It's just 'Pro' now, guys: Microsoft gives Surface a subtle resurfacing Microsoft has revamped its Surface tablet, which at last includes a SIM card slot. The 2017 iteration of the boutique but highly profitable fondleslab loses the numbering – it's now just a "Surface Pro". Cosmetically there's little difference: the tablet retains the 2736 x 1824 (267 PPI) display and 786g weight (for the i5 and …
Well, I've got on my screen now
MacBook Air i7/8/512 £1409
Surface Pro i7/16/512 £2149
iPad Pro 256/WiFi&Cell £1029
Surface Pro i5/8/256 £1249
iPad Pro 128/WiFi £819
Surface Pro m3/128 £799
MacBookPro i7/16/1Tb £2759
Surface Pro i7/16/1Tb £2699
So, I's say the budget end was comparable, but I wouldn't say a MacBookPro and a Surface Pro were competing head to head in terms of what the machine's target market is. The Air is the choice for portability, and that's a ~£700 difference.
Downvote for not comparing like-for-like. I'm not even going to get into comparing iPads to the Surface Pro, not meaningful. But your top comparison, i7 MacBook Air versus Surface Pro - the Surface Pro has a 2736x1824 display, versus 1440x768 for the MacBook Air, and you compared an 8GB to a 16GB model. Comparing like-for-like specs apart from the screen, we have
MacBook Air i7/8/256 £1229
Surface Pro i7/8/256 £1549
That's only a £320 difference, which is about what you'd expect considering the vast gulf between the screen resolutions. Your £700 figure is bogus.
I compared the closest specs I could, and of course what can you say about the relative efficiency of the code and the processors between an iPad's A9/A10 processor and an i5/i7 processor. But you are correct about the screen resolution and memory, of course. As others have indicated, the cost of a keyboard and pen / mouse is not included in the Microsoft figures. I've never used a Surface Pro, so I don't know if that premium is making a real difference. For my coding work, I could never use an iPad, so I have a MacBookPro. I agree there's some appeal to having a pad-like device that can also run coding tools quite happily, but it's not THAT much of a bonus.
You're right that where there ARE pretty much exact equivalents, then the prices are much closer, such as the i7/16/512.
You can't tell me that a higher resolution screen and an extra 8Gb RAM makes up £700? It was really down to the use case that one would be making a comparison. If there IS a use case for a tablet that runs like a laptop, and there's a large enough user base WITH that use case, then Apple are definitely missing a trick here, which the Surface Pro is filling in quite nicely. It would be hard to imagine Apple missing out on a significant market sector from which to suck revenue, though, when they have products either side of the gap. I expect we might see an iOS/OSX convergence soon specifically targeting the tablet side.
You may need to add the cost of the keyboard and pen, which are not included. They may add about €300 to the cost, it's not a small fraction of the overall price.
At least with some of the earlier model the pen was included (and I by far prefer the Wacom they used earlier, no need for batteries/bluetooth).
You may need to add the cost of the keyboard and pen, which are not included. They may add about €300 to the cost, it's not a small fraction of the overall price.
You don't need the pen, and for the purposes of like-for-like comparison with a MacBook Air, I see no reason to include it, since such a pen is not an option on that machine - if you need to draw on the screen with a pen, you won't be buying a MacBook Air, regardless of price, will you?
The keyboard costs £150, you do have a point there.
This post has been deleted by its author
There is still a ton of it out there, but I think companies will start moving away from Windows... and already are to some extent. Aside from the technical issues, a Chromebook is way easier to manage, individually or as a fleet, for lighter users (most users) and Apple or Linux is a more secure platform for development.
Think how many billions of dollars would be saved if every business decided they were going to go with a Chrome OS, Linux combo... or even Apple for devs, photo editors, etc and Chrome OS for the rest. The days of charging $100 for an end user OS are nearly over, in addition to huge amounts for utility software.
I think MSFT is aware of this as well. That is why they are spending 10s of billions tryin to get into advertising and throwing 10 S out there. They know that Chromebook is coming for them and the value proposition is great for businesses. Especially when those Android apps hit Chromebook in full force. That is just a matter of time. They are either going to get creamed by Chrome OS or, probably what they are planning,charge for Windows for as long as possible and eventually give it away.
I think MSFT's miscalculation is that they think Chrome is a low function, low cost alternative so, given the option between Chrome and Windows at the same price, people will all choose Windows. I don't think this correct, especially with the younger folks. They just prefer the lightweight nature of Chrome, lack of bloat, fast boots, only the software you need without a bunch of extra stuff most people never use.
"How well does Chrome OS support Eclipse? What about Tomcat? Scrivener? Handbrake or Sigil?"
Yeah, that's why I wrote Apple/Linux, or Windows is fine too for that matter, for the devs and the few other roles which require local installs of PC software. Chromebooks will work, really well, for 80-90% of average company's user base though... especially with all of the Android apps. Much easier to manage for IT and the end users, way less costly. I am saying that for the vast majority of users in most companies, there is no need for Windows. Not all users, the majority. As most of those users are not scratching the surface of Windows and all of that functionality isn't a benefit, it is a negative as it is requires additional management and just adds complexity. Pick the right tool for the right job... instead of just buying Windows across the board because MSFT tells you that you need to buy Windows. Even if you think Windows is a tank (for some reason), you don't drive a tank on your commute to work.
@AC
The only problem is that for ease of support, many medium to large enterprises don't like having to deal with multiple platforms. You may save money on licensing, but the cost to implement, secure and then manage such a complex environment will eat into those savings fairly rapidly.
Keep in mind too that many industries have software requirements that wouldn't work well in the deployable app environment, not to mention any custom software apps developed at considerable capital outlay and written for existing x86 based infrastructure. You may well find that many will avoid upsetting the apple cart due to little more than inertia, and the fear of how much cost will be attached to forcing a change of direction.
I was getting ready to disagree, but I agree with the last sentence. I think there are easy fixes to things like Win32 (which I assume is what you mean by x86 as Chrome is x86), like using an app virtualization or terminal software to make those apps web enabled. I don't think management would cost you any more cash... Chrome is crazy easy to manage, across thousands of PCs/devices. Many of the MDM tools are now supporting PCs as well as phones/tablets for multi OS... just another end user device. Most orgs are already managing at least three different OSs (iOS, Android and Windows). Also, any enterprise is likely paying millions, many millions, to purchase Windows and all of the management utilities, SCCM, SCOM, various CALS, etc. If you haven't seen a MSFT EA, you would fall over to see how much your company is spending on commodity software like Windows and email. Much of that could just go away as it should not exist, the rest could pay for multi OS tools instead of Windows only.
I have a feeling you are right though. Many IT shops are conservative. Even though the business case is clear and their end users would not mind at all if Windows went away... many IT shops will delay and hang on. It is a shame. CIOs are always talking about 'the business' being their 'internal customer', but I wonder how many of their customers would take a MacBook over Windows if given the option. How many of their customers choose Gmail instead of Outlook when they are free to pick any email service they prefer. How many of their customers would give SharePoint a five star rating or use OneDrive at home as compared to Dropbox or Google Drive.
"It also means putting your trust ina company who has been willing to hover data up first and ask oh was that illegal never and has bee willing to drop products without warning."
There is a difference between consumer ad sponsored services and enterprise services. Google's ads related businesses have nothing to do with their enterprise products. They are not accessing any of your data without permission. Also, what data is Google hovering up? Anonymous search data linked to an IP which they use to present relevant ads. MSFT does the same thing. It is just that no one wants to use their search engine. Google has actually been pretty solid about protecting or anonymizing user data. When China told them to turn over user data, they pulled up stakes and left China... and billions of dollars... behind. Do you think MSFT would do anything which involves leaving billions of dollars behind?
As mentioned below, MSFT is now taking way more of your data than Google takes. If you don't want Google to aggregate search results and post ads, you have the option of just not using Google. With Windows 10, they are pulling data whenever you use your computer and injecting sponsored content, search results, into the OS which you paid for. Google gives away the product if they take ad data. MSFT charges people for the use of the OS and then takes ad data
@AC
My apologies, I did indeed mean Win32 rather than something as generic as x86, I'm getting long in the tooth and I sometimes forget that computer architecture is slowly standardizing.
While I don't disagree in principle with your assertion about existing multiple platform support in a business sense, I was more talking about Windows plus Mac plus Linux/Unix. I'm a big believer in the SOE/MOE model, primarily because of the cost savings on the support side of the house. You can often sign a single hardware lease contract with some hefty savings built in for owning and maintaining a large fleet of computers with consistent configuration. The savings stack up because you only require one image (or at most a small handful of them), which cuts back on your data storage requirements, image management tasks, software packaging and patch testing & deployment. You can also have a very specialized team of support agents who don't rely utterly on your knowledge base to provide support. You also save money at the point of service request, because your support desk agent knows that the hardware is pretty much standard. They don't need to spend time chasing details on device hardware, OS and software specifics, along with changing mental gears to think in terms of the specific hardware or OS.
I'm aware that you can use technology to bridge many of those gaps, but the time spent implementing those technologies can directly be converted to money, so it still counts. There's also the fact that if you've dropped half a million or more on developing specific software tools for your business, you may have a hard sell with the board to invest additional funds converting that system in to a web based product on top of requesting the funds to invest in additional technology. On that basis, don't also forget the cost of training, when you suddenly need to provide it for multiple platforms (and often for the same software across those platforms, due to minor but important configurations).
Lastly, keep in mind that for many large enterprises, especially in certain industries, cloud based computing is not a viable option. I highly doubt you will ever find a Google mail appliance supplying comms for Government departments, especially in areas like health, education, law enforcement and defence.
I should also point out that I speak from a position of experience. I've worked in helpdesk and desktop support for tertiary education facilities that supported Windows PC and Macintosh environments, and I can tell you that every one of us in the tier 1 and 2 teams detested calls from users on the Mac environment. Admittedly much of it was due to the self-important nature of the callers, but it was also due to the time taken to adjust our thought processes for what amounted to less than 5% of our monthly call intake.
That would be bang on if everyone paid $100 for an 'end user OS', however this isn't how it happens in the real world. Machines are purchased in bulk and volume licenses are purchased, resulting in paying peanuts for the licenses. Yes, an OEM copy of Windows 10 Pro may set you back $100+ but nobody buys a PC without an O/S and then purchases a single copy of Windows 10 OEM these days, it's absurd - You buy the machine with the license already present 99% of the time.
Apple may be acceptable for video editing, graphic design (Adobe suite) but I'm afraid in the real world, Linux simply doesn't exist as a viable alternative to Windows. Tons of software is written in .NET and no Linux alternative exists. Companies who have spent tens of thousands of pounds in software development for Windows are hardly going to employ a new team of developers just to port across to another language.
"That would be bang on if everyone paid $100 for an 'end user OS', however this isn't how it happens in the real world. Machines are purchased in bulk and volume licenses are purchased, resulting in paying peanuts for the licenses."
It is rare that a large enterprise buys their Windows licenses with the hardware from an OEM. They almost always have an EA. Yes, you may get a discount if you buy in volume via an EA, but not a huge discount (and you'll be getting a discount on the $200 copy of Windows Pro). That's where the fun begins though. Then you need to add licenses for AD, SCCM, Windows Server, Defender, etc. Add all of this stuff up and it is really costly.
"Tons of software is written in .NET and no Linux alternative exists."
.NET now runs on Linux (not that anyone has tried it). .NET is generally on the server side and end user OS agnostic. It's not like a website written in .NET is not going to be compatible with an Android or Apple device or Chromebook. If you are talking about Windows locally installed apps, very few exist than anyone cares about and those that are still hanging around can be run via a browser with XenApp or whatever or you can emulate a terminal.
So what, the ability to run Windows applications on Windows is the selling feature? Maybe 18 years ago when hardware was limited and we were stuck with WinCE. It's 2017 and this company claims to be pushing a "1 desktop for all" model that nobody actuallly wants or even asked for. So it's advertise 1 thing but do another...still.
I think the real selling point here is that the last model was so gelded that maybe you'd like to buy 1 that isn't, but somehow also still stuck in the same marketing trap. Pass.
BTW, is it even a good approach to sell a new tablet today with the same resolution as the one from yesteryear?
I have a company supplied surface-like Win10 tablet with click on keyboard. The keyboard, like all the similar models, is very light and flimsy feeling. If battery life is one of the primary customer requested selling points, it seems off that no one has tried putting an additional battery in the keyboard. My use case invariably requires the keyboard the vast majority of the time.
"I can't see any Linux-on-the-desktop soap-dodgers spaffing nearly 3 grand one of these."
Yes; these are not the suckers you are looking for.
"Doesn't Argos sell a Linux tablet for £200?"
That's much better value than this C-level merit badge.
I'd suggest a refurbished Surface 3 if you want to run Linux. Apparently complete support for the Surface 3 landed in kernel 4.8.
Newer hardware is always tricky, it takes a while for driver support to materialize. Getting slightly older hardware means better driver support and saves you some money too.
For laptop usage, an SSD probably outlast a HHD. For a data center, that would be a different matter.
SSD wears out due to write actions. In a data center, it gets hammered 24 hours per day by write requests and this becomes very relevant. A laptop is comparatively speaking "always" idling and can probably handle an order of magnitude more writes than it will see in its economic lifespan.
Then there is the point that laptops get pummeled around, which the mechanical parts in the HDD don't like. In the data center the HDD is presumably nicely mounted so that this isn't an issue.
Nice foot. :P The blokes at the office here have them, and they look completely shit to deal with. Have to tie up the USB port with a WiFi dongle, who knows why, and then everyone is dragging a mouse along with them... are the touch screens so poor, and the touch pad so crap, that a separate mouse is needed? Then there's that awful foot. Poor design masquerading as innovation, no doubt.
"There's also a new stylus and fabric-type covers."
HAHAHA!!1! Now I get it. They are still trying to catch up to Apple's product from two years ago. Thanks, I already have the "prototype" to your "slatePad," the rest of us call it the iPad Pro 10". Works great, good software, secure, basically it's the device you should have purchased had you; 1) been able to afford a good device rather than knock-off Chinese crap that appears to be the same to you, and 2) you hate Apple more than love security, and worse you're a target of these creeps; Microsoft Marketing Droids. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!1! Oh, man, you Apple Haters are such prime idiots. Keep up the "good work," morons!
And for Apple: why not provide macOS on the iPads? I just irks me that I have to bother with another iOS, when I already deal with it on the phone. Make the iPad more useful with a new OS type to run on it. The slidy apps from the side trick only goes so far. Not much. And I don't need anymore cameras. Too many cameras. Marketing people must love cameras. Prats.
I use a Surface Pro 4 as my main workstation every day as a database admin. Why? because the whole machine weighs less than the power supply from my last Lenovo laptop, and it runs ALL the software I need, and there's no way a Mac can do it without running windows emulation most of the time. As for the mac people in the office with the newest air books they have to carry an extra bag around to keep all the dongles they need to do something complicated like charge and use an USB device at the same time, meanwhile I arrive at work connect one cable to charge, use two external screens , a 1Gb network connection and my external mouse and keyboard. I'm already working, while they are busy starting virtual machines to use the software that is not native on Macs.
I'll admit it's not perfect. Too many problems with high dpi screen and java progams not scaling properly. Although the latest creator edition has helped a lot with them. Now at least VMware clients can show remote desktops on our ESX clusters.
The keyboard is surprisingly good. Decent key travel. Normal complaints about function key lock and some keys (home/End) sharing key with Fn. Other than that, it's more than good enough for most users.
If I was using it 8 hours a day, I'd just use a 'proper' keyboard, but that's been my experience with laptops too.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Reading all the comments I'm trying to determine if the issue is "shiny" or if the thing is actually useful to some people due to it's size and usability.
Tough call but then I'm from the I really don't care about the size or shiny generation so would be happy using a high end ugly fat device that did it's job and had the power I needed to do it.
If I had limitless funds and it took windows 7 I would actually be interested. (it may have but I'm not aware of it)
This post has been deleted by its author
Everyone has a phone these days, and tethering works just as well to provide network access via LTE. You'll probably upgrade your phone to faster LTE standards more often / more quickly than you'll upgrade your Surface, so even if you use the SIM initially after a few years you might switch to tethering - especially if/when you get a phone capable of 5G if that becomes available where you are...
Its a corporate thing. You have mobile workers. They need mobile data, but they are happy to use their own phone for telephony.
Do you:
1. Put a sim card in the laptop/tablet you gave them
2. Give them a (another in addition to their own) phone, and a tablet and the faff of connecting them up.
People use tablets for site surveys and all sorts of shit. They would be really really balls out pissed of with IT if the device they used to do the work wasn't just connected without any faff.
This post has been deleted by its author
The choice of configurations is also limited compared with the SP4 range - if you want 16GB ram then you have to fork out for the 512TB SSD version which costs more than £2k and that's without the typecover and pen!
I guess most sales of this latest SP will be to OPM-spenders...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
