6 ms·

After 5 minutes of scanning their site, I still cannot find the display resolution of their offering, but I have found: "Coming Soon." "Images are design rend

After 5 minutes of scanning their site, I still cannot find the display resolution of their offering, but I have found: "Coming Soon." "Images are design renderings and not photographs." "1, 2 Actual size and weight of the device may vary due to configuration and manufacturing process" Anyone find a better spec sheet than this one? http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingassets/surfacespecsheet.pdf http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingasset... Why can't Microsoft present normal details in an accessible manner?

dredmorbius 14y ago
Vaporware. They're trying to pre-empt anyone for capturing the tablet/mobile space by rushing their design concept out before anyone else has a chance to produce product, and force everyone to ape Microsoft's claimed, rather than actual, featureset. Oh, wait, that was NT, 1992. Scratch all of that.
- jbigelow76 14y ago
  Just "who" is it you think they are trying to rush? Certainly not Apple, and aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival (800 dollar Xoom anyone)? If this was vaporware they were pushing in an attempt to get ahead of the market instead of playing catch up they would have put this out in 2010 instead of halfway through 2012. If they can price the thing realistically (again, 800 dollar Xoom anyone?) it will have a shot otherwise it will fail (I'd really prefer it to succeed) and they'll try and spin it by saying it's targeting "the enterprise".
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    > "aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival" The ASUS Transformer line.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival There have been millions of Android tablets sold. In most product spaces that is an incredible success, and it's only relative to the astonishing success of the iPad could that be called "dead on arrival". And that was the rather terrible phase one. The incomplete Honeycomb, the rather terrible Tegra 2, and toothing pain hardware. I've noticed my online electronic store absolutely pushing the next wave - the A700, 7" tablets of all sorts, etc. All of them finally featuring price advantages over the iPad.' Anyone who buys the Android failed on tablets thing has been misled. It has been an ugly adventure but they're actually doing okay, and have set a pretty good foundation for success going forward.
    - jan_g 14y ago
      Correct. I can see here locally that many, many Android tablets are sold on regular basis. $100-$300 price range, manufacturers that I've never heard of (yarvik gotab, goclever, prestigio, archos, ...), marketed everywhere - even with flyers in mailboxes and so on. And many people buy them.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      This is true, only if you compare every android tablet across manufacturers. People who like to tout android vs apple love to do this. But the fact is, android tablets have not been a success for a single manufacturer. There's only so long companies will keep dumping money down this rabbit hole hoping to get lucky. Android tablets have been a success for Google. for everyone else, not so much.
      - dredmorbius 14y ago
        They're also arguably a success for those who are interested in building off the platform. While Google certainly counts, I suspect this goes beyond them. As far as the hardware goes, I suspect it's going to be a very low-margin market. Razors to the blades. This doesn't make it unsuccessful. At all.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    To dissect the frog for you: the "look at teh shinay" with an absence of (or grossly overinflated) specs was the standard MO for Microsoft through much of the 90s. I'm pointing out that such tactics are not particularly effective when there are existing products which have not only captivated the public's eye, but also captured much of the market. Yes, I'm aware that Android are registering 900,000 new activations. Per day. By some reports, Microsoft's prior Great White Hope in the mobile space, the Kin, sold a total of 500 units through Verizon. I'm seeing significant marketing for the Nokia N900 Windows phone while reading about spectacular business concerns with Nokia. I'm not holding out great hopes for Microsoft's Surface. I'm thinking it may prove to be a tad ... unstable. Sure, there are some nifty design features that might well be ripped off by others (steal from the best, as the Krell say), including cover-as-keyboard, but as for the rest of it, I'll see it when I believe it.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      Quick reference for those who don't recognize the significance of Microsoft's previous vaporware abuses. And no, again, I'm not saying that "Surface" is same, at least not in the way of being able to torpedo an existing market. But as they say, history may not be repeating, but it's rhyming. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm
- r00fus 14y ago
  Latest installment of Microsoft paper-launch was for the Slate (remember all the iSlate->isLate jokes back in Jan 2010?) That product (they even had HP dialed up as a partner) never shipped, and Apple introduced the iPad to subsequently (re)define the tablet market.
- rsynnott 14y ago
  I do have to wonder if this is another HP Slate. Remember that?
Animus7 14y ago
I think we can assume that either: a) they haven't figured out the details, b) the details are underwhelming, or c) they just don't want us to know yet. Retina-like resolution on something like this would be a powerful marketing play. I don't think this is a matter of omission.
bjg 14y ago
On the about page: http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingassets/surfacespecsheet.pdf http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingasset...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Ha ha - on that sheet, the cover is listed as a "VaporMg Case". Well, at least they're honest...
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    That's not the cover, it's the metal enclosure of the tablet, and has something to do with how they mold the magnesium. But yeah, a bold move to use Vapor in a product name.
rorrr 14y ago
They said it's full HD at the conference. So I guess 1920x1080.
rodh257 14y ago
The RT version is 'HD' and the Pro is 'Full HD' so I'm guessing 720 and 1080.
tpurves 14y ago
ah, actually you can find all the stats here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6016/microsoft-surface-we-go-hands-on http://www.anandtech.com/show/6016/microsoft-surface-we-go-h...
- lloeki 14y ago
  Interesting. Anyone know what a Micro HD video connector is? Does that mean Micro HDMI? Ironic that they go with MiniDP on the Pro when everyone cries for the lack of HDMI on the iPad. On the Pro, 900g is quite hefty, and 13mm is quite tall. Even 676g is tough to swallow given people called the iPad 1 heavy (712g) and rejoiced when the iPad 2 lost 112g. Also, knowing that the battery is foobar Wh tells me shit unless I know the system wattage. Seriously can't they say about 10h of playing mp4, which actually means something? I may look a bit bashing, but I'm honestly thrilled to know more about this.
smashing 14y ago
Microsoft always leaves the specific details to the OEM, such as hard drive capacity, screen resolution, hardware components, etc. They may have an increasingly more advanced set within the "Minimum Specs Required", but nevertheless they only provide the licensed OS to the Hardware OEM.
- dpark 14y ago
  This is a device that Microsoft is building (well, contracting to build undoubtedly) and selling with their own name on it. They are the OEM here, and they'll be setting 100% of the hardware specs.

dredmorbius 14y ago

Vaporware. They're trying to pre-empt anyone for capturing the tablet/mobile space by rushing their design concept out before anyone else has a chance to produce product, and force everyone to ape Microsoft's claimed, rather than actual, featureset. Oh, wait, that was NT, 1992. Scratch all of that.

jbigelow76 14y ago
Just "who" is it you think they are trying to rush? Certainly not Apple, and aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival (800 dollar Xoom anyone)? If this was vaporware they were pushing in an attempt to get ahead of the market instead of playing catch up they would have put this out in 2010 instead of halfway through 2012. If they can price the thing realistically (again, 800 dollar Xoom anyone?) it will have a shot otherwise it will fail (I'd really prefer it to succeed) and they'll try and spin it by saying it's targeting "the enterprise".
- lotharbot 14y ago
  > "aside from the Fire/Nook Tablet is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival" The ASUS Transformer line.
- huggyface 14y ago
  is their an Android tablet that hasn't been dead on arrival There have been millions of Android tablets sold. In most product spaces that is an incredible success, and it's only relative to the astonishing success of the iPad could that be called "dead on arrival". And that was the rather terrible phase one. The incomplete Honeycomb, the rather terrible Tegra 2, and toothing pain hardware. I've noticed my online electronic store absolutely pushing the next wave - the A700, 7" tablets of all sorts, etc. All of them finally featuring price advantages over the iPad.' Anyone who buys the Android failed on tablets thing has been misled. It has been an ugly adventure but they're actually doing okay, and have set a pretty good foundation for success going forward.
  - jan_g 14y ago
    Correct. I can see here locally that many, many Android tablets are sold on regular basis. $100-$300 price range, manufacturers that I've never heard of (yarvik gotab, goclever, prestigio, archos, ...), marketed everywhere - even with flyers in mailboxes and so on. And many people buy them.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    This is true, only if you compare every android tablet across manufacturers. People who like to tout android vs apple love to do this. But the fact is, android tablets have not been a success for a single manufacturer. There's only so long companies will keep dumping money down this rabbit hole hoping to get lucky. Android tablets have been a success for Google. for everyone else, not so much.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      They're also arguably a success for those who are interested in building off the platform. While Google certainly counts, I suspect this goes beyond them. As far as the hardware goes, I suspect it's going to be a very low-margin market. Razors to the blades. This doesn't make it unsuccessful. At all.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  To dissect the frog for you: the "look at teh shinay" with an absence of (or grossly overinflated) specs was the standard MO for Microsoft through much of the 90s. I'm pointing out that such tactics are not particularly effective when there are existing products which have not only captivated the public's eye, but also captured much of the market. Yes, I'm aware that Android are registering 900,000 new activations. Per day. By some reports, Microsoft's prior Great White Hope in the mobile space, the Kin, sold a total of 500 units through Verizon. I'm seeing significant marketing for the Nokia N900 Windows phone while reading about spectacular business concerns with Nokia. I'm not holding out great hopes for Microsoft's Surface. I'm thinking it may prove to be a tad ... unstable. Sure, there are some nifty design features that might well be ripped off by others (steal from the best, as the Krell say), including cover-as-keyboard, but as for the rest of it, I'll see it when I believe it.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    Quick reference for those who don't recognize the significance of Microsoft's previous vaporware abuses. And no, again, I'm not saying that "Surface" is same, at least not in the way of being able to torpedo an existing market. But as they say, history may not be repeating, but it's rhyming. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm
r00fus 14y ago
Latest installment of Microsoft paper-launch was for the Slate (remember all the iSlate->isLate jokes back in Jan 2010?) That product (they even had HP dialed up as a partner) never shipped, and Apple introduced the iPad to subsequently (re)define the tablet market.
rsynnott 14y ago
I do have to wonder if this is another HP Slate. Remember that?

Animus7 14y ago

I think we can assume that either: a) they haven't figured out the details, b) the details are underwhelming, or c) they just don't want us to know yet. Retina-like resolution on something like this would be a powerful marketing play. I don't think this is a matter of omission.

bjg 14y ago

On the about page: http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingassets/surfacespecsheet.pdf http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingasset...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
anthonyb 14y ago
Ha ha - on that sheet, the cover is listed as a "VaporMg Case". Well, at least they're honest...
- jonhendry 14y ago
  That's not the cover, it's the metal enclosure of the tablet, and has something to do with how they mold the magnesium. But yeah, a bold move to use Vapor in a product name.

rorrr 14y ago

They said it's full HD at the conference. So I guess 1920x1080.

rodh257 14y ago

The RT version is 'HD' and the Pro is 'Full HD' so I'm guessing 720 and 1080.

tpurves 14y ago

ah, actually you can find all the stats here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6016/microsoft-surface-we-go-hands-on http://www.anandtech.com/show/6016/microsoft-surface-we-go-h...

lloeki 14y ago
Interesting. Anyone know what a Micro HD video connector is? Does that mean Micro HDMI? Ironic that they go with MiniDP on the Pro when everyone cries for the lack of HDMI on the iPad. On the Pro, 900g is quite hefty, and 13mm is quite tall. Even 676g is tough to swallow given people called the iPad 1 heavy (712g) and rejoiced when the iPad 2 lost 112g. Also, knowing that the battery is foobar Wh tells me shit unless I know the system wattage. Seriously can't they say about 10h of playing mp4, which actually means something? I may look a bit bashing, but I'm honestly thrilled to know more about this.

smashing 14y ago

Microsoft always leaves the specific details to the OEM, such as hard drive capacity, screen resolution, hardware components, etc. They may have an increasingly more advanced set within the "Minimum Specs Required", but nevertheless they only provide the licensed OS to the Hardware OEM.

dpark 14y ago
This is a device that Microsoft is building (well, contracting to build undoubtedly) and selling with their own name on it. They are the OEM here, and they'll be setting 100% of the hardware specs.