Is the10.6 form factor dead?

[mwsvette]

I don't carry the pen much, I have already lost 2. While it would be great if the SP2 were thinner and lighter I have not found it to be a problem. Compared to the SP3 the difference is only 100 grams (roughly 4 oz), so I grab it, put it under my arm and out the door I go...

 

[javispedro]

Try to a use a Surface Pro 3 in side-by-side mode somewhere if you get the chance. You'll see almost immediately why they chose that form factor.

I actually like the SP3 aspect factor much better. In fact I'd prefer if they went full 4:3 instead of the weird 2:3 aspect ratio (which is seemingly used only by the chromebook pixel).

However, the problem is the size. Original iPad's size & aspect ratio was pretty much was spot-on for me, even though I never actually owned one

 

[GreyFox7]

I actually like the SP3 aspect factor much better. In fact I'd prefer if they went full 4:3 instead of the weird 2:3 aspect ratio (which is seemingly used only by the chromebook pixel).

However, the problem is the size. Original iPad's size & aspect ratio was pretty much was spot-on for me, even though I never actually owned one

Interestingly 2:3 is very close to the usable space of an 8.5 x 11 page sans margins which makes it a natural fit for many things.

4:3 was always an odd compromise based on CRT tube dimensions and belongs on the scrap heap with them.

 

[javispedro]

4:3 was always an odd compromise based on CRT tube dimensions and belongs on the scrap heap with them.

While I don't argue with your opinion, that is factually false. The 4:3 aspect ratio predates CRTs by several decades (in fact, during the mid80s you could easily find 2:1 CRTs, albeit they were absurdly heavy -- certain popular game developer used one). During the early 90s there were cheap 16:9 monitors. Actually, 16:9 is the "odd compromise", as it was developed during the 90s because 16:9 CRTs had a much more acceptable weight than more panoramic ones. It is also a compromise between several different formats.

 

[GreyFox7]

While I don't argue with your opinion, that is factually false. The 4:3 aspect ratio predates CRTs by several decades (in fact, during the mid80s you could easily find 2:1 CRTs, albeit they were absurdly heavy -- certain popular game developer used one). During the early 90s there were cheap 16:9 monitors. Actually, 16:9 is the "odd compromise", as it was developed during the 90s because 16:9 CRTs had a much more acceptable weight than more panoramic ones. It is also a compromise between several different formats.

Well you don't really address how its factually false... but 4:3 was used in original TV back in the 1940s just 4 decades before your odd reference to the 1980s and was also used in photography with the 5x7 and 8x10 which likely predates TV by a few decades or more.

While 4:3 (1.3) is good for photos it isn't a good choice for printed/formatted pages as all ISO paper sizes are 1.4 and fit nicely within the larger 1.5 US std. Page.

 

[Agave Azul]

Was in the MS Store last weekend and they told me that SP2 is at "End Of Life" within their system.
They no longer sell SP2 tablets in that store, no longer stocking SP2 accessories except for their remaining Type Covers.

I left disappointed but I guess I understand.
They told of everything from here on out was SP3 forward.

 

[mwsvette]

Was in the MS Store last weekend and they told me that SP2 is at "End Of Life" within their system.
They no longer sell SP2 tablets in that store, no longer stocking SP2 accessories except for their remaining Type Covers.

I left disappointed but I guess I understand.
They told of everything from here on out was SP3 forward.

I find that disappointing also... That would make the product life of this form factor from SP1 release date 2/9/13 to the SP3 release date of 6/21/14. If I was an IT manager who chose to build around this form factor and product line I would be far more than disappointed.

Microsoft would like the SP3 to appeal to business users but if the product life and support life is 14 months I would be concerned.

 

[javispedro]

It seems that they're going to make a similar scheme for SFPro3. They've just guaranteed SP3 accessories will be compatible with SP4: http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/9/6951221/microsoft-fully-committed-to-surface , but nothing is said about SP5

 

[javispedro]

Well you don't really address how its factually false... but 4:3 was used in original TV back in the 1940s just 4 decades before your odd reference to the 1980s and was also used in photography with the 5x7 and 8x10 which likely predates TV by a few decades or more.

While 4:3 (1.3) is good for photos it isn't a good choice for printed/formatted pages as all ISO paper sizes are 1.4 and fit nicely within the larger 1.5 US std. Page.

Oops sorry for not answering before. What I wanted to say is that 4:3 has existed even before those tubes and was already used in early photography, so CRT limitations can't be the only reason behind the 4:3 aspect ratio. Also some guy had 2:1 CRTs in the late 1980s (I believe it was John Carmack or some other game developer), which is the reason of my "odd" reference.

I agree 1.5 has its uses I just always have liked 4:3 more and still believe the original iPad (including margins) is best form factor. It also seems weird that only 2 laptops/tablets seem to use the 1.5 aspect ratio so far.

 

[GreyFox7]

Oops sorry for not answering before. What I wanted to say is that 4:3 has existed even before those tubes and was already used in early photography, so CRT limitations can't be the only reason behind the 4:3 aspect ratio. Also some guy had 2:1 CRTs in the late 1980s (I believe it was John Carmack or some other game developer), which is the reason of my "odd" reference.

I agree 1.5 has its uses I just always have liked 4:3 more and still believe the original iPad (including margins) is best form factor. It also seems weird that only 2 laptops/tablets seem to use the 1.5 aspect ratio so far.

Real Original thought is rare

I'd submit 4:3 in TV was a nobrainer, it naturally fit CRT tubes and followed earlier picture formats. however 4:3 on a revolutionary tablet was not so revolutionary and was a different kind of no brainer. Well in a way it was a nobrainer if you figure they intended it for viewing 5x7 & 8x10 photos. yes, not content creation or computer text and documents but viewing pictures. 4:3 actually sucks as a computer screen because it doesn't fit the printed page.

There have been many screen formats for theatre and movies but somehow 16:9 emerged as the optimal compromise and display manufacturers wanted to simplify and only make one aspect ratio to reduce costs. However that format actually sucks as a computer monitor because it also doesn't fit the printed page.

Finally someone with courage made a computer display that fits computer work. Hallelujah! Revolutions don't always take hold immediately and frequently there's resistance to change but resistance is futile, this format is here to stay.

You're free to keep using 4:3.