4 ms·

regarding comparison with iPad, the CPU GPU combination does not matter because Surface was/is still plenty fast with the hardware it has. Agree on the screen a

by barista 13y ago

regarding comparison with iPad, the CPU GPU combination does not matter because Surface was/is still plenty fast with the hardware it has. Agree on the screen and Office though. Although office was updated a month or two after the release and fixed the performance issues in time. I wouldn't necessarily attribute the problems to that. Marketing seems to have come around and have started chaning the message and attacking the iPad more directly in adverts like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JMcy5OqZA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JMcy5OqZA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE7AQY5Xk9w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE7AQY5Xk9w plus the reduced price should help make it attractive. It's one very functional device though. Just today I read an article of how it was perfect for a student. Will update with a link if I find it.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
I find Surface RT to have lots of lag, especially when opening up apps. It doesn't feel as fast as an iPad. I think the GPU is adequate, especially since the RT screen is very low resolution compared to an iPad 3.
rayiner 13y ago
> the CPU GPU combination does not matter because Surface was/is still plenty fast with the hardware it has. It really isn't. Nearly every review mentioned that it felt a little slow. Anand Tech mentioned it was "almost" as smooth as an iPad, but felt slower starting apps. Tech Radar said its graphics performance was "sluggish." Ars mentioned apps starting slower than they would like. I had a Surface RT for several weeks, and that was exactly my impression: it felt just a step slower than my wife's iPad, and that wasn't an admirable quality in a $500+$100 tablet. If Surface RT had started at $350, people would have perceived it as an acceptable compromise. > Although office was updated a month or two after the release and fixed the performance issues in time. It doesn't matter what happens "a month or two" after all the reviews are written. Nobody who wasn't hoping for the Surface RT to succeed bothered to go back a couple of months later to check for updates.
MBCook 13y ago
> Agree on the screen and Office though. Although office was updated a month or two after the release and fixed the performance issues in time. What I find so odd about the RT was that the desktop only existed for two reasons: Office and settings. If it wasn't for Office they could have fixed the settings that were missing in the Metro interface and the thing wouldn't have felt slightly Jekyll & Hyde. Instead it looked more like the Office team didn't believe in the product (or wasn't given enough time) and it seemed half-assed. I have a friend who has a 64gb RT and loves it, but he bought it for $50 after the original owner wanted to get rid of it. I doubt he would have paid the $450 for it though.

by barista 13y ago

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

I find Surface RT to have lots of lag, especially when opening up apps. It doesn't feel as fast as an iPad. I think the GPU is adequate, especially since the RT screen is very low resolution compared to an iPad 3.

rayiner 13y ago

> the CPU GPU combination does not matter because Surface was/is still plenty fast with the hardware it has. It really isn't. Nearly every review mentioned that it felt a little slow. Anand Tech mentioned it was "almost" as smooth as an iPad, but felt slower starting apps. Tech Radar said its graphics performance was "sluggish." Ars mentioned apps starting slower than they would like. I had a Surface RT for several weeks, and that was exactly my impression: it felt just a step slower than my wife's iPad, and that wasn't an admirable quality in a $500+$100 tablet. If Surface RT had started at $350, people would have perceived it as an acceptable compromise. > Although office was updated a month or two after the release and fixed the performance issues in time. It doesn't matter what happens "a month or two" after all the reviews are written. Nobody who wasn't hoping for the Surface RT to succeed bothered to go back a couple of months later to check for updates.

MBCook 13y ago

> Agree on the screen and Office though. Although office was updated a month or two after the release and fixed the performance issues in time. What I find so odd about the RT was that the desktop only existed for two reasons: Office and settings. If it wasn't for Office they could have fixed the settings that were missing in the Metro interface and the thing wouldn't have felt slightly Jekyll & Hyde. Instead it looked more like the Office team didn't believe in the product (or wasn't given enough time) and it seemed half-assed. I have a friend who has a 64gb RT and loves it, but he bought it for $50 after the original owner wanted to get rid of it. I doubt he would have paid the $450 for it though.