Microsoft Announces Intel Atom-Based Surface 3 With Windows 8.1 for $499

[Renzatic]

You do realize that OSX is not exactly identical on every machine as well, right? There are optimizations for different hardware profiles and models in OSX that let the OS work and feel the same across the hardware line....

Not really. There's nothing deeply buried in OSX that tailors it specifically to one set of hardware besides the drivers. OSX isn't much different than Windows or Linux in this regard.

If it were the case, you'd see at least noticeable advantages between OSX running a program vs. the other two. While there are exceptions (that can swing both ways), 99.999% of the time, a program running on OSX will run equally as well as its Windows counterpart, and vice versa.

 

[2IS]

Why do people keep saying this? With 2gb on my old clovertrail tablet I ran PhotoShop with no issues, although this is not with overly large files. With 2gb I had no issues with any every day computing task, running MS office, browsing the internet with multiple tabs open, checking email, running programs, apps, games, etc. This is on a processor 2 generations old and win8/8.1, where win10 is supposed to be a very nice leap in memory usage. Heck even windows tablets with 1gb run quite nicely with everyday computing stuff.

I would love 4gb in the base model, sure why not. But I don't think 2gb is scraping the bottom of the barrel at all.

They're saying it because it's true. 2GB IS scraping the bottom of the barrel. Look at task manager with the following open. Outlook, a couple excel and word docs, couple PDF files and a few tabs in your browser of choice. This is a VERY common workload and not at all heavy, you'll see that with 4GB of ram, you're using well over 2.

I'm not hating on Windows because the same is true of OSX, and I'm primarily a Windows user myself. 2GB isn't good enough to keep things running smoothly, and hasn't been for many years now.

 

[Renzatic]

They're saying it because it's true. 2GB IS scraping the bottom of the barrel. Look at task manager with the following open. Outlook, a couple excel and word docs, couple PDF files and a few tabs in your browser of choice. This is a VERY common workload and not at all heavy, you'll see that with 4GB of ram, you're using well over 2.

Keep in mind that Windows, like OSX, likes to keep stuff cached in memory when it has room to do so. If you have 2GB, that same workload will consume a little less memory, because Windows isn't keeping things floating around in case you want to use them again.

The upside is you have plenty of room for the basics. The downside is that it might take you a little longer to open some apps than it would on a 4GB machine.

...but hell, all that's just an excuse. It really does need 4GB.

 

[sracer]

They're saying it because it's true. 2GB IS scraping the bottom of the barrel. Look at task manager with the following open. Outlook, a couple excel and word docs, couple PDF files and a few tabs in your browser of choice. This is a VERY common workload and not at all heavy, you'll see that with 4GB of ram, you're using well over 2.

I'm not hating on Windows because the same is true of OSX, and I'm primarily a Windows user myself. 2GB isn't good enough to keep things running smoothly, and hasn't been for many years now.

Looking at task manager doesn't tell the story that is important. Gearheads may be concerned with that information, but for the average user, what they care about is perceived performance. Does it feel responsive?

Of course using that mix of applications on a system with 2GB RAM will look differently than 4GB. Just because the system allocates more than 2GB RAM of the 4 for those apps doesn't mean that it will swap frantically with 2. Windows is "smarter" than that.

But sure, more RAM is preferable over less. As for how better it is... is a matter of interpretation and expectation.

 

[CE3]

They're saying it because it's true. 2GB IS scraping the bottom of the barrel. Look at task manager with the following open. Outlook, a couple excel and word docs, couple PDF files and a few tabs in your browser of choice. This is a VERY common workload and not at all heavy, you'll see that with 4GB of ram, you're using well over 2.

I'm not hating on Windows because the same is true of OSX, and I'm primarily a Windows user myself. 2GB isn't good enough to keep things running smoothly, and hasn't been for many years now.

Yeah, I've got Firefox and some background processes currently running on my Windows desktop right now, and my task manager is showing 2.45GB of memory used.

 

[Renzatic]

But sure, more RAM is preferable over less. As for how better it is... is a matter of interpretation and expectation.

You can get by on two without it page faulting out and thrashing the HDD every 30 seconds, but 4 really is the sweet spot for Vista/7/8 and even 10. You'll never notice a single hitch or hiccup with 4GB even after extended use.

Considering the Surfaces positioning as the premium Windows tablet, MS' primary goal should be to assure Windows runs as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

[spinedoc77]

They're saying it because it's true. 2GB IS scraping the bottom of the barrel. Look at task manager with the following open. Outlook, a couple excel and word docs, couple PDF files and a few tabs in your browser of choice. This is a VERY common workload and not at all heavy, you'll see that with 4GB of ram, you're using well over 2.

I'm not hating on Windows because the same is true of OSX, and I'm primarily a Windows user myself. 2GB isn't good enough to keep things running smoothly, and hasn't been for many years now.

I still don't see your point. With all of those programs you mention windows still runs smoothly. Regardless of what's going on behind the scenes does it matter if your tablet is doing what you want it to do?

BTW I run a very similar workload often. Word docs open for my narrative reports, PDF files open for looking at records/filled forms, browser with several tabs open for research, excel open for my insurance precertification forms, add to that a proprietary records program, a billing program, and some more on an encrypted drive no less. My Lenovo thinkpad tablet never had an issue with such a heavy load and that had 2gb. I've since upgraded to a SP3, but I've been there before with a 2gb tablet.

 

[Michael Goff]

Not many, the problem is the Windows Operating System does not leave much memory available without significant paging with 2GB installed.... leaving applications with a fraction of that memory.

I hear a lot of talk about them "saving" $30 to hit a price point of $499 for the sake of sales, when what they should be worrying about is selling devices on the fringe that do nothing to help their reputation. There are lots of crap manufactures out there with Windows devices, Microsoft should be focusing on being the "quality devices" that run Windows. If it means the base model sells for $529 instead of $499.... so be it.

So we know this is a crap device without a single review? EXCELLENT! I can review things without knowing much other than specs too...

 

[sracer]

You can get by on two without it page faulting out and thrashing the HDD every 30 seconds, but 4 really is the sweet spot for Vista/7/8 and even 10. You'll never notice a single hitch or hiccup with 4GB even after extended use.

No argument here.

Considering the Surfaces positioning as the premium Windows tablet, MS' primary goal should be to assure Windows runs as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The 2GB/64GB Surface 3 is positioned as a premium Windows-based response to the iPad. That S3 will be absolutely fine running the modern UI apps. A person will run out of storage on that 64GB well before any hiccup or glitches caused by the 2GB of RAM.

 

[Renzatic]

The 2GB/64GB Surface 3 is positioned as a premium Windows-based response to the iPad. That S3 will be absolutely fine running the modern UI apps. A person will run out of storage on that 64GB well before any hiccup or glitches caused by the 2GB of RAM.

I'm thinking more in relation to other Windows tablets. You can get a surprisingly decent one for $150 these days from Dell, HP, Lenovo and the like. I believe if MS is going to charge $499+ for one, they should take that one extra step beyond to assure things work as smoothly as possible on it.

 

[spinedoc77]

I'm thinking more in relation to other Windows tablets. You can get a surprisingly decent one for $150 these days from Dell, HP, Lenovo and the like. I believe if MS is going to charge $499+ for one, they should take that one extra step beyond to assure things work as smoothly as possible on it.

Yeah but for $150 you don't get the digitizer, magnesium build, kickstand, walk in warranty service, etc. I'm not sure I've seen a 10" atom tablet for $150 from a major OEM though, last I checked they were $400ish or more. You might get a cheapie no name from BB for $179 or so, but I don't think much cheaper than that.

IMO MS would be better of putting more value into including the keyboard and stylus than they would be adding 2gb of RAM. This is meant to compete with the iPad, and seeing how much the iPad refreshes webpages with it's 1gb RAM I think the surface 3 is extremely WELL positioned to compete with it at it's price point. For those that require the best pay the $100 extra and get the 4gb version, or move up to the Pro model.

Edit: Forgot the iPad air 2 now has 2gb RAM so they are more comparable. I still think the surface 3 is a tremendous value versus the iPad air 2. 64gb hard drive versus 16gb for the iPad air 2, a professional level digitizer, the kickstand, the option for the keyboard, a full USB 3.0 connector, microSD expandability, and a full OS are just amazing in a package that is not much different in size/weight, with the bigger screen to offset that difference as well. $ for $ you get a 64gb iPad air 2 or a 4gb/128gb surface 3, that's just a complete no brainer IMO.

 

[bkkcanuck]

Edit: Forgot the iPad air 2 now has 2gb RAM so they are more comparable. I still think the surface 3 is a tremendous value versus the iPad air 2. 64gb hard drive versus 16gb for the iPad air 2, a professional level digitizer, the kickstand, the option for the keyboard, a full USB 3.0 connector, microSD expandability, and a full OS are just amazing in a package that is not much different in size/weight, with the bigger screen to offset that difference as well. $ for $ you get a 64gb iPad air 2 or a 4gb/128gb surface 3, that's just a complete no brainer IMO.

There is NO real comparison between the iPad and the Windows (full) platform. It would be comparable only if the iPad actually ran OS X (full) and not an optimized branch. You are also running OS X apps that were not written for that platform and the restrictions that have now been forced onto it after the fact. The standard Windows platform minimum requirements in recent history (since Vista) have been 4GB -- and that was what was targeted.

iPad apps are written and targeted for a known "limited performance / limited footprint" by the app developers themselves. This is not the case when you are advertising "full windows support".

Not knowing the exact differences between OS X and iOS, I really have to guess that although the operating system core (Darwin / Unix - which was originally created for much less powerful environments) is the same.... The whole UI (Aqua) which is "OS X" window management / UI environment can be thrown to the side and removed (this is probably more resource intensive than the core operating system) in favour of the "one window" application that does not need this overhead. Only the core UI libraries have to be implemented on top of the core operating system.

So saying that because iOS may run fine in 2GB that the full Windows running applications that were written for Windows (and not a tablet) will have no problem is a rather silly comparison.

Microsoft has a problem with setting expectations low, then exceeding them... they tend to want to set expectations high and then fail to meet them (historical context Vista).

 

[Renzatic]

Yeah but for $150 you don't get the digitizer, magnesium build, kickstand, walk in warranty service, etc. I'm not sure I've seen a 10" atom tablet for $150 from a major OEM though, last I checked they were $400ish or more. You might get a cheapie no name from BB for $179 or so, but I don't think much cheaper than that.

This is true. The only reason I think they should've added more is because they're trying to target a budget demographic that's a little too high priced to really appeal to that crowd. Windows can run on 2GB, but you can make the OS chunkity if you push it too hard. With 4GB that rarely happens unless you really go out of your way to do it (which by that point the CPU would be bottlenecking on the S3 anyway).

I think considering the market they're going for, they should've foregone the low end option, and started at $599 for the entry level. It's not the end of the world that they haven't, but it would've been the better path in my opinion.

The standard Windows platform minimum requirements in recent history (since Vista) have been 4GB -- and that was what was targeted.

No, it's always been 2GB since Vista.

 

[spinedoc77]

There is NO real comparison between the iPad and the Windows (full) platform. It would be comparable only if the iPad actually ran OS X (full) and not an optimized branch. You are also running OS X apps that were not written for that platform and the restrictions that have now been forced onto it after the fact. The standard Windows platform minimum requirements in recent history (since Vista) have been 4GB -- and that was what was targeted.

iPad apps are written and targeted for a known "limited performance / limited footprint" by the app developers themselves. This is not the case when you are advertising "full windows support".

Not knowing the exact differences between OS X and iOS, I really have to guess that although the operating system core (Darwin / Unix - which was originally created for much less powerful environments) is the same.... The whole UI (Aqua) which is "OS X" window management / UI environment can be thrown to the side and removed (this is probably more resource intensive than the core operating system) in favour of the "one window" application that does not need this overhead. Only the core UI libraries have to be implemented on top of the core operating system.

So saying that because iOS may run fine in 2GB that the full Windows running applications that were written for Windows (and not a tablet) will have no problem is a rather silly comparison.

Microsoft has a problem with setting expectations low, then exceeding them... they tend to want to set expectations high and then fail to meet them (historical context Vista).

I don't get your point, of course there is a comparison between the ipad and surface 3. They are direct competitors, they both run apps, they are similar in size, weight, battery life, they are similar in price, etc etc. They can both be used as consumption devices and are marketed towards the same consumers. The fact that the surface 3 runs a full OS is a significant plus in its favor.

The 4gb which was targeted "since Vista" has drastically changed. Windows 8 has MUCH less overhead than Vista, and Windows 10 has significantly less overhead than Windows 8. You can't put up targets from an eight year old OS, it's just not realistic.

Plus I think you are confused, I never said because iOS apps run fine with 2gb that windows apps should also run fine. What I said was windows programs and apps run fine in 2gb irrespective of what iOS does. 2gb is just fine for windows to function, and I specifically mentioned your exact same scenario of programs which run smooth on 2gb.

I think Microsoft has set expectations quite high with the surface 3, it's a monster of a tablet when you consider all it has to offer. It will run smoothly at 2gb with almost anything you throw at it, certainly it would easily handle any app the ipad could handle without exception.

----------

This is true. The only reason I think they should've added more is because they're trying to target a budget demographic that's a little too high priced to really appeal to that crowd. Windows can run on 2GB, but you can make the OS chunkity if you push it too hard. With 4GB that rarely happens unless you really go out of your way to do it (which by that point the CPU would be bottlenecking on the S3 anyway).

I think considering the market they're going for, they should've foregone the low end option, and started at $599 for the entry level. It's not the end of the world that they haven't, but it would've been the better path in my opinion.



No, it's always been 2GB since Vista.

Yeah I don't disagree, 4gb for $499 would be sweet. But $100 to get the 4gb and also double the hard drive space at 128gb is a very good deal IMO, especially when compared to what the ipad charges simply for the memory upgrade. $599 for a 64gb ipad, versus $599 for a 128gb surface 3 with 4gb ram is a phenomenal value IMO.

 

[Renzatic]

Yeah I don't disagree, 4gb for $499 would be sweet. But $100 to get the 4gb and also double the hard drive space at 128gb is a very good deal IMO, especially when compared to what the ipad charges simply for the memory upgrade. $599 for a 64gb ipad, versus $599 for a 128gb surface 3 with 4gb ram is a phenomenal value IMO.

Oh, it is. I'm very tempted to get one now, instead of waiting for the SP4. Honestly, I won't be doing all that much with it. Running Photoshop will about the extent of it, which the S3 can handle just fine for medium level work. When you consider the price against what you're getting, it's a killer deal.

 

[bkkcanuck]

I don't get your point, of course there is a comparison between the ipad and surface 3. They are direct competitors, they both run apps, they are similar in size, weight, battery life, they are similar in price, etc etc. They can both be used as consumption devices and are marketed towards the same consumers. The fact that the surface 3 runs a full OS is a significant plus in its favor.

First applications written for Windows as a tablet will not be the source of the problem, the source of the problem is marketing / targeting the platform as a full Windows platform then cutting the expected memory available to 3rd party applications.


Assigning random resource numbers as a demonstration (since I don't know the real numbers).

A full OS contains: Core Operating System that provides hardware services (Think of Unix without a Graphical interface) or Windows Terminal mode that abstracts the hardware to a common API that can be used by programs. (this is common to both platforms). - lets say it requires 400MB minimum.

A full windowing environment - Windows it is Windows, OS X it is Aqua that sits ontop of a UNIX operating system (this consumes more resources than the core operating system). - lets say it requires 800MB minimum

In this example:
- The iOS platform OS would take up 400MB leaving 1600MB for apps
- Surface 3 - Would take up 1200MB leaving 800MB for apps

3rd Party app developers for iPad have written their applications knowing that they have 1600MB available -- and optimized them for that platform.

3rd Party app developers for Windows would have optimized their apps for a desktop / laptop environment expecting 2800MB available in a typical computer and now are being run in only 800MB.

A person buying a Surface 3 tablet is being told it is full Windows and will EXPECT to run 3rd party applications that were developed for differing constraints.... now being very restricted and thus perform poorly. It is a matter of expectations vs reality. With the iPad the expectations and reality are the same since someone did not come in after the fact and choke the environment.

 

[2IS]

I still don't see your point. With all of those programs you mention windows still runs smoothly. Regardless of what's going on behind the scenes does it matter if your tablet is doing what you want it to do?

BTW I run a very similar workload often. Word docs open for my narrative reports, PDF files open for looking at records/filled forms, browser with several tabs open for research, excel open for my insurance precertification forms, add to that a proprietary records program, a billing program, and some more on an encrypted drive no less. My Lenovo thinkpad tablet never had an issue with such a heavy load and that had 2gb. I've since upgraded to a SP3, but I've been there before with a 2gb tablet.

Consider yourself lucky then. Can't tell you how many computers I've upgraded last year that had 2GB of ram being the limiting factor when doing basic workloads. There's a reason even bargain bin desktops for $3-400 come with 4GB, and it isn't because 2GB is plenty or because the manufacturer wants to reduce their profit margins by adding an "unnecessary" 2GB of RAM

I'm not sure how many 2GB examples you've seen, but if you think it's plenty, my guess is not a whole lot.

 

[spinedoc77]

Oh, it is. I'm very tempted to get one now, instead of waiting for the SP4. Honestly, I won't be doing all that much with it. Running Photoshop will about the extent of it, which the S3 can handle just fine for medium level work. When you consider the price against what you're getting, it's a killer deal.

It is very tempting, but I will probably stay with the pro line. I use my tablet more stationary, at my desk, in bed, at the office. So I really appreciate the larger screen, especially if they do a 14" version. I'm also a bit bummed about the 3 position kickstand, feels like they cheaped out a bit with that. I'm seriously impressed with what they added versus the surface RT, with the digitizer and full windows OS.

----------

Consider yourself lucky then. Can't tell you how many computers I've upgraded last year that had 2GB of ram being the limiting factor when doing basic workloads. There's a reason even bargain bin desktops for $3-400 come with 4GB, and it isn't because 2GB is plenty or because the manufacturer wants to reduce their profit margins by adding an "unnecessary" 2GB of RAM

I'm not sure how many 2GB examples you've seen, but if you think it's plenty, my guess is not a whole lot.

Nah I don't consider myself lucky, I consider myself part of the rest of the realistic world. As I mentioned before I've probably owned 3/4 or more of all windows tablets out there, clovertrail and baytrail. I'm a bit addicted to buying them for some reason. Once again I'm not disagreeing with you that 4gb wouldn't have been nice, but 1) I disagree that 2gb is bottom of the barrel and doesn't run smoothly and 2) see a bit of a disconnect when for $100 more you can get the 4gb and double the hard drive space of the same priced ipad. On the contrary, it seems like you have little to no direct experience with 2gb tablets.

 

[2IS]

Keep in mind that Windows, like OSX, likes to keep stuff cached in memory when it has room to do so. If you have 2GB, that same workload will consume a little less memory, because Windows isn't keeping things floating around in case you want to use them again.

The upside is you have plenty of room for the basics. The downside is that it might take you a little longer to open some apps than it would on a 4GB machine.

...but hell, all that's just an excuse. It really does need 4GB.

True enough, aware of the caching, I'm referring to the actual "in use" memory.

----------

Nah I don't consider myself lucky, I consider myself part of the rest of the realistic world. As I mentioned before I've probably owned 3/4 or more of all windows tablets out there, clovertrail and baytrail. I'm a bit addicted to buying them for some reason. Once again I'm not disagreeing with you that 4gb wouldn't have been nice, but 1) I disagree that 2gb is bottom of the barrel and doesn't run smoothly and 2) see a bit of a disconnect when for $100 more you can get the 4gb and double the hard drive space of the same priced ipad. On the contrary, it seems like you have little to no direct experience with 2gb tablets.

No, I don't, because I know what windows is doing in the background with only 2GB to play with. An SSD will help with paging vs a HDD obviously, but there would still be noticeable performance degradation vs a 4GB model, not to mention reduced battery life once you start hitting that 2GB wall. I'm just not masochistic enough to flirt with a 2GB Windows tablet to save $100 and there are only a few people in the world I dislike enough to recommend one. Perhaps we have a different understanding of what "bottom of the barrel" means.

 

[spinedoc77]

True enough, aware of the caching, I'm referring to the actual "in use" memory.

----------



No, I don't, because I know what windows is doing in the background with only 2GB to play with. An SSD will help with paging vs a HDD obviously, but there would still be noticeable performance degradation vs a 4GB model, not to mention reduced battery life once you start hitting that 2GB wall. I'm just not masochistic enough to flirt with a 2GB Windows tablet to save $100 and there are only a few people in the world I dislike enough to recommend one. Perhaps we have a different understanding of what "bottom of the barrel" means.

Yeah maybe we just have different understandings. I've been very happy with all the 2gb tablets I've owned. As I pointed out before I can run multiple word docs, multiple PDF files open, multiple excel files, browser with several tabs open, and more and everything runs smoothly, tabs don't refresh, no slow downs or lag. In the many 2gb tablets I've owned they handled everything I threw at them with no issues, including heavy duty stuff like Photoshop, nice and smooth.

But if you say you wouldn't want to save $100 to only get 2gb I don't get why the entire debate? Just spend the $100 and find happiness. I'm all about overkill myself and I would also get the 4gb, if not solely for the fact that it has 128gb of hard drive space. My SP3 has 8gb ram although I highly doubt I ever use it. Microsoft likely had a price point they had to meet to be able to sell it. It's amazing what they got in there for $499. Personally there is nothing on it I would sacrifice, not the digitizer, or the kickstand, or magnesium build.

 

[Technarchy]

With the release of the Surface 3, a product like the iPad doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.

For $599 you get a vastly more capable product that is unquestionably more productivity friendly and versatile.

My dollars will speak for me, but the funds I currently have allocated for the iPad, will go to the Surface 3.

And I suspect the Surface 3 will eat some of my Macbook Air duties as well

 

[Technarchy]

$ for $ you get a 64gb iPad air 2 or a 4gb/128gb surface 3, that's just a complete no brainer IMO.

Even without the keyboard and pen, the Surface 3 is still the better buy when comparing a $599 Surface 3 to a $599 iPad.

 

[s2mikey]

Even without the keyboard and pen, the Surface 3 is still the better buy when comparing a $599 Surface 3 to a $599 iPad.

On paper, yes it is. However, the total user experience is where Apple might possibly still be better as far as the tablet side of things is concerned. IMO, the ipad is still the better tablet but perhaps the Surface is the better overall product when all things are considered. Hard to compare since they really operate quite differently.

I still think tablets should be just tablets and the idea of a hybrid or whatever you want to call the Surface ends up limiting the device in some ways and creates the "jack of all trades, master of none" condition. The ipad On the other hand is just a great tablet and that's it. If I want a full blown OS and need power computing capabilities then I'd buy a MacBook or a higher end windows laptop.

The SP3 really ought to have 4GB of RAM though. RAM is dirt cheap now. In fairness, Apple has been pretty stingy with RAM too. It's like.... Cmon guys....

 

[sracer]

With the release of the Surface 3, a product like the iPad doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.

For $599 you get a vastly more capable product that is unquestionably more productivity friendly and versatile.

My dollars will speak for me, but the funds I currently have allocated for the iPad, will go to the Surface 3.

And I suspect the Surface 3 will eat some of my Macbook Air duties as well

This has already started happening to me. For a variety of reasons I'm finding myself using my Acer Aspire Switch 11 more and my iPad and MBA less. (pretty surprising to me since my MBA is my best notebook ever)

It will be a while before I consider an S3 (it would cost me $750 for a Surface 3 configuration that I have with the Switch 11 @ $449) but there is growing interest for me to switch back to Windows... part of it has to do with available devices, other reasons have to do with how the environments are handled (including "forced" upgrade to iOS 8 on my iPad 4, "pressure" to upgrade to Yosemite on my MBA and iMac)

 

[zhenya]

Even without the keyboard and pen, the Surface 3 is still the better buy when comparing a $599 Surface 3 to a $599 iPad.

It's quite competitive, but there is still a lot that an iPad does better than any Windows device as a tablet. I have both a Surface Pro 3 and a couple of iPads, including an Air 2, and there are any number of things that are frustratingly difficult, or really just not possible on the Surface.