It's comparable with the Samsung Series 7 Slate, which currently uses a Sandy Bridge i5 and runs Windows 7. 

I think it's a solid product, particularly with the Wacom tablet functions built in (which also happens to be priced the same as a well optioned ultrabook), but the fact that few seem to know about them illustrates that the Surface Pro is far from likely to be the volume seller among the 2 Surface options.

yeayooo my lil babe got cited.... well the real reason the series 7 slate is not working imo especially in the corporate world it's because of windows 7 not being suited for touch.... win 8 will change that....

people are focussing on the hardware for surface windows phones etc... but the real issue and big player here is win 8 and how well it will perform and be received by the public.... if people dig it... well then it won't be this decade either that apple becomes the OS leader... because bottom line all together MS still has 10 times or more product running their OS in one form or an other and I'm not talking about office on top.... people who think apple is even close to turn the table have been smoking big time....

ipads and iphone market is miserable compare to all the sectors MS touches.... 

Microsoft Surface is all style and no substance at all

By Robert X. Cringely

Microsoft’s Hollywood announcement Monday of its two Surface tablet computers was a tactical triumph but had no strategic value for the world’s largest software company because the event left too many questions unanswered. If I were to guess what was on Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s mind it was simply to beat next week’s expected announcement of a Google branded tablet running Android. Microsoft, already playing catch-up to Apple’s iPad, does not want to be seen as following Google, too. So they held an event that was all style and no substance at all.

This is not to say that Microsoft shouldn’t make a tablet and couldn’t make a good one, but this particular event proved almost nothing.

Microsoft announced two tablets but only one was shown. No prices and few specs were announced. The clever keyboard cover mentioned in all stories (including this one) wasn’t functional. No reporters thought to count the ports on the sides of the one tablet available for use and they couldn’t look at their pictures to count them later because they weren’t allowed to take any that showed the sides.

What Microsoft did was play well the mystery card, copying Apple, though I’m not sure how well that will work the next time. To their credit, though, when Google’s tablet is covered here and everywhere next week you can bet the Surface line will get nearly as much comparative play as Apple’s iPad.

Now you See It, Now You Don't

With that out of the way let’s consider what are Microsoft’s expectations for a tablet, which are more diverse than one might expect.

Several stories pointed out that building a Microsoft branded tablet might alienate Redmond’s long list of hardware OEMs. While this is true, I’d suggest you look at it another way. I have over the last 25+ years attended dozens of high-profile Microsoft events for products that never made it to market. Knowing that, my first instinct said this was a Microsoft threat more than anything else.

Look back to Microsoft’s many antitrust defenses and you’ll see they threatened just about every OEM at some point. Bullying is in Microsoft’s DNA. Their legal defense was that they never intended to follow through which, by the way, didn’t work with the judges, either.

So does Microsoft really intend to introduce these tablets? Probably. Could something happen to change that determination? Sure.

One really good reason for announcing such vaporous products under the Microsoft brand is that novelty has dissuaded many commentators from questioning the whole enterprise. Microsoft is being given the benefit of the doubt based on what, a kickstand?

It's About Exchange

So here’s what I’ve been able to figure out about the two Surface machines and where they might be positioned. For one, the ARM-based unit had an nVIDIA Tegra2 processor like most of the Android tablets. The Win8 unit will use an Intel Atom.

It’s puzzling to think how Microsoft will position these tablets. But having scratched my head a lot I’ve decided their story will be that these are the corporate tablets. They’ll run Exchange really, really well, come packed already with Office, and if your IT department is comfortable with Windows, well they’ll be comfortable with these tablets, too.

It’s weak, I know, but that’s the best I could come up with, folks. Sorry.

Microsoft can’t claim these tablets are better than the iPad, and I didn’t see a word to that effect in any of the stories (I wasn’t invited to the L.A. event). They might try to compete on price, but they don’t seem to be doing that either. Nor can they, really, since Apple makes its own CPUs and Microsoft doesn’t. How can Microsoft undercut Apple on price? Maybe by thinning margins, but these tablets aren’t going to leave Redmond with a $100 bill taped to the bottom. Those days are over.

Windows is always playing catch-up to OS X just as these tablets are to the iPads. While we’ll see instances of design brilliance, like that kickstand, not even Microsoft expects their product to be in any way broadly superior to the iPad.

So Microsoft is vying here for second place and the comparison that really counts is with next week’s Google tablet, not the iPad.

http://betanews.com/2012/06/21/microsoft-surface-is-all-style-and-no-substance-at-all/

Personal note: Here is the interesting part...

"Look back to Microsoft’s many antitrust defenses and you’ll see they threatened just about every OEM at some point. Bullying is in Microsoft’s DNA. Their legal defense was that they never intended to follow through which, by the way, didn’t work with the judges, either."

Looks like some things have not changed at least according to this guy.

I'm thinking you don't really believe that and just said it for the sake of argument.

The reason why Apple's been selling so many tablets and smartphones is because like it or not, they are the future.

The desktop PC will likely always have a niche market for everything from workstation productivity apps, scientific applications, computational heavy work loads, etc. but the days when the average user needed to use a desktop PC to do e-mail, look up something on the internet, process digital photos, manage musical or video files, word process, spreadsheets, etc. etc. etc. is long over.

Laptops replaced desktops for the average user as they advanced in power, ultrabooks have become the rapid growth segment within the laptop business and currently, tablets are fast becoming the most used computing devices among people who own them. 

Realize that most people who remain tethered to desktop PCs are those who need them (a shrinking market), even if it's for something as mundane as playing video games on three displays. Hundreds of millions of people just use consoles for games making PC gaming an issue of preference, not necessity.

And if you agree with all that and believe that "all sectors MS touches" instantly becomes theirs simply because they're Microsoft, realize that they have not been able to make even a dent in the smartphone market with Windows 7 Mobile and that you are essentially hedging your bets that Windows 8 will become the default mobile platform over Android and iOS by merit of being related to the OS running on most laptops and desktops. 

And if you were just talking about MS in terms of size of company, it's common knowledge that Apple, not Microsoft is the larger company in terms of market capitalization.

Below numbers in billions US $

1		Apple	Electronics	$541.07
2		Exxon Mobil	Oil and gas	$381.02
3		Microsoft	Information technology	$248.79

first stock market value has nothing to do with the size and strength of a company it is merely a representation of what the mass of investors think the company should sell for.... MS has been up there for 3 decades almost.. it's no surprise that 70% of the MS investors are the like of goldman and sachs jp morgan etc... with a p/e at 11 and a track record of being relatively stable msft is to software and electronic market what cocacola is to the soda one.... apple is at best a trend to cash on for short term investment right now... and seriously overstated at that... bottom line even if today it might be more interesting to put money on apple the risk is higher on long term investment than with MS

now about the bold part.... you do realize that the consumer market is peanuts compare to those sectors..... close to a billion computer in service today run on an MS OS.... more than 100 million of pc running windows are sold every year... they still control 80% of the OS market.... 50% of the server market.... for exemple it took less than 18 months for win7 to take over OS X total install base...

to that they have military contracts, they have public sector /gsa contracts, automobile industry contracts etc etc that apple is not gonna touch for decades.... so yes i'll say it again ipad iphone and even mbp or air consumer market is peanuts compare to what MS is covering.... and you'll never replace a fully fledged pc with a ipad at least not in its current form.... we'll see in 10 15 years until then ms has a lot if sunny days in front of them....