Whit the Eve V we have a really nice high end good looking 2 in 1 with low prive points. I think in the 2 in 1 market there is plenty of choice. What in my opinion is really missing, is a small Eve V (approx. 10").
Same design as the Eve V with full metal body, but smaller.
10" high resolution display
Intel Core m3 Processor
4 GB RAM
64 - 256GB SSD usf Memory Card Slot
Pogo-pin and wireless Bluetooth 4.2 keyboard, connects up to 3 devices
V Pen support
USB - C Port Thickness < 7 mm thick wight < 400gr.
But no low quality plastic device like already on the market. A Eve V like high end device, that has it’s price points.
So what do you think. In my opinion such a device is really missing.
So like a Surface vs Surface Pro kinda deal? A more “tablet-y” approach to it. Probably worth considering down the line, although the issue may be that, since the community/Eve opted for the Y line of chips on the V, people may not see enough differentiation between them and may start getting stuck on comparing the two… How much does the 2-2.3" make? Would we want to try something more like a ~9" (or slightly larger than that w/ slimmer bezels) to differentiate more? Or would it be enough to do that more direct “Ipad competitor” size?
Potentially another option would be to look into the next category of fan-less processors as well (is there one from Kaby lake?) Obviously if we did that and differentiated on the price a bit, that could also be another good thing (ie about $200 cheaper than the M3 version as currently buiilt on IGG).
Yeah, just looked into it further, “Apollo Lake” is the 7th gen atom based pentium and celeron-type processors, and they run at 6W (less efficient than the m3 at 4.5W), so it’s kind of a non-starter there. They canceled the true “Atom” processors this time around.
Would definitely be better to wait for Canonlake then, since it may bring back the actual Atom chips. If the timing is sooner, then they may want to go with an m3 @ a lower TDP (ie 3W, with options in BIOS to raise back to stock 4.5W), which would more serve the tablet use case for processing and battery-life (~33% more efficient at max load then).
Edit: Though the m3 doesn’t do much for price then, haha
64GB SSD is a suicide. Trust me. You don’t want that. 400g is just IMPOSSIBLE to achieve, since we’re talking about an actual computer here. Please don’t compare this to ipads and android tablets, because those are just oversized phones. Oh, and you don’t want plastic. Which makes it even heavier. So 600g would already be amazing.
About thickness… the question is how much battery life would you sacrifice for that? I personally wouldn’t sacrifice even 5 minutes, because I don’t care about the thickness.
I ought to disagree with this, because in comparison with a laptop, Eve V is quite underpowered. And in laptops, the keyboard is the main input device. Can’t compare that to our keyboard which is just… meh… I guess “good enough” for emergencies, but nothing more. On the other hand, most laptops nowadays have shitty keyboards anyway…
No, we’re already using the best that Kaby Lake has.
You can’t compare these directly, because even with a higher TDP, these 6W Atom chips are much slower than our 4.5W Core chips. Different architecture… “Less efficient” is an understatement IMO.
And that’s a good point, this might be the reason that MS pivoted from the Surface 3/Pro 3 configuration to the Surface Pro 4/Book arrangement. The Surface 3 was never refreshed, and is not even listed with the lineup any longer (still on the site though, haha).
I would say that it could be worth looking at, especially as you said if there was an option to run android (a la Yoga Book), it could give us an opportunity to reach a potentially more mainstream audience. However these specs are not very different than the m3 version of the the V, I think the OP was mainly looking at the dimensions/weight for a smaller tablet.
To be fair, she was also saying avoid plastic, use the same aluminum body:
And to the OP’s follow-up comments, I think you can disregard my comments on the processor, as her point was more about form-factor than compute power. So on that side of things, the 9" factor would be more important, and would give you the weight difference she’s looking at. I also tend to think thickness is secondary to battery life.
Yeah, realized that Kaby Lake was what they were skipping Atoms for, that’s my mistake.
Agreed, haha, would never want a netbook-grade pentium or a celeron in anything! (Or any grade of them, really ;P, I am biased against Pentiums and Celerons, in case you can’t tell). IMHO I can’t understand why that architecture exists, as it seems more inefficient than scaling up the atom processors. Looking at the top refreshed atom vs pentium the atom, at 2W TDP sometimes benches higher than the 6.5W pentium and at most was ~20% slower (in graphics, actually), which makes no sense vs a “higher grade” of processor. Seems like a poor choice to not just scale up that atom processor for more power, though I don’t truly know the technology of the different architectures (Like I know that AMD’s Carizzo wasn’t initially scaled up for desktop APU’s because it was so efficiency-optimized that it didn’t actually scale well, haha)
That’s what I said. If you read my comment again, you will see that I said:
Note the second part of the quote…
Atom CPUs are completely independent from Core CPUs. They’re totally different product families, different architectures and are done separately, so there is little correlation between the releases of these lines.
You are mistaken here - Celeron=Pentium=Atom, same die. The only difference comes from binning, where they select the chips that can run at lower voltages and sell them as Atoms and others as Celerons or Pentiums. It’s similar to what happens with Core (4.5W, 15W, 45W, etc.) You can say the same about, for example, Core M7-6Y75 vs. Core i3-6100U. the M7 will be much more powerful, but that doesn’t mean that M3/5/7 series is somehow superior to i3/5/7 performance-wise. It’s quite the opposite. Similarly, Celerons are superior to Atoms, but you can guess what happens when you compare the BEST of x to the WORST of y…
You just confirmed that they are using the Atom architecture… I’m not sure about the old ones, I just have read that the new ones are Atom.
Anyway, the so-called “problems” come from binning, in any case. I know those processors are slow, but let’s agree that throwing out slower units just because they’re slow is much worse than just selling them for cheaper. And it’s also understandable that Intel wants to sell the more powerful ones for more cash
That is the ideas, meaning is relative and when you move into the future we have to factor in new “needs”. Augmented reality should be factored into any new computing device as also AI and electronic assistants. EV has been configured, I believe, for a 2yr lifespan so a smaller unit would be for now and supportive but if it is a stand alone then purpose and user base become primary. I really need to get my hands on my EV, sometime in 2017, before I can start thinking of supportive hardware. Will I need anything else and when?
That is not even funny. No device is “configured for a … lifespan”. There is no “configuration” involved. A device lasts as much as it lasts, and that’s NOT because the manufacturer “chose” this lifespan. That’s because you were lucky/unlucky to get that.
Planned obsolescence is a thing. Most products have somewhat planned/estimated lifespan. It may not be playing a part in the design process, but if your products never “expire”, there’s less income to be gained in the long run.
When it comes to computers, the ever improving tech allows designs that break within 2-4 years, since after that time you’d be tempted to buy the next new thing on market anyway. This is also why non-upgradeable mobile device designs are as “acceptable” as they are…
There are some good documentaries on this topic out there, in case you’re interested for more examples!