Jump to content



Photo

Windows RT: Where do we go from here?

windows rt microsoft windows office cloud

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Tk1917

Tk1917

    Neowinian

  • 98 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 11

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:25

When it first came out, it seemed like a sort of stop-gap. Sure there was excitement and for the most part. It didn’t disappoint due to the giant step forward of the Metro user interface. Then most looked to the future-to the Slate RT’s bigger brother-the Pro. That seemed like the culmination of the tablet experience. With Pro you get all of the same awesome of tablets combined with all of the awesome of running your favorite regular Windows programs. When compared to this, RT seemed kind of dumb.

There has been a lot of questions about why Microsoft keeps the lesser of the two OS’s around. After all, why buy the RT when you can just spend a bit more and run everything you would on your computer?

 

 

http://thebackbenche...e-go-from-here/




#2 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,730 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:29

What regular Windows programs is this guy trying to run on a tablet, and why? :wacko:



#3 Riva

Riva

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,557 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 07

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:29

I chose the Surface RT over the Pro simply because I didn't want a laptop in a funny form factor. Plus the RT has a great battery life in comparison to the Pro. Only thing I am missing is Outlook, Project and Visio but they are due shortly I guess



#4 primexx

primexx

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,808 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 05

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:13

battery alone is worth the tradeoff for some uses



#5 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • 5,378 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:17

battery alone is worth the tradeoff for some uses

 

no, you can get the exact same battery life in the exact same size and form factor. battery is no longer the issue. BUT, arm is still cheaper than intel,so that's the advantage right now, and that's why RT will still exist until the day you can get intel chips with the same performance and battery life for the same price.

 

I figure the older SoCs and components are very cheap currently. I don't see why stubborn OEMs will not make nice and very cheap priced rt tablets in the $200 range. it is possible,but they just don't get it.



#6 primexx

primexx

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,808 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 05

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:20

no, you can get the exact same battery life in the exact same size and form factor. battery is no longer the issue. BUT, arm is still cheaper than intel,so that's the advantage right now, and that's why RT will still exist until the day you can get intel chips with the same performance and battery life for the same price.

 

I figure the older SoCs and components are very cheap currently. I don't see why stubborn OEMs will not make nice and very cheap priced rt tablets in the $200 range. it is possible,but they just don't get it.

 

wut?



#7 spudtrooper

spudtrooper

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,095 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 10
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia 920

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:21

I chose the Surface RT over the Pro simply because I didn't want a laptop in a funny form factor. Plus the RT has a great battery life in comparison to the Pro. Only thing I am missing is Outlook, Project and Visio but they are due shortly I guess

 

Outlook is on my RT after upgrading to the 8.1 preview.



#8 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • 5,378 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:59



wut?

you missed the last part at the end of my sentence, the three things must be all available together, performance,batterylife and price. the two first features are available, but price is not equivalent. you can buy cheaper intel chips, but performance and battery life are crap and not useful for tablets or small thin devices.



#9 primexx

primexx

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,808 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 05

Posted 27 June 2013 - 14:20

you missed the last part at the end of my sentence, the three things must be all available together, performance,batterylife and price. the two first features are available, but price is not equivalent. you can buy cheaper intel chips, but performance and battery life are crap and not useful for tablets or small thin devices.

 

obviously when you compare something you hold all else to be equal. you can get the same battery life with an Intel chip, but you'll need a bigger battery. so you can't do it in the same form factor unless you use more expensive battery technology that may or may not exist. as long as x86 isn't as power efficient as ARM, there will always be a battery advantage that you'd have to work around to get par results. Not to mention battery life is clearly superior on the Surface RT than on the Pro, despite a bigger battery on the latter.



#10 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • 5,378 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 27 June 2013 - 14:41

obviously when you compare something you hold all else to be equal. you can get the same battery life with an Intel chip, but you'll need a bigger battery. so you can't do it in the same form factor unless you use more expensive battery technology that may or may not exist. as long as x86 isn't as power efficient as ARM, there will always be a battery advantage that you'd have to work around to get par results. Not to mention battery life is clearly superior on the Surface RT than on the Pro, despite a bigger battery on the latter.

 

the intel atom z2760  cpu actually has better performance to power ratio than the arm cpu used in the surface RT and pretty much most of the arm chips released during that time of release. you can find all the testing and results on anadtech. the acer w510 is virtually the same thickness as the surface rt (0.38" vs 0.37"),yet it has equivalent battery life and better cpu performance. only problem with the atom chip, its more expensive for these device manufacturers.