Although the Wacom Feel IT is not the equal to a graphics tablet it still is more than likely considerably more accurate than any capacitive solution. Although I would welcome ANY improvement over the less than satisfying stylus performance on my RT I still want to see an RT with an Active Digitizer. I have a Samsung Ativ 500 and the Wacom Digitizer works beautifully and makes OneNote far more useful than on my RT. Again any improvement would be welcome but a capacitive solution will never equal an actual digitizer layer.
Future Surface tablets planned in 'multiple aspect ratios and sizes'
- Thread starter Spaniard
- Start date
Although the Wacom Feel IT is not the equal to a graphics tablet it still is more than likely considerably more accurate than any capacitive solution. Although I would welcome ANY improvement over the less than satisfying stylus performance on my RT I still want to see an RT with an Active Digitizer. I have a Samsung Ativ 500 and the Wacom Digitizer works beautifully and makes OneNote far more useful than on my RT. Again any improvement would be welcome but a capacitive solution will never equal an actual digitizer layer.
Having seen the Tegra4 DirectStylus demo, I'm not so sure about that. If Nvidia continues to innovate on that front, I suspect they can really give Wacom a run for their money. Pressure sensitivity, palm rejection, fine tip, and no additional special software/drivers besides the DirectStylus thing. Of course, it's up to MS to actually enable it on the Surface 2, and I'm sure there are other reasons why they haven't done so, but perhaps it's just a matter of "yet" if MS figures out the ROI is better than whatever reasons for not enabling.
CrippsCorner
Well-Known Member
Supposedly it is sometimes too, though Wikipedia doesn't have a specific citation.
Huh, the actual history of 16:10 is pretty interesting there, if the cites are to be believed:
Anyway. Our work dual monitors are 16:10, which is a very significant difference from the old dual 4:3. I can't imagine working on anything less, really, as the width is so much better for having a spreadsheet+browser on one screen and email+corp software on the other. Many usually have one in landscape mode and the other vertical to read long legal documents. I have a 16:9 at home, which can still have two windows side by side, but not as nicely as 16:10; it's good for movies, at least.
I wonder if the "multiple aspect ratios and sizes" statement is mostly an ambitious pipe dream from Panay or a "subject to change" road map, though. There's only so many resources MS can expend while, new to the market, engineering things and throwing them out to see what sticks--the 1st gen was a gamble. The 2nd gen is still a gamble. Cortana is a gamble (not as risky). Breaking against the iPad Mini, like I explained in other threads, is an even riskier gamble than these two current Surface lines. The problem is that users on a Surface forum are already going to be interested in what MS produces in these lines, so claiming that all these different sizes and aspect ratios would be great is missing the bigger point: If the market doesn't respond to the innovative flagship products for which there had been no direct competitors in the hybrid space (more are coming now), how can mini/other products compete in spaces where there are already solid giants? I think there has to be actual innovation from MS and not just a screen size change. Apple can afford cannibalism. MS doesn't have the market share for that. That's my POV, anyway. Speculation is all well and good, but it's far more important to see the 2nd gens succeed.
Thanks for this, very interesting. I'm using a massive old 4:3 monitor here at work! Although I would say 16:10 overall, is probably the best. I literally never use my Surface in portrait mode, because I don't need to. I wouldn't even it was 4:3.
Although this is a welcome advance in capacitive technology it has a long way to go before it could really compete with a digitizer layer equipped solution. The Tegra 4 will be long replaced before this technology matures. It is a vast improvement over current capacitive stylus solutions but is in early stages and development has been spured by the needs of the Asian markets given the intricate nature of their written language.
Per bolded, that really goes without saying. The later Tegra gens will continue to evolve that tech, and future Surface RT devices will most likely get future gen Tegras. At this point, because it looks like MS is doing its best to differentiate the RT and Pro lines (Pro being premium and thus with active digitizer), it simply makes more market sense to leave the Wacom on the Pro and enable (eventually) the DirectStylus on the RT. I'm not saying MS shouldn't add an active digitizer to the RT line per se, just that it doesn't make sense with how they're treating both lines. If you want an active digitizer that badly for your use case, then get the Pro or another Win8 tablet with that capability (notice how none of the Windows RT devices have active digitizers, as they would include a stylus).
Similar threads
