For everything from family to computers…
Of all the things you wear on a daily basis, shoes endure the most wear and tear, and thus rarely survive for more than a few years. Your options are usually limited to tossing the work out kicks in the trash. Now Adidas has created a new pair of sneakers that will completely biodegrade when you’re done with them.
from Gizmodo http://ift.tt/2g1CEdC
via IFTTT
NASA/MSFC
With a new presidential administration promising to review its human spaceflight activities, NASA on Thursday continued to signal a willingness to consider alternatives to its exploration systems—the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and related ground systems developed at Kennedy Space Center to support their launch later this decade and in the 2020s.
In its latest request for information (RFI) released Thursday afternoon, NASA seeks solutions from industry and academia to maximize “the long term efficiency and sustainability” of its of exploration systems programs. Essentially, NASA wants ideas on how best to cut the production and operations costs for its SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, which presently consume more than $3 billion annually in development costs. However, the RFI also offers respondents the opportunity to submit ideas about rockets and spacecraft that might compete with NASA’s own vehicles for exploration funds.
Specifically, the document requests responses about: “Competing exploration services in the mid-2020s timeframe and beyond if the market demonstrates such services are available, reliable, and consistent with NASA architectural needs.” Ars understands this to mean that if private competitors such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, or other companies produce less expensive rockets and spacecraft within the next five to seven years, NASA will consider using them in lieu of SLS and Orion.
NASA’s preference would be to fly the rocket and spacecraft it is developing under an agreement reached by President Obama and the US Congress in 2011. This plan called for development of a large rocket, based upon space shuttle engines, and a capsule larger than the Apollo spacecraft that carried astronauts to the Moon. However, these vehicles (managed by NASA and built by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, respectively) have proved costly. NASA has very little money left over to use for actual exploration.
In an interview this summer, the engineer who oversees the development of SLS and Orion for NASA, Bill Hill, acknowledged that the vehicles were too costly now to be practical. “We’re just way too expensive today,†Hill told Ars. “It’s going to take some different thinking and maybe a little bit more risk taking than what we’re wanting to do today.â€
NASA hopes to reach a flight rate of one SLS and Orion launch per year by the year 2023. As it moves into this operational phase, Hill has set an annual target for these “production and operations” costs to build, test, and fly the vehicles. “My top number for Orion, SLS, and the ground systems that support it is $2 billion or less,†Hill said. “I mean that’s my real ultimate goal. We were running at about three-plus, $3.6 billion during the latter days of space shuttle. Of course, there again, we were flying six or seven missions. I think we’re actually going to have to get to less than that.â€
RFIs are a common method used by the government to solicit public input. They do not seek specific proposals, but rather the ideas received may be used to inform future acquisition strategies. The new RFI from the space agency, which requires a response from interested parties by Dec. 23, seeks replies across a broad number of areas to get costs down. For example, it welcomes ideas on new contracting methods, such as fixed-price contracts, block buys of materials or systems, and suggestions for changing government requirements that unduly raise costs.
NASA’s RFI also lays out a “baseline” of missions the agency expects to fly in the coming decade or so, from Exploration Mission-1 in 2018 through EM-10 in 2030. Nearly all of these missions will take place in the “proving ground,” an area of deep space near the Moon where NASA believes it can safely test rockets, spacecraft, and habitation modules for eventual human missions to Mars in the 2030s.
Ostensibly, the RFI seeks replies for how it can make its SLS and Orion production more efficient, and it may simply be a tactic to pressure the agency’s primary contractors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, to reduce costs. Yet, as Ars exclusively reported last week, NASA officials are open to new ideas from competitors of Boeing and Lockheed Martin. “This is NASA taking a breath and looking at alternatives,†one source told Ars at the time. “Part of why they also did it is they are signaling to the next administration that they may be willing to look at alternatives.â€
Indeed, there are hints of this openness to alternatives in the new RFI. Not only does it solicit “competing exploration services” in the mid-2020s, it also seeks “synergies between current (SLS, Orion, and/or EGS) and future systems that can reduce total exploration costs.” This indicates a willingness to augment NASA’s exploration fleet with private vehicles—if those rockets and spacecraft are available and will cut costs.
For example, both SpaceX and Blue Origin (with the Falcon Heavy and New Glenn boosters, respectively) are deep into development of heavy lift rockets in the same class as the SLS launcher. United Launch Alliance is also developing the Vulcan rocket with an upper stage being optimized for use in NASA’s “proving ground” between the Earth and Moon. These are all expected to cost significantly less to fly than the SLS.
NASA envisions evolving its SLS rocket to the powerful Block 2 variant by 2029. Note the solid rocket boosters on the side.
NASA
The RFI allows for other possibilities too, such as using private components to lower the cost of NASA’s vehicles. Presently the SLS relies on large solid rocket boosters manufactured by Orbital ATK to give the rocket a powerful kick off the launch pad. However, there are no other uses for these boosters, so if NASA wants to use them for the SLS it must pay a few hundred million dollars each year just to keep the production line open. A company like SpaceX might offer its Falcon 9 rocket as an alternative, strap-on booster. Since the rocket is already being used commercially, NASA would not have to pay any fixed costs for its use.
It’s difficult to read too much into the document, which seems like a product of its times. Yes, NASA is acknowledging that it is spending too much on SLS and Orion. Yes, the agency is concerned about the Trump administration and the desires of some members of its transition team to further privatize NASA and push the agency toward lower cost, reusable rockets. If America’s new president considers himself a negotiator, it seems that NASA is now saying it is willing to negotiate, too.
from Ars Technica http://ift.tt/2fBumbA
via IFTTT
Getty Images | Olena_T
SpaceX has detailed ambitious plans to bring fast Internet access to the entire world with a new satellite system that offers greater speeds and lower latency than existing satellite networks.
The private spacecraft company founded by CEO Elon Musk filed an application Tuesday for satellite space station authorizations with the US Federal Communications Commission. SpaceX recently said that its satellite service’s commercial availability date has not yet been determined, but the application’s technical description mentioned 2019 as a possible time for launching satellites into orbit.
SpaceX wants to launch 4,425 satellites into low-Earth orbits, with altitudes ranging from 715 miles to 823 miles. By contrast, the existing HughesNet satellite network has an altitude of 22,000 miles.
SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
Satellite Internet service is also made less useful today by low data caps. SpaceX promises that its satellites will boast impressive bandwidth, the amount of data that can be delivered each second. That could potentially reduce or eliminate the need to impose strict limits on consumers.
“Once fully optimized through the Final Deployment, the system will be able to provide high bandwidth (up to 1Gbps per user), low-latency broadband services for consumers and businesses in the US and globally,†SpaceX told the FCC. “Subject to additional development work, SpaceX plans to design and manufacture its own satellites, gateway earth stations, and user terminals.â€Â Home Internet customers would receive a “low-profile user terminal that is easy to mount and operate on walls or roofs.”
Each satellite will provide aggregate downlink capacity of 17 to 23Gbps, the application said. “With deployment of the first 800 satellites, the system will be able to provide US and international broadband connectivity; when fully deployed, the system will add capacity and availability at the equator and poles for truly global coverage,†SpaceX said.
SpaceX said per-satellite bandwidth should increase periodically as the company deploys improvements. “The system leverages phased array technology to dynamically steer a large pool of beams to focus capacity where it is needed,†the company said. “Optical inter-satellite links permit flexible routing of traffic on-orbit. Further, the constellation ensures that frequencies can be reused effectively across different satellites to enhance the flexibility and capacity and robustness of the overall system.â€
SpaceX will use frequencies between 10GHz and 30GHz, in the Ku and Ka bands. The company said it’s designing everything “from the ground up” with the goals of cost-effectiveness and reliability.
There’s a long way to go before SpaceX connects any Internet customers. But if the company achieves its goals, it could be a boon for consumers in rural areas who lack fast connectivity and customers anywhere else who want more competition. Musk has been working on the satellite Internet project for at least two years, and SpaceX received $1 billion in funding from Google and Fidelity Investments in January 2015 to support satellite manufacturing and space transport.
SpaceX supported its argument that the FCC should approve its application in part by pointing to increasing demand for data services and shortcomings in the broadband market that have left many US consumers with poor Internet access.
If you want more detail, here are links to SpaceX’s application, technical description, and request for approval.
from Ars Technica http://ift.tt/2flEsdG
via IFTTT
If you’re looking for a fun weekend project and have a Pi Zero lying around, consider making your own electric, powered skateboard like this one from The Raspberry Pi Guy. Controlled with an old Wiimote and capable of 30 km/h (about 19 mph), it’s not a bad way to get around town.
The components required here are pretty simple actually—you’ll need a skateboard, a battery to power the whole setup, the motor and a mount for it, a motor controller, the Wiimote you’ll hold (and connects to the Pi via Bluetooth,) and the Pi Zero to act as the “brains†of the whole thing. Best of all, if you’re not sure where to get everything—or even the code required to run on the Pi to make it all work together—The Raspberry Pi Guy has all of it in the video description at YouTube, linked below, even the skateboard and trucks he used for this specific build.
Hit play for the step by step—the video is only about three minutes, and well worth the watch.
DIY 30km/h Electric Skateboard – Raspberry Pi Powered | The Raspberry Pi Guy (YouTube) via Hackaday
from Lifehacker http://ift.tt/2fJPQ3F
via IFTTT
If you’re paying for premium software, chances are there’s a free alternative out there you could use instead, with features just as good as the ones you’ve become accustomed to. Whether you fancy a change from your usual application-of-choice, or you’re just on a tight budget, these are the free software apps you need to know about.
GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation Program) is widely accepted as the best free alternative to Photoshop and it’s available for Windows, Mac, and Linux machines. It lacks some of the professional workflow features of Adobe’s package but is otherwise packed with similar tools and options (from brushes to layers) to take your image editing to the next level.
Admittedly the application’s slightly unusual layout takes some getting used to, and you can’t really jump from Photoshop to GIMP in a snap, but invest some time and effort in the software and you can get end results that are pretty much as impressive thanks to the filters, tools, image enhancements, picture controls and export options available.
Other things GIMP has in its favor are the regular update schedule and the wealth of third-party plug-ins and customization tools you can get hold of (if there’s something you need that isn’t out there, you could try writing your own). GIMP’s been around for more than 20 years now, and it shows in the maturity of its toolset and editing features.
Also consider: Pixlr Editor is essentially a stripped-down version of Photoshop in a browser, while Paint.NET is a much-loved Windows image editor for more casual users.
With more development hours now apparently being poured into LibreOffice, it makes sense to opt for this open source office suite than the OpenOffice package it sprang from, but there’s not a whole lot to choose between the two. Both match Microsoft Office’s word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation bundle of tools, but are completely free to use.
As with GIMP, it works across Windows, Mac, and Linux machines, and can even open up your Microsoft Office files without much trouble (from those days when you were still paying for software). It’s not quite as slick as the suite from Redmond in terms of looks or operation but chances are if you need a particular feature then LibreOffice will have it.
Change tracking, templates, image and layout support, advanced export options, it’s all in LibreOffice, alongside a database program to match up against Access. The only area where you might struggle switching is if you’re an advanced Excel user with a bunch of macros set up, but apart from that you’ll find LibreOffice meets your needs very nicely.
Also consider: Google Drive has lightweight office apps you can use for free and access from any machine over the web, and Zoho Docs is a similar suite free for personal use.
Lightworks is a genuinely professional-level package available in a limited free version. Its main drawback is a rather confusing interface, at least for casual users and beginners, but if you can devote the time to it, there’s no doubt it’s a powerful piece of software that is great for editing video clips together. Lightworks is currently available for Windows, Mac, and Linux.
DaVinci Resolve is a program that started out as a color grading tool but is now morphing into a very capable editor too, available for Windows and Mac. As with Lightworks, the interface is going to come across as a little daunting, but because of the history of the software it’s arguably less well-suited to the basics of video editing.
Both Lightworks and DaVinci Resolve are undoubtedly more powerful than your average free software package, but neither have an easy drag-and-drop approach. If that’s more your style then VideoPad Video Editor (for Windows) is basic but easy to use and WeVideo (web) is fine for smaller projects. There’s even a simple video editor built into YouTube.
Also consider: Windows Movie Maker sadly hasn’t been updated in a few years but you can still download it, while iMovie is free to install and use if you buy a new Mac computer.
LMMS (originally Linux MultiMedia Studio) is a fantastic, open source, cross-platform, GarageBand-esque music production application you can download for free for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Compose tunes, mix tracks, add effects, and much more besides: it’s one of the best pieces of production software full stop, irrespective of it being free to use.
As with some of the other applications listed in this post, the interface isn’t always the easiest to get along with unless you already know the ropes, but all the key features you’re going to need are here, including support for VST plug-ins, full MIDI compatibility, a beat and bassline editor, track-based automation options and native SoundFont support.
Spend a few minutes messing around with LMMS, even if you’re a complete beginner, and you’ll soon realize the scale and potential of the application. Unlike some free software packages, it can work seamlessly with industry standard apps and devices on both the input and output side, so there’s really no limit to where your music making can take you.
Also consider: GarageBand is free, as long as you’ve bought a new Mac recently, while for track-by-track audio editing Audacity is one of the stand-out tools in the freeware world.
With Microsoft and Apple (and Google) now doling out so much free bundled software, the need for high-quality, zero-cost alternatives isn’t as great as it once was, but there are still some iconic freeware apps out there that we’d like to direct your attention towards.
VLC Media Player (Windows, Mac, Linux) continues to be a solid, speedy, flexible media player that can take just about every format you want to throw at it. It’s helped us out time and time again when native apps refuse to load up a video. It’s packed with more features than you might realize and its now got mobile versions for iOS and Android too.
TeamViewer (Windows, Mac, Linux) is primarily a commercial product but it’s free for personal use and so it gets a mention here. It’s a simple, intuitive way of getting at someone else’s PC (with their approval) or accessing your own machine remotely from the home or office. Chrome Remote Desktop is a more basic option but works in the browser.
Handbrake (Windows, Mac, Linux) is a freeware gem for anyone who needs to do anything to do with video conversions. It can convert from pretty much any known format to pretty much any other known format, get your videos into shape for mobile devices, run conversions as a batch, enable tweaks to video and audio channels, and more besides.
from Kotaku http://ift.tt/2f3Mw1R
via IFTTT
SpaceX has just asked the FCC for permission to launch 4,425 satellites that can provide high-speed (1 Gbps) internet around the globe. That’s more than thrice the current number of active satellites orbiting our planet, based on the data posted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. SpaceX chief Elon Musk first talked about the project back in 2015, wherein he revealed that it would cost the company $10 billion and that it will operate out of the private space corp’s new Seattle office. One of its earliest investors is Google, which contributed $1 billion to the initiative.
The satellites the company plans to launch will be much bigger than CubeSats at 850 pounds each and will be designed to last five to seven years before they decay. They’ll be orbiting our planet from 714 to 823 miles above the surface, higher than the space station that typically maintains an altitude of around 268 miles. According to the FCC filing, the project has two phases: SpaceX will initially launch 800 satellites that can provide internet services in the US and other locations. Once all 4,425 satellites are in orbit — it could take five years to launch them all — the array will be able to provide 1 Gbps connection to users across the globe.
Besides providing details about the project, the FCC filing has also revealed the kind of power Elon Musk wields over SpaceX. Apparently, Musk has a 54 percent stake in the space corporation, more than twice his 22 percent stake in Tesla.
Source: FCC, Business Insider, SpaceX
from Engadget http://ift.tt/2gmCBu3
via IFTTT
The most interesting computer released this year isn’t an ultrathin laptop. It’s a desktop made by Microsoft. Seriously. The Surface Studio is Microsoft’s bigger and bolder follow-up to its Surface hybrid laptops. And while it might look at first like a typical all-in-one, it hides a unique ability. Give the screen a bit of a nudge and it starts bending — all the way down to a 20-degree angle, in fact. Try doing that with an iMac. Like Microsoft’s previous Surface devices, the $3,000 Studio is an attempt at evolving how we use computers. And together with the new Surface Dial accessory, it might just be the powerful modern rig creative professionals have been waiting for. But of course, there are a few first-gen stumbling blocks to deal with.
This is one gorgeous computer. And that’s not just my opinion: Many people who walked by my office desk commented on the the Surface Studio’s good looks. Its design is one of elegant simplicity. The focus is entirely on its 28-inch screen, which is connected to the short aluminum base with a pair of chrome hinges. That’s pretty much it. But what’s really intriguing about this computer isn’t readily apparent at first glance.
Those chrome hinges, for example, house an elaborate 80-spring mechanism that makes bending the Studio’s display up and down practically effortless. The display outputs a sharp 4,500 x 3,000 (13-million-pixel) resolution — 63 percent more than 4K, and 1.2 million fewer pixels than 5K. And all of the Studio’s hardware is located in its slim base, which is basically just a mini-PC with some serious specs. There’s also touchscreen support, as you’d expect, and the Surface Pen once again makes an appearance.
And, just so we can get this out of our systems: Yes, this is a desktop computer that transforms. Yes, it’s more than meets the eye. Let’s move on.
Practically everything about the Surface Studio’s build screams refinement. The aluminum used around the sides and back of the screen, as well as the base, feels smooth to the touch. The chrome hinges reflect their surrounding environment, almost disappearing into your desk. And, despite having a delicate bending mechanism in its hinges, the Studio felt sturdy as I lugged it to different locations in our office. There was no flexing or creaking to be found.
At around 21 pounds, it’s easy to move the Surface Studio around your home. (I wouldn’t call it portable; more like relocatable.) While the base mostly gets out of the way, it might seem a bit chunky if you’re used to all-in-ones that shove their hardware behind their screens.
Around back, there are four USB 3.0 ports (one of which is high-powered), a gigabit Ethernet jack, a Mini DisplayPort connection, a full-size SD card reader and, of course, a headphone jack. I realize Microsoft is basically following in the footsteps of Apple and most other all-in-one PC makers, but it would have been nice to have a few ports along the sides of the Studio’s base. At the very least, I would have liked to connect headphones without blindly fishing around the rear ports. (Though I suppose I should be grateful the 3.5-millimeter jack is there at all.)
There’s a 5-megapixel camera for videoconferencing along the front face, right near an IR camera for fast logins using Windows Hello. You’ll also find volume and power buttons on the right side. Beyond that, the Studio is a pretty minimalist device. The only bit of branding on the machine is a mirrored Windows logo on the back.
Accompanying the Studio are the new Surface Keyboard and Mouse. Both sport the same gray aesthetic as Microsoft’s computers, and they’re basically just minor refreshes of the company’s existing wireless input devices. Microsoft doesn’t really get enough credit as a keyboard and mouse maker, but I’ve been a fan of their hardware for years. These new devices don’t disappoint either: The Surface Keyboard has some satisfying feedback in its island-style keys, and it easily kept up with my angry post-election typing. The mouse curves into your hands well, and it works smoothly across a wide variety of surfaces. Its scroll wheel is also fairly smooth, though I wish it included horizontal scrolling like some of Microsoft’s other mice.
With its PixelSense displays on the Surface Pro 4 and Book, Microsoft proved it could build some truly vibrant LCD screens. For the Studio, the company applied that concept on a larger scale. The result is a 28-inch screen that’s among the sharpest and most colorful I’ve ever seen. It makes just about everything look good, be it 4K video, photos or simple Office documents. Its 3:2 aspect ratio feels a bit awkward now that we’re used to widescreen monitors everywhere, but the display itself is also a mere 12.5 millimeters thick. It’s honestly a bit hard to see from the side.
Artists will likely appreciate the Surface Studio’s ability to switch from SRGB and wider DCI-P3 color gamuts on the fly. Apple made a big deal about the iMac’s support for the P3 gamut last year, and the same benefits apply here. Simply put, it’ll let you view an even wider variety of colors. And since it’s a standard backed by Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), it’s particularly helpful for editing digital video. Typical consumers will likely just notice that some photos and videos will appear much richer than before.
Mostly, I appreciate the Surface Studio simply for having a big freaking screen. After spending years writing on ultraportables and reading news apps on smartphones and tablets, I sometimes forget how nice it is to use a large screen where you can have a pile of windows thrown about, or simply view a full-size webpage next to a document for note taking. It might just be me, but I’ve found that bigger displays simply let me be more creative.
On the face of it, the $100 Surface Dial seems like an oddity. We’ve already grown used to keyboards, mice, touchscreens and even styluses like the Surface Pen; who has time for another accessory? Artists, that’s who. Wacom has already gotten plenty of digital illustrators used to the notion of remote accessories, which let them quickly access tools they use often. But those remotes have generally been hard to use, with far too many buttons.
The Dial simplifies that concept. It’s a small metallic puck that resembles a large volume button on an AV receiver. Give it a spin and you’ll be able to control things like the volume or zoom. You can also click the Dial to select options and move between its functions. But the coolest thing? Plop it on the Surface Studio’s screen and a ring of contextual options immediately appears. It’s up to developers to bake in support for the Dial, but at launch you’ll be able to change tracks in Spotify, zoom and rotate in Microsoft Maps and access a wide variety of settings in Sketchable.
I tested the top-of-the-line $4,200 Surface Studio, which packs in a 2.7GHz Core i7 6820HQ CPU, 32GB of RAM (!), a hybrid drive consisting of a 128GB SSD and 2TB HDD, and NVIDIA GTX 980M graphics with 4GB of VRAM. As you can imagine, it was one of the most powerful PCs I’ve ever tested. I was able to juggle dozens of browser tabs, 4K video playback and Minecraft running with high-quality settings all at once without breaking a sweat. The massive screen size practically encourages extreme multitasking. The only major downside is the Studio’s slow disk speeds, which stem from its hybrid SSD/mechanical hard drive approach to storage.
| PCMark 7 | PCMark 8 (Creative Accelerated) | 3DMark 11 | 3DMark (Sky Diver) | ATTO (top reads/writes) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface Studio (2.7GHz Core i7-6820HQ, 4GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M) | 6,762 | 6,168 | E11,338 / X4,302 | 14,306 | 294 MB/s / 299 MB/s |
| Surface Book (2016, 2.6GHz Core i7-6600U, 2GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M) | 5,452 | 4,041 | E8,083 / P5,980 / X2,228 | 11,362 | 1.71 GB/s / 1.26 GB/s |
| HP Spectre x360 (2016, 2.7GHz Core i7-7500U, Intel HD Graphics 620) | 5,515 | 4,354 | E2,656 / P1,720 / X444 | 3,743 | 1.76 GB/s / 579 MB/s |
| Surface Book (2.4GHz Core i5-6300U, Intel HD 520) | 5,412 | 3,610 |
E2,758 / P1,578 / X429 |
3,623 | 1.6 GB/s / 571 MB/s |
| Surface Book (2.6GHz Core i7-6600U, 1GB NVIDIA GeForce graphics) | 5,740 | 3,850 |
E4,122 / P2,696 |
6,191 | 1.55 GB/s / 608 MB/s |
| ASUS ZenBook 3 (2.7GHz Intel Core-i7-7500U, Intel HD 620) | 5,448 | 3,911 | E2,791 / P1,560 | 3,013 | 1.67 GB/s / 1.44 GB/s |
| HP Spectre 13 (2.5GHz Intel Core i7-6500U, Intel HD 520) | 5,046 | 3,747 | E2,790 / P1,630 / X375 | 3,810 | 1.61 GB/s / 307 MB/s |
| Dell XPS 13 (2.3GHz Core i5-6200U, Intel Graphics 520) | 4,954 | 3,499 | E2,610 / P1,531 | 3,335 | 1.6GB/s / 307 MB/s |
| Razer Blade Stealth (2.5GHz Intel Core i7-6500U, Intel HD 520) | 5,131 | 3,445 | E2,788 / P1,599 / X426 | 3,442 | 1.5 GB/s / 307 MB/s |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (2.4GHz Core i5-6300U, Intel HD 520) | 5,403 | 3,602 |
E2,697/ P1,556/ X422 |
3,614 | 1.6 GB/s / 529 MB/s |
Since it’s limited to notebook graphics cards, though, the Studio doesn’t perform as well in high-end games as larger desktops do. In 3DMark, it scored around 20 percent lower than the $200 Radeon RX 480 GPU on my home rig. Oddly, it also got some weird scores in 3DMark 11’s "Performance" test, which I’m attributing to driver issues. I was able to run Overwatch at around 60 frames per second in 1080p with high settings, and Gears of War 4 around 50 frames per second with medium settings. The latter title, perhaps because it was so new and demanding, sometimes dipped into much lower frame rates during more hectic scenes.
That’s all par for the course for notebook graphics, but I wish Microsoft would have been able to include NVIDIA’s more powerful 10-series GPUs instead. The company says those cards weren’t available as it was developing the Surface Studio, which makes sense given how long it takes to plan and build a whole new product.
Because of the slight underpowered nature of the Studio’s graphics, it’ll likely have trouble with VR. Microsoft says it can handle "light" virtual reality experiences, but since none of the GPUs available for the Studio are considered "VR ready," I wouldn’t plan on having it run something like Eve: Valkyrie very well. And for a computer that’s so expensive, with no foreseeable upgrade path, that’s a tough pill to swallow.
While I’ve been testing the Surface Pen for years now, it really gets to shine on the Studio. Once I pushed the screen down to its flattest orientation, I felt like I was able to "dive" more into drawing with the Pen. The resistance feels as good as it did on the Surface Pro 4, with almost pen-to-paper feedback. Given its size, though, I don’t imagine I would use the Studio to jot down notes as much as I would on the Surface Pro 4 or Book. It’s clearly meant for people who actually need to use a stylus seriously.
So for that reason, I enlisted the help of someone who could actually draw: Alexander Sapountzis, a software engineer at our sister publication The Huffington Post. He’s been illustrating for a while now with the iPad Pro, and he’s also the creator of the web comic Damn Heroes. It didn’t take long for him to adapt to the Studio’s angled orientation, and he particularly enjoyed the resistance of the pen on the screen.
On the downside, he noticed that palm rejection was worse than with the iPad Pro, and the software ring around the Dial had the annoying habit of drifting down the screen, even if the Dial was staying in place at the Studio’s lowest angle. Both of those issues ended up disrupting his creative flow, which is exactly the opposite of how Microsoft wants people to see the computer.
The Surface Studio also had difficulty recognizing when he wanted to move an image around, which often led to unwanted brushstrokes from his fingers. Overall, he was impressed with the Surface Studio’s size and form factor, but he wasn’t looking to switch anytime soon. As for the issues mentioned, hopefully it’s the sort of thing Microsoft could fix with a software update. We’ve asked the company to comment on whether it’s working on any fixes.
I couldn’t find any Wacom users to test the Studio before this review, but judging from what I’ve seen across social media and forums, they don’t seem overly excited for it online. For one, plenty of Wacom devices work off of Adobe’s RGB color spectrum, which is more widely supported than P3. That company’s styluses and other hardware also offer more control and fine-tuning than the Surface Pen does.
You can tell Microsoft isn’t aiming the Surface Studio at typical consumers based on its pricing: It costs $3,000 to start. That base build includes a sixth-generation Intel Core i5 processor, 8GB of RAM, a hybrid drive made up of a 64GB SSD and 1TB HDD, and an NVIDIA 965M GPU with 2GB of memory. That’s certainly a lot of money for a PC with less than 16GB of RAM and a mobile GPU. The mid-range Studio goes for $3,500 with an i7, 16GB of RAM, and a 128GB SSD with 1TB of storage. And then at the top end, you have the insanely powerful configuration I tested, which costs $4,200.
Understandably, you’d probably look to Apple’s 27-inch 5K iMac if you’re considering the Surface Studio. Since that starts at $1,800, you’d still have plenty of cash left over to invest in Wacom hardware before you even reached the Studio’s starting price. Alternatively, you could consider the multitude of PC options out there. The Asus Zen AiO and HP Envy All in One start at around $1,300, while the massive 34-inch ultrawide Digital Storm Aura starts at $2,531, with desktop-grade CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs. And to make up for the lack of digital illustration tools, you can add Wacom’s new Cintiq Pro displays for $1,000 or $1,500.
Basically, you’ve got a lot of options. You could even spec out a normal-size CPU and add Wacom hardware for far less than the Surface Studio’s cost. Of course, you wouldn’t get the same polished, integrated experience with a makeshift setup as you would with Microsoft’s desktop, but if you’re a struggling artist, you’ll likely need to squeeze as much value out of every dollar as you can.
Perhaps a better market for the Surface Studio would be the Apple faithful. With no upgrade for the Mac Pro in sight, and an unfortunate update for the MacBook Pro, I wouldn’t be surprised if plenty of well-to-do creatives were looking closely at Microsoft’s hardware.
The Surface Studio is both familiar and new. It empowers us to work the way we always have, while also giving us entirely new modes of productivity. Personally, that’s a philosophy I can get behind — especially when compared with Apple’s habit of pushing consumers down new roads that aren’t necessarily improvements (hello, dongle life). But the Surface Studio’s high price and lack of expandability could make it a tough sell for an already niche market, especially for people already devoted to their Wacom tablets.
from Engadget http://ift.tt/2gkveT8
via IFTTT