Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 8 Developer Tablet (Samsung) spotted in the wild

Last response: in Windows 8
Share
Related resources
October 8, 2011 4:37:52 PM

Ok, my bad. Not everyone read the news as frequently as I do.

Still, how many of those tablet do you think is actually real and how many is just a dud?

It will be interesting to know what people actually put inside the box in the fake one.
Score
0
October 8, 2011 8:42:05 PM

Pyree said:
Ok, my bad. Not everyone read the news as frequently as I do.

Still, how many of those tablet do you think is actually real and how many is just a dud?

It will be interesting to know what people actually put inside the box in the fake one.


I know a few things about tablets and from the quality of the image this one isn't a fake. When there is only a box you are likely right on the money. This tablet is interesting but I still like the Compaq TC1100 over this as well the pure slate Fujitsu stylistic. I am buying a few android tablets just to experiment with and just entertain my self for a while. I wish that tablets using AMD's apu would become common.
Score
0
October 9, 2011 12:47:07 AM

I am more interested in the performance of the ARM tablet. After all this will be the first time another processor architecture will be supported by Window.

I think AMD should support the real lightpeak. Lightpeak (the real thing, not the copper crap Apple is getting now) has a big potential in tablet market as a industrial standard connection for expansion dock.

This is especially good to be used as graphics expansion slot for full x16 pcie AMD card to do a hybrid crossfire with the APU.
Score
0
October 9, 2011 12:58:20 AM

I'm gonna point out something here. Lightpeak is not actually suited to GPUs because the lag is actually greater than a copper connection once it's been converted into light, than back again. Plus the electrons go about 90% the speed of light anyways. Am I the only one seeing this or am I just missing something?

Bandwith is enough for a moderate graphics solution though.
Score
0
October 9, 2011 1:31:51 AM

I haven't give the photon to electron conversion that mush thought before. Now you mentioned it, it may or will affect the performance. However, lightpeak does support multiple protocol. I imagine they will use some sort of direct photoelectric effect device which require very little processing power for conversion (just for correction of the photon and electron signal, but not the protocol itself). So I think they can save some latency and processing power in protocol conversion, as oppose to proprietary copper connection with a different protocol which require full protocol conversion.

May be I am just saying crap and make no sense. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not a professional in computer technology. I am actually an environmental biologist.
Score
0
October 9, 2011 1:39:20 AM

I'm certainly no pro either. But I am very involved in Physics/comtech in my school. It's currently completely unavoidable that lag will be introduced (to the best of my knowledge). In a Internet connection, lag per transaction is much greater, but it will make far fewer transactions.
The speed of electron info transfer is VERY close to light speed. BUT an electron will quickly dissipate, than they must connect it up to another switch. Each transaction introduces lag.
The added lag difference will make no difference in a long distance data transfer, but will be detrimental in a short distance transfer.

That is the limit of what I know in the matter, and am not sure if anyone knows anything else, more specific to Lightpeak about it.

In the meantime I suggest we spread the word that Light peak may not be the be-all-end all solution it is currently pinned up to be.
Score
0
!