim Cook agrees with me as he stated that notebooks with touchscreen's are a failed concept partially do to what I just described, ergonomics are just all wrong. He's right to, having to constantly reach over and up get's tiring real quick. So I found by typing on the display itself made navigating the UI just so much better, not ideal mind you as I still would prefer having a keyboard and mouse but a lot better with just having a keyboard without the mouse. I'm impatiently waiting for JailBreak.
I don't even use the Pencil anymore because I can't navigate the system with it or use it in non-stylus optimized apps. I use a Jot stylus instead, which I really like, I'm not an artist, just wanted a stylus for the system and note taking. So the two defining aspects of the iPad Pro turned out to be more work to use than without. I really don't get the iPad Pro right now, over half of my apps don't support it's resolution, only a few of my apps support dual app view with only a total of around 120 that do and iOS isn't really optimized for it or I should say is missing many of the features that would make into an actual Pro system. I can't even do what I bought it for which was to run two music creation apps at once, not even GarageBand is supported in dual app view. Just a confusing device.
I don't see why anyone would choose to buy a Surface. Makes absolutely zero sense. Its such a horrible touch device because:
1. There are virtually zero touch based Apps on it.
2. The OS is mainly built for mouse/keyboard use.
3. The touch sensor and OS is too small for accurate multi-touch, thus the need for stylus.
If you want a touch interface buy a device that has a touch OS.
If you want to run windows Apps get a laptop or Macbook.
If you want a light device get an ultra book.
I know several people who swear by them for business. They need to be able to demonstrate software at the drop of a hat, and it's really the best option for a tablet with that capability. In this case, they were demonstrating touch software. This is a pretty isolated case, but it's great for those folks.
Yeah see, this is definitely a comment made by someone who has never used one before. I think the Surface Pro is a fantastic device and have had zero problems navigating the UI with my fingers, not a one. I don't even use the Surface keyboard, as when I'm on the road I type nearly as with virtual keyboard and when it's home, I have a Bluetooth MS Wedge keyboard and mouse. When I just want to relax and use it as a tablet, I just boot into Remix OS, a Android based OS in which I have all of my favorite tablet apps running. Same exact apps that I'm running on my iPad Pro except for the music creation stuff. You can do things like that when your using a computer without restrictions. I've never had any of the problems that most of you claim the Surface Pro 4 has, this is my second one and I plan on buying the next one to. I just sold my MacBook 12 and bought the new Razor Stealth, even though it has a touchscreen, it will most likely be the last none 2 in 1 laptop I ever buy. I got it because it has a ThunderBolt connected, GPU break out box for desktop graphic card in which I wanted for CUDA programming. However the next iteration of the Surface should have a USB C so I can use a simliliar box with that as well.
The Surface Pro 4 sytlus is a POS. Its a $10 device.
The Apple Pencil is the same level as $200-$300 professional level tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
And here we have a newbie who doesn't know what they are talking about. You need to go study-up to understand your fail on this one. Re-read the article. Full blown Windows is actually a hinderance to the Surface, and understand what you CAN do on an iPad - the full Office suite is available, which is 99% of what users do on a PC. And it does so much more, and better.
Actually I am an IT Director with about 20 years of IT experience and have owned every iPhone since the 3G and 3 versions of the iPad. I have an iPad Pro on order. I have used the Surface 3 (not 4.) My daily machine is a 15in Macbook Pro (new one with Force Touch.)
MS Office for iPad is a mobile version of the suite and is lacking many of the features found in the actual full version. Those who depend of MS Office for their work tasks do so becasue there not just writing a document but because of the customizations Visual Basic provide. Walk into any accounting office and use one of their spreadsheets, it's so modified with macros and Visual Basic scripts that it's an application in itself, Excel is almost like the OS that runs it. Running such things on the mobile versions of Office just isn't possible, try creating a mass mailer in which all of the contacts are located in a database. Using a Word template as data entry mask in which the data entered is also stored into a database. How about automation, the firm I used to work for used to receive hundreds of emails a day with reports attached, the full version of Office allows the user to create scripts that automatically strip the data from these reports, insert into a Excel sheet, run a Visual Basic calculation script, than email the end days results. Who uses that, try every financial firm that exists. So yes, maybe Office is 99% of what people use on a work computer but half of them require much more than was is possible with a mobile app that was primarily designed for viewing, light editing and basic document creation. Also, using a large Excel sheet without a mouse frankly sucks, especially if you're copying data from one source to another. It actually amazes me that people just assume others use a computer in the same way they do.
Comments
That is irrelevant since OS utilizes scheduler that affects performance and bootstrap - doesn't. And ALL of todays consumer grade OSs do have multitasking - hence they all rely on a task scheduler.
And when you run your app, that OS scheduler SCHEDULES your app to be run on a certain core(cores) in a specific order/time.
Factoring out that part of performance will give you unrealistic performance that you will never be able to achieve in a real world OS + app use.
If you run the same benchmark on a multiuser/scheduled system (unloaded), and do the same thing with another operating system you can figure out how the OS factors into it (as a whole). Yes, there the operating system may cause variances because of the scheduler in the background doing different things different times.... so the same thing run once on each could vary 5% 10% (error factor)..... but then if you run it 100x 1000x then that error factor should diminish and you are left with a function that you can apply to factor out the bias caused by the different systems.
If you run the same benchmark on a multiuser/scheduled system (unloaded), and do the same thing with another operating system you can figure out how the OS factors into it (as a whole).
I am sorry, in the previous post you said that GB was factoring out OS.
So, if it factors it out, how then would you test the case you just proposed?
I disagree. I've been using it for years to port Unix scripts to windows environments.
It is crappy and a kludge, used it at inception and it never realy got better.
Not its fault really since it's built on windows.
Perl on windows, not so peachy either.
rather duel boot to unix instead of enduring this.
so the same thing run once on each could vary 5% 10% (error factor)..... but then if you run it 100x 1000x then that error factor should diminish and you are left with a function that you can apply to factor out the bias caused by the different systems.
Exactly. I tested rendering for about 30 times during different days. 25 % was still there so we can safely assume it wasn't an error.
Exactly. I tested rendering for about 30 times during different days. 25 % was still there so we can safely assume it wasn't an error.
So for Geekbench to factor it out if it calculates a 25% difference between OS A vs OS B (based on their testbed) then one or the other would have to apply a function to the raw computed score to come up with the benchmark score. Somewhere in their code it would have to have take the raw number generated apply a function to that number based on the operating system and then give you a geekbench score. The score therefore is not necessarily a raw score of how well it is actually running on your system in it's entirety. Hence there are no guarantees that iPad Pro / iOS vs Mac OS or Windows x86 scores actually reflect real life user experience -- because that is not what the benchmark was designed for.
So for Geekbench to factor it out if it calculates a 25% difference between OS A vs OS B (based on their testbed)
Again, it doesn't make sense to calculate and factor out the difference.
What is the point of a benchmark that can't measure real-world performance?
I don't need a hypothetical performance - for that I can get how many cycles individual instructions take to complete. But that will not give me every-day performance.
The score therefore is not necessarily a raw score of how well it is actually running on your system in it's entirety. Hence there are no guarantees that iPad Pro / iOS vs Mac OS or Windows x86 scores actually reflect real life user experience -- because that is not what the benchmark was designed for.
Why not?
Why not just test how much time it takes to process, say 1 000 000 individual loads and then get an average for every system.
Than if a OS A is slower, than system B - so be it.
Don't see the reason why you need to factor out performance of an important component such as OS?
Measuring a hypothetical performance of a TLB makes as much sense as getting your hypothetical benchmark of a CPU without OS.
Again, it doesn't make sense to calculate that factor out the difference.
What is the point of a benchmark that can't measure real-world performance?
I don't need a hypothetical performance - for that I can get how many cycles individual instructions take to complete. But that will not give me every-day performance.
Well then, for what you want a benchmark for - Geekbench is likely not the best suited..... I am not saying that it should or it should not.... just repeating what they have stated on one of primatelabs' (Geekbench) blogs
It also is a demonstration why people should not take a benchmark -- without understanding what it is benchmarking -- and then use it out of context of what it was actually benchmarking. Simply stated your requirements are not the requirements used in the development of the benchmark... and thus is not for you.
Since Geekbench is a processor benchmark and not a system benchmark
It may very well be the case that what they say is that they simply test CPU+memory and not disk speed or anything else.
it is a very vague phrase.
Why? Why would you factor out compiler "bias" if that compiler performance ultimately is what produces good (or bad) results by giving you better performance through better generated binary?
I believe you are wrong. GB doesn't market itself as such. They simply say that you can compare results from various platforms because they represent the same workload.
But if your operating system is very bad at scheduling task and as a result, performance of your app is bad, factoring that OS out makes NO SENSE whatsoever!
?
Right, but historically Windows would win in this area or at least be on par, though it's probably not really a factor either way. Which compiler (and language/runtime) they built the benchmark with could certainly be a factor though. If they're using the ideal compiler on one platform and a non-standard/non-ideal one for the other, it would make the benchmark less useful.
I question GeekBench numbers simply because they don't seem to map to any other tests you can do across platform. Of course, some tests like JavaScript benchmarks are hard to directly compare because they're subject to the performance of the JS runtime, but on the other hand it does reflect real-world performance for a large percentage of user time. In those cases, the Surface completely trounces the iPad Pro. This shouldn't be too surprising given that it's a faster CPU (especially at the i5 and i7 level) with a generally faster OS and JS engine.
"To get a Surface Pro 4 that has more CPU power than iPad Pro, you have to upgrade to the $1299 version powered by an Intel Core i5, which costs as much as Apple's 13 inch MacBook Pro."
No. You can get the $999 version, which is also powered by an Intel i5.
"However, the i5-powered Surface Pro 4 costs $500 more than an iPad Pro."
The $1299 model also comes with eight times the storage and twice the memory of the $799 iPad Pro. And includes the stylus, which is a $99 add-on for the iPad Pro.
If you compare the more similarly specced i5 / 4GB / 128GB model of the Surface Pro 4 instead, the iPad Pro is only $50 cheaper. Throw in the stylus and the iPad Pro is $50 more expensive. Add a keyboard to both and the iPad Pro is $90 more expensive.
You tell them, Matt! And then there's this "Even Apple's $499 iPad Air 2 beats the $899 Surface Pro 4 in multicore tests, while scoring slightly lower in single core performance, and delivers that compairable (sic) performance with a price tag that's $400 lower. "
The iPad Air 2 triumphantly "beats" the m3 Surface by less than 10% on the multicore geekbench test, while being 24% slower on the single core test is only "slightly lower." There's no mention that the m3 Surface trounces the the Air on the Sunspider, Octane and Kraken tests. I guess these tests either don't exist or don't count because iPads don't do well on them.
Plus, the Air costs $699 when you up its storage to 128 GB like the Surface has standard, and not $499. For its $200 higher price, the Surface gives you 1) better performance on a variety of tests, 2) twice as much RAM, 3) over 50% more screen area, 4) the ability to use a trackpad and mouse, 5) a Surface pen and the ability to use it, 5) real multitasking, rather the iPad limited bi-tasking, 6) the ability to add inexpensive storage (I got a SanDisk 128 GB microSD card for less than $50) and 7) the ability to use real computer programs.
Also, the Surface Pro 4 can be used with AutoDesk, very comfortably actually, it's not for large projects but it can be used, just do a Google search on the matter, there are a few reviews on the subject and their all favorable. It's fine that you do not like the Surface Pro but you don't need to embellish it's faults. 80% of everything said about it here is completely false. It's a fantastic little computer that is extremely capable, it might not be for everyone but it is in no way useless.
There being used as simple input and data retrieval devices and other vertical market tasks, not as actual replacements for computers. IOS is simply missing way to many features for that to happen anytime soon. I mean the first time a sales rep trys to find every file on his iPad that contains a specific customers name within the files themselves you would see the thing fly out the window. The firm would have to spend thousands on just buying essential apps to fill in all of those missing feature holes, what do you mean I can't zip a file without contacting the IT department and requesting a third party zip app to be installed onto my device. How about NAS support, name a single app that can save directly to one, you know how annoying it would be to constantly have to Share a file to an App that does support it and than once it's in that app you have to delete the original, than upload that file to the NAS and than delete that copy. Yea, think about that for a second, you would have to create three versions of the same file to do a simple backup and you think you can use an iPad for real work. However all of that was moot because how would you even access your user directory on the firms NAS drive without LDAP support. Multi-user support? How do you change the default apps in iOS so you can set your firms proprietary mail client as the default. How would you display your firms custom apps in the dual app view when 98% of the apps in the App Store don't even support it yet. Could you work without a mouse, how about connecting a monitor, I have yet to seen have a monitor support the iPads desktop resolution without black bars not mentio a DPI so huge everything looks comical. Oh but you have MS Office you say, I have yet to have seen a large firm that don't use highly customized Excel spreadsheets with embedded macros , Visual Basic scripts in them and connections to MySQL/Oracle databases, which makes your mobile version pretty much useless. The list just goes on and on, you're not thinking. Your happy reading your websites, watching your movies, using FaceBook, etc. and think you can do it all but once you start working in a enterprise environment though, it's a complete new ball game. One day with an iPad Pro and you would quit but yet I keep seeing comments about there being a CAD program for iOS now, super but no engineer or architect would ever use an iPad Pro to design a toilet, let anyone an entire house or new subway station. It's meant as a presentation tool and hobbiest alike.
I don't even use the Pencil anymore because I can't navigate the system with it or use it in non-stylus optimized apps. I use a Jot stylus instead, which I really like, I'm not an artist, just wanted a stylus for the system and note taking. So the two defining aspects of the iPad Pro turned out to be more work to use than without. I really don't get the iPad Pro right now, over half of my apps don't support it's resolution, only a few of my apps support dual app view with only a total of around 120 that do and iOS isn't really optimized for it or I should say is missing many of the features that would make into an actual Pro system. I can't even do what I bought it for which was to run two music creation apps at once, not even GarageBand is supported in dual app view. Just a confusing device.