Microsoft Announces Surface 3 Tablet 128
An anonymous reader writes: Today Microsoft announced the latest device in their line of Windows tablets: the Surface 3. The tablet runs a full version of Windows (the troublesome "RT" line has been deprecated), and aims to compete with Apple's iPad. The Surface 3 has a 10.8" screen running at 1920x1280 (note the 3:2 ratio). It's 8.7mm thick and weighs 622 grams (1.27 lbs). They're somewhat vague about the battery life, but they say it will last up to 10 hours "based on video playback." They've also made it possible to charge the device with a standard micro-USB charger. The base device with 64GB storage, 2GB RAM, and Wi-Fi will cost $500, and it'll scale up with more storage, more ram, and 4G LTE connectivity. (It maxes out at 4GB RAM, so any heavy-duty gaming is probably out of the question.) The keyboard is still a separate $130 accessory as well.
I might get one... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Thank God, I have Win 7 back".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My Mother is 61, has little experience with Computers yet has no problem using Linux. You better re-think your statement, this isn't 1995.
Re: (Score:1)
not sure where you are reading your reviews from. Personally we have been imaging laptops and desktops here were I work and have users trialling it as there OS as we intend to roll it out next year. So far the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive with the exception of a few bugs with tablet/desktop modes for some applications. We did the same thing with win 8 and the feedback at the time was overwhelmingly negative. From all indications once they work out the bugs win 10 is going to be a smash hit, esp
See nothing that says this is x86 (Score:2)
I see not one thing that says this is an x86. If it's not x86 it's still ARM and still windows RT even if they don't call it RT anymore. The result being you can only run software from the windows store, no legacy apps.
Re:See nothing that says this is x86 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:See nothing that says this is x86 (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind, it's in one of the last paragraphs. It's an ATOM processor. Depending on the version and clock speed it could be ok or a total piece of crap running full windows.
The netbook is reborn!
Re: (Score:2)
Given this is the first device to ship (that I'm aware of) with an Atom x7, comparing it to Atoms of old may be premature.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't your grandma's Atom.
The Windows Tablets are going to eventually kill the iPad unless Apple comes to their senses and tears down that wall.
"Apple, Tear Down This Wall!"
(they won't, the long chain of fart apps will drag them under)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure. It wouldn't be the first time MS failed with a product line. Zune, Windows CE PDAs, Windows Phone, Tablet PCs...
iOS and Android devices are here to stay. Most people using tablets don't need X86 compatibility on a portable device (that's what laptops are for). Tablets are used to consume content and view documents and the current crop is perfectly capable of doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a premature pronouncement, too. My Windows tablet is also now my laptop, just smaller and lighter. Not as light as my iPad, but the iPad has been relegated to a desk drawer because it's essentially useless compared to carrying around a tablet with a fully functioning OS.
If Apple were to install OSX on the iPad family of devices, that would indeed change the game again. But that would mean cutting into their insanely lucrative monopoly with their App Store model, so that's not likely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure, Apple has proven many times they can switch OS and Architectures in a pretty seamless way.
Apple ][->68K via expansion card or emulation, 68K->PPC via Classic or Fat Binaries, OS9->OSX via emulation and PPC->x86 via Rosetta or Universal Binaries.
In latest OSX versions, the scroll bars act the same as on iDevices, and since iOS is based on OSX, It wouldn't be too hard for them to switch OS and/or architectures again (or emulate iOS apps on OSX).
Time will tell I guess...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's entirely possible, though, that Apple could grow up and start putting real CPUs in their tablet line.
I hope nobody was seriously suggesting they put OSX on the existing line of iPads? Apple might do that to kill off the older iPads but they'd never do that and call it a new device. When Apple abandons iOS it will cease to have ever existed. It'll be like the Newton.
Re: (Score:2)
That was what spurred this discussion:
If Apple were to install OSX on the iPad family of devices, that would indeed change the game again.
Hence my response.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I got the $100 HP Stream 7 for my wife a few months ago, and I have to admit it's pretty nice. As long as you're only running a couple things at a time, it's easy to forget you're not using a "real" computer. It keeps up with most social media sites just fine, without those long pauses and freezes that I get on my old EeePC901. Even have her Steam account set up on it and it does a great job at the 2D games like Mini Metro.
The main problems are the UI, of course... click and drag is difficult to
Re: (Score:1)
I bought a Dell Venue 8 Pro, and then an Asus Transformer. Both were more than $100 but they also both came with Office 2013 (home & student) preinstalled. Not a 'trial' edition, and not a subscription. The Venue 8 was $300 and O2013 retails by itself for $139. It was a decent bundle, though I had to get the Transformer Book before the office suite was seriously usable. You can add a bluetooth keyboard to the Venue 8 Pro, but the Asus comes with it, and has a much bigger screen. And the Asus was o
Re:See nothing that says this is x86 (Score:4, Interesting)
As others have noted the newer atoms aren't the same as the old under powered garbage. I've actually got a server running one of the new Atom server chips. It's a good low power processor with some strong capabilities for the power envelope it uses.
Though there is one exception, there are some under powered Atom chips. They are smaller and use even less power and generally aren't intended for a PC type install. But they do exist because Intel is still trying to figure out how to sell chips in this space without totally cannibalizing desktop sales with chips they lose money on.
Which chip Microsoft chose (or whatever one Intel let them use) is going to determine whether the surface 3 is garbage or a reasonable balance of CPU and power use. It's entirely possible it's going to be way to slow for use in anything CPU intensive because Intel is still making Atoms that aren't very good, even if they are better than the previous Atoms.
It's interesting to me that Microsoft isn't saying WHICH Atom they used.
Re: (Score:2)
older atoms were far too slow, last gen atoms were ok for grandma machines. this gen of atoms looks to be quite suitable even as a desktop replacement for the average user that doesn't do much more than office apps, email and web surfing.
Re:See nothing that says this is x86 (Score:5, Interesting)
I see not one thing that says this is an x86. If it's not x86 it's still ARM and still windows RT even if they don't call it RT anymore. The result being you can only run software from the windows store, no legacy apps.
Its a 14nm Cherry Trail SoC. Don't confuse this with old crappy Atom. These are really fast. This is http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com]
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
They aren't really fast. They say that every fucking time and it's a pathetic joke every fucking time, just like with their integrated graphics.
Put up or shut up - benchmarks of the new x7 Atom please. (Oh wait, there are none, because Intel only wants sites to regurgitate their PR and slides comparing them to fucking phone CPUs.)
Re: (Score:3)
Here are (only two) benchmark results...
http://browser.primatelabs.com... [primatelabs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The latest broadwells coming out that it seems like HP has replaced their whole consumer laptop line are at most (with a ~350 upgrade to the i7 version) still 20% slower than my late 2009 iMac. Yeah I know desktop vs laptop but still 6 years later and still slower. Pathetic. Anyways a lot of people are fine with it I guess as long as it can decode 1080p fast enough for smooth playback. Not me but probably the mass of the market :(
Re: (Score:3)
Atoms in tablets were never about performance. Your CPU has an astonishingly bad 105W TDP, which uses (at least) 10 times the power.
Fanless computing in a small enclosure...
Re: (Score:1)
105W is not astonishingly bad; it was simply the cost of performance at the time (before the i7 brand and DDR3 became a common thing). The power consumption game had barely started for desktop components.
I expect my portable computers to be just that: Portable computers. I do the same things with a portable computer as I do with a desktop computer.
For me, this lately means software decoding of many concurrent high-resolution video streams, and heavy single-threaded software.
I doubt this new Atom part is
Re: (Score:3)
105W is not astonishingly bad;
Yeah you're right. The correct word would be fucking atrocious and physically unworkable in an enclosure only 1cm thick.
I expect my portable computers to be just that: Portable computers. I do the same things with a portable computer as I do with a desktop computer.
Then buy an Alienware desktop replacement. Just don't come back and complain it costs more than $500, weighs more, or is thicker or heavier.
I doubt this new Atom part is even as fast as my (even more ancient) 1.83GHz, 2MB cache, single-core Pentium-M laptop at these tasks.
Why doubt when you could simply type Pentium M into the search box and see that not a single Pentium M based PC beat it in single-core benchmarks?
Perhaps I am a corner-case in that I actually want a CPU to be "fast" compared to products from a decade or so ago, especially if the device is bigger than a cell phone. I'm not buying anything slower than what I already have.
You're not a corner case. You're simply clueless in matters of engineering, reality, and lack the realisat
Re: (Score:1)
I engineer my systems and tools for me, not you.
I need ports, expandability, and the ability to plug random hardware in. I don't need light-weight, and I don't need to run all day on batteries.
I have all of that, along with what I believe to be comparable speed...instead of none of that, and $499 less in my pocket.
I've got better things to spend $499 on than a side-grade to a different form factor that doesn't fucking work for me. But thanks anyway, asshole!
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are you even posting in this story?
You opened up a story about a device targeting someone else's needs to carp about how it sucks because it targets someone else's needs?
Looks like a nice device to me, a step sideways from an iPad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know. I'm a race car driver. Why the fuck would anyone even consider buying a horse! The entire horse industry shouldn't exist. Maybe I'm just a corner case.
Why did you even bother anything at all? Don't you have something better to do than talk down products you are not at all interested in and don't fit your use case?
Get a hobby man.
Re: (Score:2)
Scroll up: I was talking-down the "and it's fast!" mentality of some OP, above.
But it's not fast, compared to any paid-for example of the very old things that I have in front of me, for the things I actually use computers for.
I mean, srsly, I don't care if it can render 1080p h.264 in perfect quality. I really don't: I've got a $23 Chromecast for that, plugged into the TV in my home theater The "difficult" tasks I have are all CPU-bound, and the CPU in question in TFS is anything but "fast." It may be
Re: (Score:2)
But yes in absolute cpu performance terms this can't touch a Q6600. However, compared to other tablet cpus it should do ok (compared to the broadwell Core-M chips some manage
Re: (Score:2)
The Macbook is quite expensive and rather large for a laptop, this is the budget model of a tablet/ultraportable latop. Personally I would consider that a poor showing by the Macbook.
Re: (Score:2)
It is plenty fast for a tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
I see not one thing that says this is an x86. If it's not x86 it's still ARM and still windows RT even if they don't call it RT anymore. The result being you can only run software from the windows store, no legacy apps.
Wikipedia says the Atom x7 is an x86 chip
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping for a pro version of the Surface pro :( maybe in 6 months. I'd like 16GB ram, 512GB SSD and a i7 CPU (and not a crappy two core U version broadwell)). 8 GB just won't cut it for me as a desktop/laptop replacement. I already have an iPad so ... little reason to buy the MS product.
actually sounds really good (Score:2)
The micro-USB thing is huge. It is such a pain in the ass that I can't mix and match connectors with my ipod and other devices. I'm glad MS isn't going for nonstandard (read: lucrative) connectors (yet).
If the battery life pans out to be real (and video consumption is second only to wifi as a battery killer in my experience) this might be my next tablet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I have one of the Asus Transformer Windows 8.1 tablets.
I can plug any external hard drive into it. And it just works. Likewise any other USB peripheral anywhere in the world that works with Windows 8 works.
Cruddy walled garden stuff is gonna die.
Re: actually sounds really good (Score:1)
Walled gardens sound crappy until you have to look after all of a families computers.
All our iPhones and iPads sign on to the AppStore with a single account, so all get the same apps. All backup to one iTunes machine. Never had a problem with any of them. The one machine that gives me the most grief, my wife's win8.1 pc. I can't imagine having to look after 5 or more of these suckers in a home environment with no ad or policies.
Re: (Score:3)
Walled gardens sound crappy until your users turn out to be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, my father's iPad overlays every webpage he tries to load with a phony virus warning.
How he managed to install that kind of malware, I have no idea... but clearly they will keep building better idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why would you walk around with it. You dock the thing and move stuff in and out of the onboard flash. Or you dock it to do real work, and then can carry it to the meeting with the important info you needed.
Don't get all sulky because Apple and Google told you that you have to use the Cloud. We know, we know. It's far bigger than 3TB.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't help you charge the thing.
2GB? (Score:1, Insightful)
2GB? You gotta be kidding. Windows crawls with 2GB. It might be okay for 6 months or so, but if you do anything or install anything real, you'll go crazy waiting for the hard-drive.
They do offer a 4GB model for more money, but 4 should be the baseline.
Re:2GB? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well geez, I paid $100, bought an HP Stream 7 and it only has 1GB of RAM. And it's plenty speedy.
In fact, for Windows 8.1 and Atom, it's surprisingly fast.
The only thing is, for $100, the Stream 7 can run like crap and I'd still like it - it's a $100 friggin' PC running full Windows. Heck, I have Steam running on it!
This thing though is $500. A bit pricey for a Atom based tablet, I think.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a broad range of Windows 8.1 tablets now running with x86 processors. Very broad. If you attach a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and run the thing in desktop mode it will run all the Windows stuff going way back. The Win8 on these things is the 32 bit version, so a lot of old legacy 32 bit stuff that breaks on Win 8 desktops will work on these tablets.
Re: (Score:2)
I also got an HP stream, was hesitant with it being an Atom and 1GB RAM, but performance seems pretty good. Sticking with tablet like workflows: Video player, web browser, it's not so bad. I hate to say it but Metro IE doesn't seem that bad either. Chrome can run in New UI mode (which requires taking over default browser) is a close second. On screen keyboard will popup up when required (even in desktop mode), gestures work well for eg: zoom. Downside is forward back, etc buttons are way too small, even in
2GB More Than Enough With Windows 8.1 (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows Vista 64-bit took about 2GB RAM, you basically had to have 3GB+ to run anything.
Windows 7 64-bit took about 1GB RAM, or practical tests 0.8GB, you basically had to have 2GB+ to run anything.
Windows 8/8.1 takes a whole 0.28GB RAM, you basically need 1GB+ to run anything.
The Surface 3 is made for word processing, browsing the web, watching video, taking notes, or simpler tasks like that. 2GB will work well for this role.
Will it work well for you? Maybe not, this is why there is the full line-up of the Surface 3 and Surface 3 Pro models.
Unlike the ARM based Surface models, these will run any X86 program, this opens up all sorts of possibilities. Portable sound studio? Why not, the voice of Honest Trailers uses Audacity and since the Surface 3 has a standard USB 3 Port, you just need a good USB Microphone, or a good converter.
Re: (Score:1)
Or you could just buy a notebook.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect 2GB is enough *if* you stick to modern (Metro) style apps. Those apps aren't much different from a web applications in many ways; highly scripted, relying on back end servers, etc.
But if someone's going to use full applications (ie, Office, Photoshop, etc) then 2GB will start to hurt. On the other hand, 2GB on a smaller OS will go a whole lot farther, though it won't be compatible with x86/x64 applications (the old ball and chain).
I'd rather have a real computer though. Don't see much point in
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
As much as I hate Windows 8.1, one thing they have done right is greatly reduced the memory load.
Windows Vista 64-bit took about 2GB RAM, you basically had to have 3GB+ to run anything.
Windows 7 64-bit took about 1GB RAM, or practical tests 0.8GB, you basically had to have 2GB+ to run anything.
Windows 8/8.1 takes a whole 0.28GB RAM, you basically need 1GB+ to run anything.
The Surface 3 is made for word processing, browsing the web, watching video, taking notes, or simpler tasks like that. 2GB will work well for this role.
Sorry but I can't agree. I've never seen Windows 8.1 EVER run with that low of a memory load, and that's the first thing I checked when I bought a Surface Pro 3 fresh out of the box because I was worried that 4GB wasn't going to be enough. Admittedly I do photography which is why I was worried about 4GB, and really I was right. It is a battle to get any software to provision more than 2GB of memory. Windows 8.1 booted up out of the box consuming just over 1GB. These days it boots to about 1.5GB with Chrome,
Re: (Score:2)
Windows uses memory to cache things, making the system faster if it can. It will use less RAM if it has to, and they have been improving efficiency when resources are tight.
You can't predict memory use on a low-memory system from the behavior of one with a lot of memory.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have missed the bits where I said that on a fresh install, where things like Supercache etc don't have any data to cache yet. Or the bit where I said it's a battle to get software to provision more than 2GB of RAM on a 4GB system.
If it did there wouldn't be a problem, but the simple fact of the matter is that I have a 4GB laptop and with no other programs running in the background I can fire up a memory intensive program and watch the system grind to a halt when it is using just a tad over 2.5GB of
Re: (Score:1)
You've got some wires crossed--the RAM numbers were given by someone else.
To be honest I haven't studied particulars, edge cases, etc... But one thing that strikes me is even on a fresh install, files accessed and read to memory will likely stay in memory until it's needed by other tasks. That doesn't take a cache history, it's just lazy freeing of memory in case the contents are needed again. Again, haven't tested anything, this is conjecture.
You and the other poster may actually both be right, with very s
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate Windows 8.1, one thing they have done right is greatly reduced the memory load.
So what's the problem. If something needs 8 GB you just put 8 GB of ram in to that thing.
Re: (Score:2)
windows will run more than fine in 2GB, it will run fine in 1GB with win 8.1. it really comes down to applications and as it is a tablet 2GB is probably fine for most users that will use it for web browsing and consuming media.
Re: (Score:1)
But that may not be the case when Windows 10 comes out. To make Windows 10 "normal" again, they may have to add some of the bloat back.
Or you may order software designed for Windows 7 machines that assumes at least 2GB because that's the typical target machine they would have built it for.
Re: (Score:2)
2GB RAM on Windows 8 or 10 is completely usable for common computing tasks. Web browsing is tricky, particularly with Chrome, which at this point is pretty disrespectful of machines with limited amounts of RAM. Firefox and IE both do better. Some of the desktops I support are 2GB Windows 8 machines. For the most part, they're all subjectively identical to 4GB and 8GB machines until enough tabs or PDFs are open for Windows to start swapping.
downgrading cpu to make battery numbers look bette (Score:1)
The first and second versions had i5 processors. this third one has an Atom. trying to make battery life numbers and heat dissipation better?
Re: (Score:2)
No the current generation Surface Pro 3 is still a Core i5 - current generation. This is Surface non-Pro that is an Atom x7
Re: (Score:2)
Surface RT and Surface 2 (the previous versions of the Surface tablet) used ARM-based SoCs.
Surface 3 uses an Intel Atom x7 SoC.
Don't confuse these with the Surface Pro tablets which have used Intel Core i3, i5, i7 CPUs (depending on version).
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft is done with the ARM versions of Windows on tablets. Likely they want that whole mess to die in a fire. Because the new line of Atom processors is really good. I forget to plug my Asus Transformer tablet in all the time and it crashes if I leave it that way for a day or so. Because the battery life is good enough that I generally use it unwired to the charger, and the life is long enough that you forget about that. It's not fabulous battery life but it's pretty good battery life. Enough that
Re: (Score:2)
All the Surfaces had ARM based processors. The Atom is a nice step up in comparison.
All the Surface Pros had Intel i5s and up, and they still do.
In either case battery life has not been a source of complaints, and even with the Pro 3's i5 which is the same as the Pro 2's the battery easily lasts 8 hours or so.
Re: (Score:1)
It went from the NVIDIA Tegra 4 (surface 2), which is ARM based to Atom based (surface 3).
You must be thinking of the PRO line, which contains a full up "i series" processor (up to i7 if you want to fork over the $).
Re: (Score:2)
Windows is a dealbreaker for me though.
I'm not a fan of the metro stuff and start screen on 8, though at least 8.1 half fixed metro apps by letting you close them. Windows 10 is supposed to run metro apps in a window on the desktop. But, all that said - I have to say that if I had a tablet, the new Start screen thing and metro apps ... would be totally fine. That seems to be what it was designed for. And being able to switch between those two contexts is even better (as 10 can do, I believe... manually, or based on screen size). I'm assumin
Re: (Score:1)
I for one am hoping and expecting Mozilla to come to deeply regret abandoning Firefox on Metro. I.E. is pretty nice in Metro on a tablet and when Microsoft comes out with their new non-IE browser with Windows 10 all the third party browsers are going to be caught with their pants down. Apple should probably start porting Safari to Metro as soon as they can, for when the iPad is roadkill.
So, Windows RT is dead (Score:2)
Is there anyone outside M$ who didn't see that coming?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, and anybody who was dumb enough to buy an RT device is stuck, most likely. But the x86 equivalent to any ARM-based Win8 tablet they bought is almost certainly cheaper than the ARM unit was.
Re: (Score:2)
Those RT devices were probably the most underrated tablets ever. My mom has one and she loves the thing. Runs office, solitaire, and Netflix just fine. Granted, it can't run legacy x86 apps, but neither can iPad or Android.
Looks OK... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Keyboard + trackpad + doubles as protective cover + features that automatically disable it when folded back allowing the system to display onscreen keyboard and prevents accidental clicks + the fact that it's about 1mm thick + attaches magnetically + it gives you somewhere on the tablet to clip the pen (a big fucking oversight from Microsoft).
You're not paying $130 for a keyboard. You're paying the $130 that Microsoft deviously omitted from the price tag of their product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just bend forward and grab your ankle in the Microsoft store. ...
Well you joke, but I only partially joke. The fact that Microsoft sells the keyboard separately is outright retarded. The price of the accessory is not so much and no one would blink an eye if they simply put the $130 (actually usually $110) in the price of the tablet to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what to make if this non pro thing.
Just look at it and say 1/3rd of the performance for 1/3rd of the price.
There doesn't appear to be any appreciable difference between the Surface and the Surface Pro now that from the looks of things they abandoned their extreeeeeeeeeeeemly crippled OS. .... I think ..... based solely on the fact that it has an x86 chip.
Re: (Score:1)
I post real world experience from 3 countries and get rated as troll?!