Originally Posted by SixSixSevenSeven
You clearly havent touched atom since the old crappy netbooks then. Clovertrail jumped the performance at the same clock speed massively, and ramped up the clockspeed too. Bay trail bumps it even further and on some tablets also bumps the clock speed over clovertrail too.
I think your a bit of a cynic stereotyping women and seniors as buying iPads, and here at uni I am yet to see anyone using an iPad for productivity yet see quite a few surfaces.
In my experience the old netbooks were slow yes, but they ran visual studio, eclipse, web browsers and office suites fine. Clovertrail is yet more powerful, bay trail is a surprisingly competent little chip. Your not going to be playing skyrim or whatever on it anyway.... Cant run visual studio on a surface RT anyway.
I touched the Asus t100 this past Friday. Its combination of CPU, GPU, and eMMC storage gives it entry-level performance. The keyboard dock is cramped and the trackpad is too small because of the form factor. It's a fool's errand to force baytrail tablets to run the full OS vs. iPad running IOS. It's like running a race with two 15 lb. weights around your ankles and you're allowing the other contestant to drive a car on the track. Windows needs its entry-level machines to fly through much of the desktop OS like an iPad flies through many lightweight IOS tasks. Additionally, I'm saying the iPad has had great success with the aforementioned mass market demos and these people are not picking up cheap atom PCs that can supposedly do real work. I didn't intend to stereotype those groups. Moreover, I'm not talking about complex games at all on tablets. The surface pro sucks for modern PC games. It's like a console. No mass market tablet will be great for modern PC gaming anytime soon.
I'm tired of x86 being given multiple chances to succeed in the mobile battle while RT gets repeatedly shat on. And I'm sick of the salt and the hate. RT exists precisely because Wintel x86 UI and its concept has failed on mobile devices. Plain and simple. This strategy did not work. It did not sell. Nobody ever made a tablet that put it all together. Design, price, marketing, power, and hype. How this fact is conveniently absent from whether or not the ARM to Windows port makes sense drives me nuts. If Intel and OEMs would've handled their damn business, then MS wouldn't need to get involved. I never hear well darn XP tablets flopped, Windows 7 tablets flopped, and all the Windows 8 tablets flopped.... so why will this time be different for x86? Who is this for? What's the point of this?
It's annoying when no other mobile product has to put up with a fraction of the compatibility FUD from a niche of self-proclaimed #realwork users. Leading up to surface pro launch, I saw many folks constantly telling MS store reps they wanted a tablet for real work so they were going to wait for the Pro. A manager told me just wait for the Pro because it will be a game changer when I asked about tablet sales. I also saw this garbage across the internet and still see it today. It was like the Outlook complaints which MS chose to answer. However, I estimate Surface Pro sales and it shipped less than 2 million. Less than 2 million tablets to date post-price cut. AFAIK not a single windows tablet can say hey look at me I am a success story. I appealed to everyday people and made millions of lives better. Of course not a single tech journalist will look into sales except when it comes to the surface line because that's the only public information someone caught. If only people knew why OEMs combine android/windows tablets, why Samsung isn't all aboard the Baytrail train, etc. People would be clamoring for everyone to pack up and go home. Because holiday 2012 and YTD 2013, the iPad and Galaxy Tab has kicked all of their asses multiple times over with ease.