On iPad and Microsoft Surface RT pricing: a better screen versus more memory isn’t a tough choice
TechCrunch reports on pricing for Microsoft’s Surface RT, which I assume a sub had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from calling an ‘iPad killer’. The short of it is the low-end model comes in at the same price as the low-end iPad, but with 16 GB more storage. The high-end model matches the 64 GB iPad’s price, but you get a cover. What you don’t get is a high-density display; instead, the device clocks in at 1280 x 720 pixels, a pixel density of 139 ppi.
In the comments, Alex Wilks states:
Compared to the iPad that’s a reasonable price- you’re basically trading in the retina display for an extra 16GB of storage, so it kinda feels like the cancel each other out to me. [sic]
It’ll be interesting to see if this is how others weigh up the pros and cons of the two systems. But to me, an extra 16 GB of storage space doesn’t cancel out a vastly better display—the thing that you spend all your time looking at and interacting with.
Between the two specs, I’d go go for the extra memory.
But the choice isn’t between specs, it’s between iOS 6 and Win8 RT.
I’d be interested to see how much of that 32Gb is actually available to use. No idea how much room RT takes up but I can’t see it being at the same level as iOS … and then there is Office pre-installed as well.
This is a premature comparison !!! A third gen pad to a MS pad that no one has even worked with.
“Specs don’t mean a thing
if you ain’t got that ecosystem swing. ”
Memory or screen quality are only important in the “doing stuff” category if the ecosystem will let you do it.
“This is a premature comparison”
To some extent, yes, and I certainly would never consider recommending (or not) a product I haven’t used. However, it’s perfectly reasonable to look at straight specs and make direct comparisons—we know, for example, that the high-density display of the iPad will be superior to the lower density display of the surface. That said, Microsoft almost pushing the Surface as a kind of laptop might reduce the gap a little.
If you don’t think the screen is more important than you have never seen a retina display compared to the RT resolution on a tablet.
Small correction: the display resolution is 1366×768 rather than 1280×720. Still only good enough for 720p, though. I definitely think the RT is overpriced, $499 should have been the all-inclusive price for the biggest model.
The Surface Pro is supposed to have a true 1080p display, along with the full Windows desktop on Intel hardware, making it functionally equivalent to good laptops. It’s going to be even more expensive than the RT, of course, but a price around $1000 would still make it more interesting than the rather limited RT.
Screen resolutions means the world to me. With finger gesture of enlarging text and photo’s, a high resolution screen, is critical especially in internet browsing on a relative small screen. I am a senior citizen.
“The Surface Pro is supposed to have a true 1080p display, along with the full Windows desktop on Intel hardware, making it functionally equivalent to good laptops.” I bet it won’t match my Macbook Air in speed and function
” I bet it won’t match my Macbook Air in speed and function”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. It’s using an Intel Core i5 processor, 4GB of RAM and high-speed SSD and from all account so far Windows 8 is a fast OS. But we won’t know for sure until an actual head-on comparison is made.
Microsoft should get better far performance speed n regards to games and multitasking thanks to more memory qaud core and less pixels to push plus ARM based windows RT won’t get windows intel x86 virus’s.