backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by Alexvrb.. on Sep 14 at 12:04 AM

Paul Thurrott gets the inside scope on "Sirius"

Nokia's first entry into the Windows tablet realm has been rumored for months, but we have been given the first official look at the device (codename: Sirius). The news comes from Paul Thurrott, who is well connected when it comes to Microsoft insider information.
 
Along with a press image of the device, we know that it will feature a quad-core Qualcomm 8974 processor, 10.1" 1080p display, 6.7MP rear camera with Carl Zeiss optics, and LTE connectivity (we're assuming this will be optional).

 
The device will weigh in at 1.3 pounds and measures 0.35" thick.
 
Given that Sirius features an ARM processor, it will run Windows RT. Thurrott didn't have any information on availability, but "Sirius" will be priced at $499 when it launches.

Source: Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

WHY RT?
By drumsticks on 9/12/2013 11:58:26 AM , Rating: 3
Windows 8.1 is better. Bay Trail offers performance equal to the S800 and T4 (better CPU, worse GPU), AND we get full windows 8 and x86 compatibility, AND all 10" and under tablets already come with office pre-loaded. What is the point of RT?

It already did what they wanted to - force Intel to make a competitive mobile SoC and care about the mobile space. Now kill it, and release Nokia tablets with Windows 8.1, and Surface 2 with bay trail for 499 with a keyboard cover, and surface pro 2 for 799-999 with a type cover, and we're great.

The Asus T100 launches at $349 with a 10" screen, Bay trail tablet, office, keyboard cover , and full windows compatibility. If the Surface 2 launches at the same price as Surface RT did, it better have bay trail and the top Atom SKU, AND a type/touch cover, or it's dead.

I love windows tablets, I just don't understand the point for RT anymore. Full 8.1 does everything RT can do, and more, at the same price.




RE: WHY RT?
By Ktracho on 9/12/13, Rating: 0
RE: WHY RT?
By concernedreader on 9/12/2013 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 3
But, no one has a Bay Trail tablet yet, it was just announced. Wait till it hits the market before you post comments like this. Bay trail is 4x faster than current atoms with lower power and longer battery life. Who wouldn't want that.


RE: WHY RT?
By Ktracho on 9/12/2013 7:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
You miss my point, perhaps poorly made. You see lots of comments about how great Bay Trail is and how Windows RT has no chance, as if they have used both, yet how can anyone be so sure?

I look forward to the reviews, hoping someone will actually do a comparison of Windows 8 vs. Windows RT that is as fair as it can be - similar size, weight of Windows 8 tablet not higher than Windows RT tablet being compared against, price of Windows 8 tablet either lower, or at least close to that of the Windows RT tablet, etc.


RE: WHY RT?
By Nagorak on 9/12/2013 11:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is Windows RT is simply not very appealing to most people. If you want an ARM tablet you can already buy a cheap Android tablet for <$200. The only real advantage of Windows is compatibility with 30 years of X86 applications. If you lose that, you lose a great deal of its appeal.

I highly doubt anyone is going to end up doing a comparison of WinRT to Win8 tablets, because WinRT is not going to get any traction.

There's no way in hell I'd pay $500 for a WinRT tablet when there are Win8 tablets that cost $350. I don't even care if the WinRT tablet is marginally lighter or performs slightly better.


RE: WHY RT?
By flyingpants1 on 9/13/2013 12:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
Windows RT was Microsoft's way hedging its bets and forcing Intel to compete in the low-power, tablet and smartphone SOC segment. They hadn't updated Atom in ages.

Bay Trail is fast enough. It's similar to a Core 2 Duo in performance. The real issue here is onboard flash memory. Until these things get at least 64GB SSD, they will not be useful.

Bay Trail + SSD would be usable day to day.


RE: WHY RT?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2013 12:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows RT was Microsoft's way hedging its bets and forcing Intel to compete in the low-power, tablet and smartphone SOC segment.


Okay I keep seeing this repeated, but there's nothing to back that up out there. Is this idle speculation or is it based on something?


RE: WHY RT?
By troysavary on 9/13/2013 1:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Deduction based on the fact MS has been trying for years to get the tablet market going while Intel has ignored the low power segment, letting the Atom stagnate. And it seems to have worked. Intel is suddenly all about low power and mobile.


RE: WHY RT?
By 3DPro on 9/13/2013 9:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are a little confused, which is understandable with the speed of which all of this is morphing. To be clear, RT is upgradeable to 8.1 as well, and Surface 2 is the new RT line, with Surface RT branding being retired. All keyboards… Touch, Type, and the new versions of each being introduced soon will all work across Surface RT, Surface 2, Surface Pro, and Surface Pro 2.

Going forward, it is Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2.

I hope this helps bring clarity to the Surface landscape.


RE: WHY RT?
By robinthakur on 9/13/2013 11:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, nobody cares anymore about the Surface outside of Dailytech and presumably Redmond. MS were not in a great position when Windows 8 launched and they are in a far worse position now. Their failure has damaged Intel, and all the PC OEM's because fewer people will purchase desktop, laptop and tablet pc's running a MS OS in years to come because of the reputational damage caused by Windows 8. The only bright spot is Windows Phone 8, their tablets and those of their OEMs have been a complete sales failure, not least because they are not cost competitive with an iPad, are complicated to use and don't have a fraction of the software which people use and expect in a mobile platform. It's not difficult to see why it failed. I personally don't hate Windows 8, but everyone I know who has to use it does.


So that's what complete failure looks like....hmmm
By jnemesh on 9/12/2013 11:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
If Nokia is intending on beating a dead horse, they accomplish it with this tablet. No one wants a tablet that doesn't have any software! Unless you are just going to use it for web surfing or as a status symbol when your hipster friends congregate at Starbucks, this thing is a worthless, overpriced POS doomed to be sold on flash deal sites.




By SpartanJet on 9/12/2013 12:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
I want this. I'm looking to get as far away from Android as possible and I don't want to buy into iOS. This is exactly what I'm looking for a Win 8 RT tablet with current specs.


By kyuuketsuki on 9/12/2013 1:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Like you're beating a dead horse with the "there's no software" line of BS?

The Microsoft store has quite a bit of software. Unlike the Android market, the apps are actually optimized for a tablet instead of oftentimes being upsized smartphone apps. Not to mention the superior multitasking, an actual honest-to-god file browser, and other advantages RT has over Android.

I personally want a full Win8 tab, but I'd take RT over Android anyday.


By Bubbacub on 9/12/2013 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
well for me there are a number of issues with regard to apps compared to android:

does it have a video player that can play mkv's - no
does it have vlc - not yet (and maybe never given the troubles the vlc team are having with the stupid impositions placed on developers by MS)
does it have torrent clients - no
does it have software to bluetooth to OBD devices - no
does it have sky go - no
does it have an iplayer app - no
does it have any way of letting me look at flash content - no

are the there fart apps - probably

MS need to make a fanless x86 tablet in an 8 inch chassis the thickness of the surface rt and they need to accept that nobody gives a monkeys ass about wmv files as a viable media format!


By althaz on 9/12/2013 6:21:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
does it have a video player that can play mkv's - no
does it have vlc - not yet (and maybe never given the troubles the vlc team are having with the stupid impositions placed on developers by MS)
does it have torrent clients - no
does it have software to bluetooth to OBD devices - no
does it have sky go - no
does it have an iplayer app - no
does it have any way of letting me look at flash content - no

There is a ideo player for mkv, vlc is coming and it supports flash, just FYI.


By Alexvrb on 9/14/2013 12:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
You clearly don't own one, bub. It certainly does have at least one torrent client (Torrex). What flash content are you having trouble with on IE10? Also, competing ARM tablets often lack Flash capability.

As far as VLC goes, progress on the port to the new runtime continues. Plus the developers have stated that their work on the new port improves VLC as a whole - especially by improving code portability. It also will make work on a potential future port to WP8 much easier.


By jnemesh on 9/13/2013 3:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, no GOOD software. There, I fixed it.


hang up the hat
By agent2099 on 9/12/2013 11:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft/Nokia need to stick to Windows 8.1 or start making Android tablets. Retire RT already.




RE: hang up the hat
By Zuul on 9/12/2013 12:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
RT's focus from MS is lackluster at best. I see almost no focus on it as a separate product line, and more of an abstract Windows 8 promotion tool.

Because of that, I'm thinking RT as less a push to a market they're trying to get into, but more of a way for them to show Intel that they're not the only direction Microsoft can go if Intel can't get their stuff together. They managed to get Win 8 to work on ARM remarkably fast... the functional limits of RT can likely be resolved relatively quickly.


RE: hang up the hat
By OnyxNite on 9/12/2013 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
In addition to putting pressure on Intel RT is a test run from Windows on ARM for when they release the ARMv8 64bit version of Windows Server for microservers like those running the X-Gene CPUs by Applied Micro. It's not a huge market but it's still one MS wants to be in.


RT needs a name change
By polishvendetta on 9/12/2013 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
No one confuses OS X with iOS, but I guess people are too small minded to realize Windows RT and Windows 8 are different.

Or at least make the logos different or something so people will stop complaining.

If Android was so great then a Chrome OS would be on everyones PC... look where google is with that.




RE: RT needs a name change
By erikiksaz on 9/12/2013 5:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome was never meant to replace the desktop workhorse.

Laptops on the other hand, yes. Chromebooks top the charts when it comes to laptop sales on amazon.


RE: RT needs a name change
By robinthakur on 9/13/2013 11:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
It all comes down to names making sense. "Windows" implies that apps will work universally. They obviously don't. What does RT stand for? Most people would say "Real-Time" or "Re-Tweet" and I as a techie have zero idea what they were doing. Apple at least had the sense to rename Mobile OSX iOS and nobody thinks that an iMac runs it.


By Arsynic on 9/12/2013 11:08:36 AM , Rating: 1
...due to the lack of quality apps. I'm still waiting for an official MS app that's the same quality or better than iBooks. Right now I'm using a mix between Acrobat Reader and a half-assed ePub reader just to read PDF magazines and non-DRM epubs.

One of the main things people do on tablets is e-reading. Yet there's not one comprehensive and decent software that isn't tied to some bullshit vendor store (Kindle and Nook, I'm looking at you).




By BZDTemp on 9/12/2013 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
Just because it won't work for you doesn't make it useless.

If anything is useless it is blanket statements made on virtually no data. If we say the thing won't work as an eReader then there is loads of other things it will do well and used in an office context there is much to prefer having a Windows based platform.


By Nagorak on 9/12/2013 11:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
No, but the lackluster sales of Windows RT tablets, and the many OEMs announcing they are dropping support for Windows RT shows that the vast majority of people are not interest in WinRT.


$500?
By CaedenV on 9/12/2013 12:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
I mean, I am perfectly fine with them making a WinRT device as it is fine for running MS Office, browsing the web, and running apps from the app store... but an entry price of $500 is too much.
$5-600 for the high end model with extra storage is all fine and good, but RT will never shine unless the base model is somewhere in the $250-350 range.




Sirius
By geekman1024 on 9/12/2013 9:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
That price is so Serious!




aaaaaaand
By GulWestfale on 9/12/13, Rating: -1
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki