Jump to content

45 posts in this topic

Posted

MS should stop producing this grabage and separate the tablet and desktop altogether.

If you think tablet and desktop will remain different entity, you just simply lack any insight.

In three or four years, we will have our phones powering our "desktop" let alone tablet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think you need to reread my post again because you completely ignored it, didn't even bother to give any meaningful answer and continue to post that same biased article, Intel and battery life cannot and should not be used in the same sentence.

 

Then tell me, why is it that no smartphone manufacturer bothers to use Intel processors in their devices if Intel supposedly have chips that give superior battery life than ARM?

 

I did go back and re-read your post incase I missed something. I didn't ignore your post. I'm sorry if you thought I did.

 

The article basically explains every point you made, other than whether Apple should make an i5 or Bay Trail iPad. I didn't realize you considered the article to be biased. Can you please explain why you think the article is biased?

 

I already answered your last question. Historically ARM has performed better with more efficient power consumption, and has been cheaper. That is no longer the case. Even if you believe that the article is biased, you can't believe that Intel can't make even more improvements to Bay Trail in order to catch up to ARM.

 

 If Intel can close the gap in performance, battery life, and cost of ARM, (and probably already has), then why would you still need an RT only ARM version for media purposes instead of a x86?

Edited by thomastmc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think you're right there. But I think that Tim Cook is being really disingenuous saying that Microsoft is confused. I think both Apple and MS are heading to the same unified device and I think by iOS 10 at the latest, Mac OSX will be no more. Microsoft took the harder route. I like to consider that Apple has put us in tepid water and is slowly turning up the heat in terms of their approach towards removing the desktop. Microsoft had to take the gamble and feel the pain for a few years.

 

As a real Apple fan from 2003-2012, I consider what Microsoft has been doing just recently a lot more exciting than Apple's stuff.

I think you need to reread my post again because you completely ignored it, didn't even bother to give any meaningful answer and continue to post that same biased article, Intel and battery life cannot and should not be used in the same sentence.

 

Then tell me, why is it that no smartphone manufacturer bothers to use Intel processors in their devices if Intel supposedly have chips that give superior battery life than ARM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I did go back and re-read your post incase I missed something. I didn't ignore your post. I'm sorry if you thought I did.

 

The article basically explains every point you made, other than whether Apple should make an i5 or Bay Trail iPad. I didn't realize you considered the article to be biased. Can you please explain why you think the article is biased?

 

I already answered your last question. Historically ARM has performed better with more efficient power consumption, and has been cheaper. That is no longer the case. Even if you believe that the article is biased, you can't believe that Intel can't make even more improvements to Bay Trail in order to catch up to ARM.

 

 If Intel can close the gap in performance, battery life, and cost of ARM, (and probably already has), then why would you still need an RT only ARM version for media purposes instead of a x86?

 

Unless the NSA completely breaks the public image of cloud computing, why would we need to have x86 chips, especially with 64 bit ARM SoCs slowly coming out? You can get over 11 hours of use out of a new iPad that can run more live channels in Garageband than my 2007 MacBook with 4GB RAM could.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Unless the NSA completely breaks the public image of cloud computing, why would we need to have x86 chips, especially with 64 bit ARM SoCs slowly coming out? You can get over 11 hours of use out of a new iPad that can run more live channels in Garageband than my 2007 MacBook with 4GB RAM could.

 

As others have said, virtualizing x86 to the cloud isn't the best option for everyone.

 

Why would anyone rather have x86 vs ARM? Compatibility. All of your existing x86 games and applications can run on any device. Plus, the power efficiency of x86 is (arguably, obviously) on par with ARM finally. Even if you don't believe that it's quite there yet, it's very close, and will be in the short term. There's no point for most software vendors or developers to painstakingly, and expensively, port all of their applications to a new architecture and/or a new interface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As others have said, virtualizing x86 to the cloud isn't the best option for everyone.

 

Why would anyone rather have x86 vs ARM? Compatibility. All of your existing x86 games and applications can run on any device. Plus, the power efficiency of x86 is (arguably, obviously) on par with ARM finally. Even if you don't believe that it's quite there yet, it's very close, and will be in the short term. There's no point for most software vendors or developers to painstakingly, and expensively, port all of their applications to a new architecture and/or a new interface.

 

Why would you want compatibility though, can Surface Pro 2 run Crysis and why would anyone consider running software that isn't optimised for a touchscreen on a touchscreen based device?

 

Most of those apps only require recompiling for ARM to get them running anyway, Outlook 2013 on Windows RT 8.1 is the perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why would you want compatibility though, can Surface Pro 2 run Crysis and why would anyone consider running software that isn't optimised for a touchscreen on a touchscreen based device?

 

Most of those apps only require recompiling for ARM to get them running anyway, Outlook 2013 on Windows RT 8.1 is the perfect example.

 

Why would you want compatibility? Seriously?

 

Put a portable mouse and keyboard on that Surface Pro 2 and you probably can play Crysis :) I'm not going to argue that it'll be really smooth, I'm not sure what the requirements are for Crysis. I'm also not arguing that a desktop or laptop aren't better in some circumstances than a tablet. For sure they are. Can Surface (RT) 2 on ARM even run Crysis? That's the point.

 

The stylus is actually great... Photoshop, along with many other desktop tasks, works great with it. In many ways, especially in Photoshop, it's even better than a mouse. I can't say it totally replaces the mouse, but working on the desktop, with menus and interfaces not designed for touch, isn't much of a factor.

 

With x86, they don't even need to be recompiled and debugged :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think they just need to open up the platform and allow devs to compile for arm and install desktop apps normally just as they do on x86.  It has a desktop, there's no reason it can't run desktop apps.  Especially stuff made with .net.  I don't expect it to run Crysis, but it'd be nice to be able to use ComicRack or Paint.net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What's stopping you from just using Remote Desktop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i have a surface RT and i hate the desktop world on it. lose it and make everything tile world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What's stopping you from just using Remote Desktop?

 

Why not just use the computer you are "remoting to" and dump the RT altogether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think they just need to open up the platform and allow devs to compile for arm and install desktop apps normally just as they do on x86.  It has a desktop, there's no reason it can't run desktop apps.  Especially stuff made with .net.  I don't expect it to run Crysis, but it'd be nice to be able to use ComicRack or Paint.net.

 

If it never looked as if Intel was ever going to get x86 to be as power efficient, well performing, and cheap as ARM in the next 1-2 years, you'd have a great point.

 

I don't believe that the extremetech.com article is biased towards Intel over ARM though. Inexpensive Windows 8 x86 tablets are available now, and will soon be in wide variety. Same or better battery life, same performance (a little weaker on graphics, but you'll be fine with ComicRack or Paint.net). Why move everything to ARM when x86 can do it just as good, and already supports everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why not just use the computer you are "remoting to" and dump the RT altogether?

 

I... think you just missed the point of remote desktop. The point of remote desktop is to access things (apps, documents, etc) on-demand, not at your desktop PC. The RT is as suitable as any other thin client for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I... think you just missed the point of remote desktop. The point of remote desktop is to access things (apps, documents, etc) on-demand, not at your desktop PC. The RT is as suitable as any other thin client for that.

 

So, you would rather use a tablet, with its inferior screen and input methods, instead of walking over to the desktop and using the app properly with a keyboard/mouse and large high res screen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So, you would rather use a tablet, with its inferior screen and input methods, instead of walking over to the desktop and using the app properly with a keyboard/mouse and large high res screen?

 

If you were next to your desktop PC, then yes. But the reason you're using Remote Desktop is because you're remote, as in not next to the desktop. in that case, yeah, the RT can act as a suitable thin client.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If it never looked as if Intel was ever going to get x86 to be as power efficient, well performing, and cheap as ARM in the next 1-2 years, you'd have a great point.

 

I don't believe that the extremetech.com article is biased towards Intel over ARM though. Inexpensive Windows 8 x86 tablets are available now, and will soon be in wide variety. Same or better battery life, same performance (a little weaker on graphics, but you'll be fine with ComicRack or Paint.net). Why move everything to ARM when x86 can do it just as good, and already supports everything?

 

That would be an option if I wasn't so fixated on getting a Surface.  I may end up getting a cheap x86 tablet at some point anyway, but if I do then I will lament that I couldn't get the tablet I really wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That would be an option if I wasn't so fixated on getting a Surface.  I may end up getting a cheap x86 tablet at some point anyway, but if I do then I will lament that I couldn't get the tablet I really wanted.

 

I totally understand that. There will be a Microsoft built x86 tablet with Bay Trail by next Christmas at the very latest (even if they just let their new Nokia purchase pick it up). Still, if I was in the market and really was fixated on the Surface, I couldn't wait that long, (even though it'll probably actually be by this spring).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So, you would rather use a tablet, with its inferior screen and input methods, instead of walking over to the desktop and using the app properly with a keyboard/mouse and large high res screen?

Some people leave their desktops in the basement, go out into the real world, and use their computers there.  In those instances, remote desktop becomes handy to access resources only available on their desktop. This is true for x86 / ARM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

LOL most of us have moved out of our parents' basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So, you would rather use a tablet, with its inferior screen and input methods, instead of walking over to the desktop and using the app properly with a keyboard/mouse and large high res screen?

I do so daily. I also connect with the Team Viewer app from my phone.

 

These two cases are why Windows Phone and Windows 8 are important for Microsoft, people don't sit in front of desktops anymore like they used to. They don't want to be tied to that anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.