10 things we want to know about Surface

Darren Yates
19 June 2012, 3:58 PM


After the Surface announcement, Darren Yates considers what we still really don't know about Microsoft’s new Windows 8 tablets.




Microsoft has released a limited specification sheet on its new tablets – you can read it right here - but after reading it, I’ve got plenty more questions than answers.

1. Why are Intel-based tablets always heavier than ARM-chipped models?

The word is the Windows 8 Pro tablet will be powered by a low-power Intel Core i5 chip while the Windows RT unit will run an Nvidia ARM processor. If that’s the case, then it continues the tradition of Intel-based tablets being considerably heavier than ARM tablets. Frankly, 903 grams is a lot to carry in your hand – and we complained about the 650 grams of the new 2012 iPad!

2. What's the Windows RT model’s processor?

Given the inclusion of Microsoft’s own Office Home & Student 2013 RT software, all eyes will be on the Win RT version as the mass-market model. So it’s pretty important to know which Nvidia ARM processor this will be running – will it be the dual-core Tegra 2 or the quad-core Tegra 3? Not only will the choice affect overall performance but it’ll have a significant effect on battery life too.

3. “Micro HD video” port?

It sounds silly but it’s a question worth asking. Android tablets are now routinely appearing with various versions of HDMI, but with the Windows 8 Pro tablet incorporating a mini DisplayPort output, Microsoft needs to choose the port here carefully. And don’t kid yourself it’s not important – with Google Play and Apple doing big business with online movie rentals, tablets are fast becoming the next-generation DVD player and HDMI output is critical for simple big-screen movie playback.

4. MicroSD vs MicroSDXC?

Assuming the Windows RT version is based on Nvidia’s ARM platform, the microSD card slot should be at least capable of 32GB cards, which should make it a MicroSDHC slot. Specifying the Windows 8 Pro model’s card slot as an SDXC (64GB up) type just adds to the confusion of exactly what’s being offered in the RT model. I’d assume it’s a MicroSDHC slot but Microsoft could be more helpful here.

5. Battery life?

The different battery capacities here are intriguing and could very well tell us a lot about the power efficiency of the two platforms. The fact Microsoft has gone for an iPad-sized 42-watt-hour unit in the Windows 8 Pro version as opposed to just a 31.5-watt-hour model in the Win RT tablet is significant. If both end up giving the same battery run time, it’ll give you a pretty good idea of the power consumption of each. And for the record, Apple gets 10 hours from its 42-watt-hour battery – can the Windows 8 Pro tablet top that?

6. Screen resolution?

Although we know both tablets will share a 10.6-inch widescreen LCD panel, we don’t know the exact resolution of the Windows RT model other than “HD”. The "full HD” offering in the Windows 8 Pro tablet clearly means 1,920 x 1,080-pixel resolution. But unfortunately “HD” (high definition) is pretty vague and in TV land, simply means anything above DVD spec (720 x 576-pixels). Apple’s iPad 2 with its 1,024 x 768-pixel panel is technically ‘HD’, but Surface (Win RT) will need to be 720p (1,280 x 720 pixels) to compete with the bulk of the Android tablet market.

7. USB 2.0 versus USB 3.0?

The lack of USB 3.0 on the Windows RT tab may be a limitation in the ARM platform – at this stage we don’t know. But it’ll be important to know just what type of USB 2.0 port Microsoft is offering here. Is it a host port (meaning you can plug your printer or portable hard drive into it) or is it just an “upstream” port, meaning it’s supposed to just connect to your PC and act as a peripheral-only type port? A third option is what’s called a USB OTG (On The Go) port, which means it can do both. These exist in some Android tablets so it’ll be worth knowing how Microsoft implements USB here.

8. Gaming performance?

If the Windows RT tab comes with a video output port of some description that supports HD video of one type or another, what level of CPU performance will it come with? Will it be limited to just video playback? What gaming speed will it have? According to Microsoft’s Developer Network, MSDN, Windows RT tablets are not required to support features beyond DirectX 9.1-level, so we probably wouldn’t hold your breath for a top-drawer Crysis 2 kind of experience.

9. Wireless connectivity?

At this stage, the only hint of wireless connectivity is the mention of two MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) antennae in both models. MIMO is just as important to 3G/4G as it is to 802.11n Wi-Fi, so it doesn’t tell us much. Still, you’d have to expect at least 802.11n Wi-Fi networking to compete with most Nvidia Tegra 2-based Android tablets. As for 3G/4G options, it’ll depend on the data connectivity modules Microsoft chooses. Apple got stuck earlier this year by selecting a single-frequency option for its iPad 4G module that, while fine for the US, wasn’t compatible with Australia’s existing 4G network. Hopefully, Microsoft won’t make the same mistake.

10. Price?

This is obviously the key question Microsoft has to answer. The cheapest 10-inch tablet you’ll find in Australia is currently the Acer Iconia Tab A200 from Officeworks at $369, featuring Google’s Android 4.0 operating system. However, it comes with only the dual-core Nvidia Tegra 2 ARM chip. Most tabs using the quad-core Tegra 3 chip sell for around the $500-600 mark. A price much beyond that might make it difficult for Microsoft to compete.

Plus...

To see what might just be the secret weapon embedded in Microsoft's Surface tablet strategy, read this.




Read more stories about

Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Auscam Online (New user):

At a guess, these items were not released for this very reason; it'll get people talking and asking questions. Smart marketing - very unlike Microsoft in that sense. I don't recall the last time I saw this level of Microsoft-y buzz around the traps!

19 June 2012, 4:19 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Yes, it is generating talk, but the problem is that much of the talk is very negative. Most authors are ticked-off at the lack of information and so the thrust of their reviews is rather negative. Getting people talking about a product is a grat idea and marketers sometimes use a technique of bifurcating the discussion; however, from what I have been reaing, there is no bifurcation - just negative towards MS (rather than the tablet, pers se). So far, not a very smart move by MS in terms of marketing.

19 June 2012, 5:22 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jase13 (New user):

Point 1. Seriously?

i5 takes more power than ARM, hence bigger battery, hence heavier.

Is this really over your head?

19 June 2012, 5:17 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Darren Yates (Frequent poster):

Nice one, Jase, but I'm not sure it's quite that simple. The 2012 iPad has the same capacity battery and weighs 250grams less. Sure, there might be a few extra ports here than on an iPad and that might acount for some of that weight but Windows 7 tablets running Atom chips also weight more.
Of course, I could be dead-set wrong...


19 June 2012, 5:39 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jase13 (New user):

Heh, my comment was a bit harsh. My apologies.

But, in terms of a simple ARM vs intel comparison as set up in the post. It seems simply why intel will weight more in this case. Battery and active cooling both account for significant weight bumps i would think. It just doesnt seem like a mystery as posed in your article.

19 June 2012, 5:51 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Darren Yates (Frequent poster):

Maybe not, but given it doesn't seem to matter whether you have a Core i5 or an Atom chip, the weight is always heavier, I think it's still a valid question, particularly if Intel is serious about getting into the tablet market with its CULV parts. Would you buy an Atom tablet that was heavier than a dual-core Tegra 2? Don't think I would.
That's the basis for the question.
Oh, apologies accepted... :)
Cheers, Darren.

19 June 2012, 5:55 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jase13 (New user):

Double post, nvm

19 June 2012, 5:18 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Andrew Tech Help (New user):

In regards to the resolution question, these tablets will definitely have a resolution greater than 1366x768. This is because to enable the Metro App snapping feature (where you can have 2 apps on screen at once, one taking up 3/4 of the screen and the other taking up 1/4) you need a minimum resolution of 1366x768. SURELY Microsoft wouldn't supply a tablet which couldn't support this feature they tout!

UPDATE: I just watched the video of the announcement that Microsoft has released. I can now CONFIRM that the resolution will be above 1366x768 because they demoed the Snapping feature, which means it has to be 1366x768 or above!

19 June 2012, 5:32 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Potoroo (User):

I'm intrigued by the Surface. After playing with my partner's Lumia 800 I think Metro works well on smaller devices, as much as I fear, loathe and detest the idea of being forced to use it on my desktop PC. I like the aesthetics of the Surface together with the flexibility it seems to offer as either a tablet or faux-laptop. Finally, being Win8 based I know it will support authenticating proxy servers so I would actually be able to use it.

Only time will tell, of course, but I very much hope I'm looking at the Apple-alternative Android has resolutely refused to give me.

20 June 2012, 7:40 AM (12 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Darren Yates (Frequent poster):

Nice post, Potoroo. I agree in that I'm not totally convinced yet by Metro on the desktop but if the tablets have enough grunt, I can see it working well there. I love Android but like most things, you'd have to say it was a "work in progress".
Cheers, Darren.

20 June 2012, 8:30 AM (12 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user