Microsoft Announce Surface Tablet

Printable View

06-18-2012, 08:59 PM
ImaNihilist

Microsoft Announce Surface Tablet

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/18/30...windows-tablet

http://www.sharkyforums.com/images/i.../2012/06/5.jpg

Quote:

There will be two options for Microsoft's Surface PC, one powered by Intel's 22nm Ivy Bridge chips running Windows 8, and another Surface powered by an ARM chipset and Windows RT. The Windows RT version is just 9.3mm thin, weighs 1.5lbs, includes a built-in kickstand, and is the first PC with a vapor-deposited (PVD) magnesium case, according to Microsoft. It will ship in 32GB or 64GB versions, complete with a 10.6-inch ClearType HD display at 1366 x 768.

Microsoft's Intel-based Surface tablet will run Windows 8 Pro, with a thickness of 13.5mm, a weight of 1.9lbs, and USB 3.0 support. This particular version will also include magnesium casing and a built-in kickstand, but will ship with either 64GB or 128GB storage. Additionally, the Intel version will include additional digital ink support through a pen that magnetizes to the body of the tablet, and a 10.6-inch ClearType "Full HD" display. Both of Microsoft's Surface tablets feature optional Touch and Type keyboard covers.

Seems pretty cool. Sadly, no word on release date or price, which is kind of BS if you ask me.
06-18-2012, 11:50 PM
Timman_24

Seems neat, but I bet they cost quite a bit especially the Win 8 Pro one.
06-19-2012, 12:42 AM
ImaNihilist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timman_24

Seems neat, but I bet they cost quite a bit especially the Win 8 Pro one.

I'm pretty curious what the pricing is. I just dropped over $2k on a new MacBook Air. If this new Surface comes with similar specs (2.0GHz Core i7 / HD 4000) I think it has a lot of potential. A bit limited as a workstation with only 4GB of RAM, but more capable than any tablet I've ever seen/heard of on paper.

The ARM version is going to have $600 or less. Going to be hard to charge more than $900 for the Pro version. IMO, if they release a Pro for under $1k I'd consider it. Would be the first non-VM Windows device in many years for me.

I hate the widescreen though. I hate 4:3 and 1024x768, but I gotta admit—4:3 works better for a tablet no matter how much I wish it wasn't so. Even 16:10 tablets are just awkward to hold. Probably because we are so used to the aspect ratio of printed stuff.
06-19-2012, 04:37 AM
Steven P Jobs

Of course they had to make an ARM one for WinRT and an Intel one for Win8. That's not going to confuse anyone at all, I'm sure.
06-19-2012, 04:42 AM
Steven P Jobs

Regarding the actual presentation: Most Microsoft people seem to still be pretty awful at presenting, particularly Ballmer and Sinofsky. Ballmer just rambles on about nothing in particular. Sinofsky knows what he's saying but seemed very nervous. The guy who spoke about the Intel slate after Sinofsky was very good though.
06-19-2012, 01:41 PM
Timman_24

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImaNihilist

I'm pretty curious what the pricing is. I just dropped over $2k on a new MacBook Air. If this new Surface comes with similar specs (2.0GHz Core i7 / HD 4000) I think it has a lot of potential. A bit limited as a workstation with only 4GB of RAM, but more capable than any tablet I've ever seen/heard of on paper.

The ARM version is going to have $600 or less. Going to be hard to charge more than $900 for the Pro version. IMO, if they release a Pro for under $1k I'd consider it. Would be the first non-VM Windows device in many years for me.

I hate the widescreen though. I hate 4:3 and 1024x768, but I gotta admit—4:3 works better for a tablet no matter how much I wish it wasn't so. Even 16:10 tablets are just awkward to hold. Probably because we are so used to the aspect ratio of printed stuff.

I didn't know you could spec a MacBook Air to be 2K :) :). I guess with Apple Care and such it adds up. There is no way the Pro will be under 1K with those specs. The Slate pushes over 1.1K with older SB processors, 4GB RAM, and a 128GB SSD. Some go as high as 1.6K. I'd be very surprised if the Win 8 Pro version was under 999, but MS has taken a loss on hardware before to push in a new direction.

As for the ARM version, it better top out at 499 or it will be pointless IMO. They can't directly compete with Apple on price. They need to come in, under cut, and get people excited about the brand. People need these in their hands at a low price. IMO they should have a 7" $199 version by Christmas or they missed a big opportunity.
06-19-2012, 03:11 PM
ImaNihilist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timman_24

I didn't know you could spec a MacBook Air to be 2K :) :).

$2,450 with the i7, 8GM RAM, 512GB SSD and AppleCare. Worth it.
06-20-2012, 04:38 AM
Steven P Jobs

Timman: do you really want to use Windows 8 on a 7" Screen? Or for peoples' first Windows 8 experience to be on a 7" screen

Here's a good article that outlines some of the unanswered questions from the presentation. http://techland.time.com/2012/06/19/...dows-8-tablet/
06-22-2012, 01:44 PM
Timman_24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven P Jobs

Timman: do you really want to use Windows 8 on a 7" Screen? Or for peoples' first Windows 8 experience to be on a 7" screen

Here's a good article that outlines some of the unanswered questions from the presentation. http://techland.time.com/2012/06/19/...dows-8-tablet/

Sure, with the metro UI it would be fine. The desktop is locked on the ARM version AFAIK, so I don't see an issue. Actually, it would be awesome to have all the features of Win 8 ARM on a 7" tablet.
06-22-2012, 07:17 PM
Steven P Jobs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timman_24

Sure, with the metro UI it would be fine. The desktop is locked on the ARM version AFAIK, so I don't see an issue. Actually, it would be awesome to have all the features of Win 8 ARM on a 7" tablet.

You're not spending most of your time in the Metro UI though. I realize that Win8/RT/Metro is somewhat resolution independent, but I think apps that are designed for a 10"+ screen would look pretty bad on 7".

The Surface isn't designed to compete with the Kindle Fire and similar devices - Microsoft's proposition here is that you can have a tablet that's a true laptop replacement, the only device you need to have as long as you're not a poweruser. I'm not sure if they can pull it off (I wish them the best, I was really impressed by the WinRT version of Surface), but it's a lot more likely at 10" than at 7".

The one big issue I see is that they're not willing to commit to a platform. When you walk into an Apple store you can buy a Mac or an iPad. Nobody is going to confuse the two, it's obvious that they run different software. With the Surface on the other hand, you have two nearly identical looking devices running nearly identical looking OSs, and yet there's no software compatibility between the two. That's sure to confuse some consumers I think.

IMO Microsoft should keep "classic" Windows around for corporate and legacy stuff, and put all their energy into WinRT/ARM as its consumer platform. Either that or drop it entirely, but don't give it a halfhearted shot, that's not going to work with the fierce competition that exists in this market.
06-22-2012, 10:19 PM
mikeysg

Even though I have a Tab7.7, I would prolly snag the Pro version because it is basically a laptop replacement for me. Right now, I am lugging around a HP 15" laptop with an old C2D CPU, it'd nice to replace it with the Surface Pro version.
06-23-2012, 12:42 PM
Timman_24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven P Jobs

You're not spending most of your time in the Metro UI though. I realize that Win8/RT/Metro is somewhat resolution independent, but I think apps that are designed for a 10"+ screen would look pretty bad on 7".

The Surface isn't designed to compete with the Kindle Fire and similar devices - Microsoft's proposition here is that you can have a tablet that's a true laptop replacement, the only device you need to have as long as you're not a poweruser. I'm not sure if they can pull it off (I wish them the best, I was really impressed by the WinRT version of Surface), but it's a lot more likely at 10" than at 7".

The one big issue I see is that they're not willing to commit to a platform. When you walk into an Apple store you can buy a Mac or an iPad. Nobody is going to confuse the two, it's obvious that they run different software. With the Surface on the other hand, you have two nearly identical looking devices running nearly identical looking OSs, and yet there's no software compatibility between the two. That's sure to confuse some consumers I think.

IMO Microsoft should keep "classic" Windows around for corporate and legacy stuff, and put all their energy into WinRT/ARM as its consumer platform. Either that or drop it entirely, but don't give it a halfhearted shot, that's not going to work with the fierce competition that exists in this market.

I think that strategy is typical MS. They are going to run up against major problems when they try to push a well established market into a new direction. That's why I would think it would be better to try to market Win 8 RT as a cheap addition (along with Smart Glass) that could augment everyday computing. A 7" screen at 199 with stripped down Win 8 RT would fly off the shelves at Christmas, especially if they had Smart Glass worked out by then. A $1500 Windows Tablet will only see the hands of enthusiasts, which are not the ones that need to be budged.

Once the mainstream gets their hands on a cheap version, then they will be more likely to drop serious cash on a full fledged Windows 8 Pro Surface when they are ready to replace their laptop/desktop.

I don't know many people that can drop $1000+ to see if they like the Surface/Windows 8 experience, but I could easily see people laying down 199 to try it out in stripped down form. When the typical consumer is looking at spending a good chunk of change on an important device such as a computer, they want what they know will work for them, such as a typical laptop. If its $199, that's easy enough to experiment with.

I do agree that they need to differentiate the two OSes. Theres going to be a ton of confusion when people buy an ARM version and figure out a ton of the functionality is missing when compared to their desktop version of Windows 8. They should have called it something completely different, like simply Metro OS or whaterver.