Microsoft has unveiled a 10.6-inch tablet in a 16:9 aspect ratio,
dubbed the Surface, to be available in two options, one powered by Intel's 22-nm
Ivy Bridge processor running Windows 8, and another Surface powered by an ARM
chipset and Windows RT.
The Windows RT version is 9.3-mm thin, weighs 676 grams, includes a built-in
kickstand, and is claimed to be the first PC with a vapor-deposited magnesium
case. It will ship in 32- and 64-Gbyte versions and will compete head-to-head with
The Intel-based Surface tablet will run Windows 8 Pro, with a thickness of
13.5-mm, to compete with lightweight laptop PCs, at 903 grams.
This version will also include magnesium casing and a built-in kickstand, but
will ship with either 64- or 128-Gbytes of storage. The Intel version will also include
additional digital ink support through a pen that magnetizes to the body of the
tablet, and a touch-capable 10.6-inch ClearType "Full HD" display. The lighter,
thinner version of the Surface tablet, built on an Nvidia Corp chip designed by
ARM Holdings, will be the first to market at the same time as the general
release of Windows 8, and will come with Microsoft's Office suite of
This article was first published by EE Times Europe
one more reliable and good product in the microsoft range of hardware.I generally have the feeling that micro soft hardware products also perform well like their software products.Soon expecting the same in our market to buy one.
I do not know whether the hardware companies, which were planning to use Win8 for their tablet and ultrabook knew about MS's development. If not, then its like stabbing on the back of your customers. But true that the options for those hardware companies are limited and probably will also be expensive to implement.
They might try and refuse to use Windows 8, but their alternative choices are limited.
iOS is Apple only and then there is Windows versions and Android and that's about it.
Naked Linux or you could resuscitate RiscOS?
Too obvious. its higher power consumption of the intel chip and hence a heavier battery.
IMO, Intel version has better chances, as it can run all the legacy programs. Windows RT cannot run existing apps IINW
What might be the cause for the Intel version to be more weighty than the ARM version? Is it because of greater thermal challenges or heavier battery? Given these two options, anybody would buy the Intel version if there are now price/performance advantage?
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.