Apple's MacBook Air vs. Microsoft's Surface Laptop 2

[Tech198]

Apple always seems to win on trackpad though, thta's the point.... Are we saying despite the similarities that Microsoft and/or other companies get right, the trackpad is always a failure with them ?


That, to me sounds more like a user decision when you get up and around the $2,000 mark.. it starts to become less of an issue even if it is isolated to one area. because MS would use better quality components for "everything", including the trackpad.


As you get better, it becomes tougher on quality choices i reckon. It doesn't matter scratching on black like the surface 2 because you won't see it ..... Scratches on a mac will show more.

 

[Howard2k]

How is it possible that the article still hasn’t been corrected and still states that the Surface Book 2 and Air are both dual core?

 

[iMi]

This is a sad sentence

Why?

Would a Mercedes Benz being priced at $60K compared to a well-equipped Honda at $35K also be a sad statement? There is cheaper hardware/software available. If the price tag is a problem, just go and buy the cheaper hardware and forgo the offerings from Apple.

This constant criticism of the cost of Apple's products is getting annoying in my option. Can't afford it, don't buy it. Simple. Apple is under no obligation to meet your budget. At least not any more than any other brand. I just don't get it.

 

[Tick410]

Why?

Would a Mercedes Benz being priced at $60K compared to a well-equipped Honda at $35K also be a sad statement? There is cheaper hardware/software available. If the price tag is a problem, just go and buy the cheaper hardware and forgo the offerings from Apple.

This constant criticism of the cost of Apple's products is getting annoying in my option. Can't afford it, don't buy it. Simple. Apple is under no obligation to meet your budget. At least not any more than any other brand. I just don't get it.

Honda Ricers suck. I would say Nissan 370z is the Windows PC, if making that type of comparison.

 

[slash7844]

Why?

Would a Mercedes Benz being priced at $60K compared to a well-equipped Honda at $35K also be a sad statement? There is cheaper hardware/software available. If the price tag is a problem, just go and buy the cheaper hardware and forgo the offerings from Apple.

This constant criticism of the cost of Apple's products is getting annoying in my option. Can't afford it, don't buy it. Simple. Apple is under no obligation to meet your budget. At least not any more than any other brand. I just don't get it.

The problem is.. Apple is the Honda here.. priced at 60k with cheaper components.

 

[ROGmaster]

Up above you said: "Also according to that Crystal Disk benchmark Razer Blade's peak sequential write speed is 2352mbps which equals to 2.29Gbps which is higher than the 2.1Gbps you claimed for the Macbook Air."

First: The MacBook Air is 2.1 GBytes/sec (not Gbits/sec as you said above).

Second: 2352 mbitsps (quoted above) is much slower than 2.1 GBytes/sec

Get over it already, I'm not wrong, it's 2352 megabytes/sec according to Crystal disk. I just used the wrong abbreviation.

• [*]Megabyte (MB) or Megabyte per second (MBps, MB/s), with a capital or uppercase ‘B’ — a unit used for file sizes and often in the end user software, and
  [*]Megabit (Mb) or Megabit per second (Mbps, Mb/s), with a small or lowercase ‘b’ — a unit used for download speeds advertised by ISPs and reported by on-line tools.

 

[ionutc]

I think people just don't hold on as much onto their Windows laptops because they don't like them as we like macs. Some are not so reliable, yes, but that's not the problem overall. People liked their MacBooks, held onto them, upgraded them in the old days and used them for a long time also because of the software updates - and so the bigger the resale value.
I've read comments about the iPhones getting slow over time and people feeling the need to upgrade - well imagine that you had the same thing winth Windows laptops due to bad software updates or slow storage. Most consumer laptops had bad batteries in the past and that didn't help as you felt you had an old laptop in around 3 years. There are a lot of upgrade guides over the internet and most of them are for macs because people love them.

Coming from PCs and Windows laptops Macs were always expensive but balaced, you felt there were no big compromises as long as the software worked - nice screen, good battery and good looking hardware, good keyboards, great trackpads and so on. They were never affordable or really powerfull but they were better overall. I don't really understand why it took so long for keyboards to get backlighting or the removal of optical drives and unnecesary ports. If you wanted portability you had to get one of those useless netbooks or carry around a bulky laptop with a big and heavy charger.

What I'm trying to say is that this value over time has a lot to do with software and the integration with software. When you are constantly having driver issues you eventually get another laptop.

 

[kingtj]

I believe he speaks for the vast majority of user's needs, actually. Certainly, his comments are relevant to anyone who would consider a Macbook Air sufficient for their needs, vs. spending much more on a "Pro" model....

I've been building, selling and supporting computers for about 30 years now and the transition from HDD to SSD is absolutely HUGE. It has value in multiple ways, and can literally take a once "painfully slow to use" PC (like a budget priced Intel Core i3 CPU based Lenovo, Acer, HP or Toshiba laptop) and breathe new life into it again. It also means far more shock/impact/vibration resistance, which really helps with long-term durability for portables.

But once you've transitioned to an SSD? You're not going to have that "game changing" experience by just upgrading it to a newer, better performing model. Nobody likes waiting 45 seconds for OS X to boot, for example ... but once an SSD has it booting in, say, 8 seconds? A new model that's twice as fast will shave that down to 4 seconds, which just isn't going to matter a lot to the typical user.

Additionally, the rest of the hardware usually puts some limits on what SSD upgrade options you can really use. You can't even use a new Samsung NVMe type M.2 SSD, for example, in a machine with an older type of SSD socket.

Ah, resorting to insults, now. Speaks volumes.

Once more, for you a 10X increase in read speeds doesn't matter. For others, it does. Maybe it would be best to speak only for yourself and your computing needs. Rather than everyone else's?

Is your opinion on Samsung's M.2 NVMe SSDs the same? Doesn't matter?

 

[citysnaps]

I believe he speaks for the vast majority of user's needs, actually. Certainly, his comments are relevant to anyone who would consider a Macbook Air sufficient for their needs, vs. spending much more on a "Pro" model....

I've been building, selling and supporting computers for about 30 years now and the transition from HDD to SSD is absolutely HUGE. It has value in multiple ways, and can literally take a once "painfully slow to use" PC (like a budget priced Intel Core i3 CPU based Lenovo, Acer, HP or Toshiba laptop) and breathe new life into it again. It also means far more shock/impact/vibration resistance, which really helps with long-term durability for portables.

But once you've transitioned to an SSD? You're not going to have that "game changing" experience by just upgrading it to a newer, better performing model. Nobody likes waiting 45 seconds for OS X to boot, for example ... but once an SSD has it booting in, say, 8 seconds? A new model that's twice as fast will shave that down to 4 seconds, which just isn't going to matter a lot to the typical user.

Additionally, the rest of the hardware usually puts some limits on what SSD upgrade options you can really use. You can't even use a new Samsung NVMe type M.2 SSD, for example, in a machine with an older type of SSD socket.

Feel free to speak for other users. I know better.

As someone who works with large image and sound libraries the difference is huge.


"You can't even use a new Samsung NVMe type M.2 SSD, for example, in a machine with an older type of SSD socket."

Of course not. That's because most interfaces are PCIe-based. But for those that can use the speed, Apple's custom NVMe interfaces and SSD, along with those in the PC world with the correct M.2 NVME and Samsung drive can realize superb transfer rates.

Interestingly, I've yet to see anyone with the proper interface and Samsung 970 SSD not rave about real-world transfer rates.

I suspect your assessment of the above Samsung SSD (and proper interface) users is their increased 10-15X performance make little difference. Curious...tell me about your personal experience using the above Samsung drive over a common SSD. Makes little to no difference?

 

[dc-mjd]

The MacBook Air, last updated in 2018, is Apple's most affordable notebook machine, with pricing that starts at $1,199 for the newest hardware. Microsoft also makes a comparable machine, the Surface Laptop 2, which came out right around the same time Apple released its 2018 MacBook Air update.

In our latest video, we decided to pit the MacBook Air against Microsoft's Surface Laptop 2 to determine which machine is the better value and the best buy.

Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.​

Both the MacBook Air and the Surface Laptop 2 are thin, light machines, with each one weighing in right around 2.75 pounds. The Surface Laptop 2 has a 13.5-inch display with a 2256 x 1504 resolution, while the MacBook Air has a 13.3-inch display with a resolution of 2560 x 1600, so all in all, design wise, these two machines are quite similar, though the Surface Laptop 2 offers a 3:2 display.

The Surface Laptop 2 comes in a matte black color (it's also in burgundy and blue) that we were a fan of because it's a nice deviation from the standard gold, silver, and space gray shades Apple uses for its notebooks. Inside, the MacBook Air is all aluminum, but the Surface Laptop 2 uses an Alcantara fabric design, which has become a key feature of the Surface lineup.

When it comes to key feel, the MacBook Air wins out, though those who are not fans of the butterfly key design might not agree. The MacBook Air also has a better trackpad, which is unsurprising because most PCs can't match the feel of the Force Touch trackpad with its haptic feedback.

Both laptops have a questionable port situation, with the MacBook Air limited to two USB-C Thunderbolt 3 ports and Surface Laptop 2 featuring a USB-A port, a proprietary charging port, and, inexplicably, a Mini DisplayPort, an odd choice for a modern laptop. It has no USB-C ports, which is disappointing given that USB-C is the standard device and accessory makers alike are transitioning to.

The MacBook Air uses Touch ID in lieu of a password to make logging in faster, while the Surface Laptop 2 uses Windows Hello for facial recognition. Future Macs might adopt Face ID, but for now Touch ID is just as useful. Each of these laptops features a 720p webcam, which are both terrible, and while both have decent sound, the MacBook Air's speakers are crisper and clearer at max volume.

Each of these machines features similar internal specs, and both are designed for simple tasks rather than heavy duty video editing or 3D work. You can do light editing or use Photoshop on these machines, but that's not their primary purpose.

With these thin, light laptops with low-powered processors, battery life is impressive. Both the MacBook Air and the Surface Laptop 2 offer somewhere around 10 to 12 hour battery life for everyday tasks like using email and browsing the web.

Price is the major differentiator between the Surface Laptop 2 and the MacBook Air, and could push some to choose the Surface Laptop 2 instead of the MacBook Air.

The base model Surface Laptop 2 features a 1.6GHz 8th-Gen dual-core Core i5 processor, 8GB RAM, and 256GB of SSD storage all for $999, while the base 2018 MacBook Air, offering similar specifications with less storage -- a 1.6GHz 8th-Gen dual-core Core i5 processor, 8GB RAM, and a 128GB SSD -- is priced starting at $1,199.

The Surface Laptop 2 and the MacBook Air are similar enough that choosing one over the other ultimately comes down to ecosystem and operating system preference. Microsoft's machines, of course, run Windows, which an Apple product user might not prefer, while Windows users won't want a machine running macOS.

What do you think of Microsoft's Surface Laptop 2? Let us know in the comments.

Article Link: Apple's MacBook Air vs. Microsoft's Surface Laptop 2

[doublepost=1551399286][/doublepost]I agree that the Microsoft hardware equals or beats Apple, except for the track pad. I find the trackpad on the Microsoft machine to be unusable. Another important point to consider in cost is that if you keep your Mac in good shape, it’s worth more as a trade in than you get with the Microsoft, this helps to offset the price.
But I am willing to pay more for the Mac to to get the MAc o/s, Mac photo software, Safari (less memory unsafe than Chrome), the integration with iPhone (messaging, calls, handoff, etc). For all the grief that Apple has gotten for security and software flaws, they are doing better than Microsoft.
I e never seen hard numbers or testing, but my perception is that the Mac o/s is more responsive than Windows, even when the windows pc has better specs.
Apple just needs to take some risks with their design and stop using 2nd class hardware.

 

[iMi]

The problem is.. Apple is the Honda here.. priced at 60k with cheaper components.

That is absurd, my friend. I respect your opinion, but please show me hardware that is better, runs better OS and comes with better services. Apple's hard drivers are the fastest you'll find. iPad Pro runs circles around any tablet and most laptops on the market. Windows, while reaching a level of parity, is still way less polished than macOS.

 

[LordVic]

How is it possible that the article still hasn’t been corrected and still states that the Surface Book 2 and Air are both dual core?

either intentionally misleading or they just posted the article and don't actually care

 

[slash7844]

That is absurd, my friend. I respect your opinion, but please show me hardware that is better, runs better OS and comes with better services. Apple's hard drivers are the fastest you'll find. iPad Pro runs circles around any tablet and most laptops on the market. Windows, while reaching a level of parity, is still way less polished than macOS.

It is absurd that you think Apple is Mercedes while MS is Honda. Surface Laptop has better CPU (dual core 8210Y vs quad-core 8250U), touch screen, twice the storage, and better graphics. Being less polished is subjective. Mac crashes as much as Windows. lol @ ipad Pro.... Pro with iOS..

 

[redheeler]

The MacBook Air needs to start at $999. $1,199 definitely makes the MacBook Air overpriced.

On the other hand, the Surface Laptop 2 2012 port arrangement is laughable. Mini DisplayPort and a proprietary charging connector, seriously?

 

[KevinN206]

I think the reason why Microsoft Surface Laptop 2 is able to hit $999 price point (with 256GB) is that it uses much slower sub-400 MB/sec SSD. MacBook Air has much speedier SSD that exceed 2 GB/sec.

If you ask me, Apple should offer a choice of slower SSD for lower entry level pricing.

The SL2 has improved a lot since SL1 although still not as fast. The SL2 has read/write sequential of 1500/800 MB/s while MBA is 2500/1000 MB/s both with 256 GB. I would guess the entry-level 128 GB from MBA is about the same speed as the 256 GB in the SL2. I couldn't find speed test though. I think you'll notice the quad-core vs. dual-core with the given performances.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Air-2018-i5-256-GB-Laptop-Review.357481.0.html
[doublepost=1551434273][/doublepost]

The Surface Laptop uses PCIe-based NVMe SSD, which is considerably slower than the NVMe SSDs used in Apple's computers with their Apple-custom interface/controller. By a factor of 10x on sequential reads.

This is not true with 256 GB in the SL2 compared to the 256 GB in the MBA. You are saying a factor of 10 that means 2500MB/s for MBA is only 250 MB/s in the SL2. That's simply wrong.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Air-2018-i5-256-GB-Laptop-Review.357481.0.html
[doublepost=1551434504][/doublepost]

But that uses a PCIe-based NVMe SSD. With around 250 MByte/sec SSD sequential rate.

About 1/10th of the 2,500 Mbyte/sec SSD rate of the 2018 MacBook Air.

How does that even compare?

It doesn't compare because your info is wrong. That was true with the SL1 but not SL2. The speed for 256 GB on both laptops is 2500 vs 1500 and 1000 vs 800. Can you show me the benchmark on the SL2 where it's 10x less?

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Air-2018-i5-256-GB-Laptop-Review.357481.0.html
[doublepost=1551435473][/doublepost]

Yeah that's completely wrong. The Surface Laptop 2 uses an i5 8250U Quad Core. Not sure where he got his spec sheet from. Lol

From apple.com.

 

[KevinN206]

From 2018 reviews by Laptop Mag:

2018 MacBook Air: 2,100 MBytes/sec

Surface Laptop 2: 203 MBytes/sec

Doing the division to get a ratio is pretty straightforward.

I know that given a choice, especially with my use cases previously stated, I'll choose an SSD that does sequential reads 10X faster than another, and the benefit is worthwhile.

You might not make that choice, or given your position, might be happy with a spinning hard disk. And that's OK. For you.

Laptop Mag hard drive speed test is flawed using the new Instant Clone feature of the new file system.

The explanation is here: https://medium.com/@sdarlington/macos-high-sierra-and-fast-file-copying-bbe568381360

The time when this is beneficial is when you make a copy of something and won't change its content from both locations forever on the *same* drive.

So a copy of a 10 GB video for backup may take 4 seconds, then the moment you want to edit the original or the "copied" video will cause a background copy that will take 10 seconds. Why would you want 5 GB of the same files on the same drive if you aren't modifying them somehow?

Just use logic for a second: The 256 GB in the MBA has an IDEAL sequential write of a single large file (best case) at 1000 MB/s according to CrystalDiskMark and yet it's able to copy mixed files of 5000 MB total in just 2 seconds or 2500 MB/s. The math doesn't add up because of a software trick that has limited practical use.

 

[44267547]

I wouldn't advise anyone to buy a (2016 - onward) Apple laptop until there is a clear redesign that is verifiably more reliable.

Curious, do you even follow Apple? You wouldn’t advise anyone to buy a 2016 and Up model from Apple, yet they sell likely hundreds of thousands of units for those who don’t experience any faults? Fortunately, consumers generally don’t take advice from those who speculate based on their own perception.

 

[iMi]

It is absurd that you think Apple is Mercedes while MS is Honda. Surface Laptop has better CPU (dual core 8210Y vs quad-core 8250U), touch screen, twice the storage, and better graphics. Being less polished is subjective. Mac crashes as much as Windows. lol @ ipad Pro.... Pro with iOS..

I see the confusion here. I was specifically thinking about the Surface at the moment. Those machines are compatible in price. They are well built, too. The more powerful processor is just one metric. How efficiently that power is handled is another issue. Surface, in this case, will be faster but the Air will have a considerably longer battery life.

I personally tried the Air and replaced it with a Pro. In my case, it was under powered. I don't think the Surface Laptop and the new Air are targeting the same user and are intended to serve different purpose.

Anyway... my comments were about general comparison between Mac and PC, but I also see your point.

 

[grayhairgaming]

The people passionately arguing about SSD speeds have now spent more time arguing about it than they ever have saved in using a slightly faster SSD.

Irony: I registered just to comment this.

I'm still running a 2011 refurb'd 15" MBP I got in 2012. I fear for my Mactopian future. I am willing to accept slightly older hardware (CPU, etc.) to get rock solid performance with OSX and great customer service. I'm literally typing this on a 7.5-8 year old laptop. Impressive. Only issue was the screen going black and being replaced under a program NVIDIA paid for (5 years after I bought it, free!), apparently. Unlike many on this forum, this was my first Apple product. It's been a joy.

However, I am not willing to compromise on is function: basic things like a keyboard that won't break and need $600 in replacements if one key goes bad, working function keys instead of something else graphical that looks like it will break, and charging me $2,000 for specs that look only slightly better than other manufacturers put out several years ago. It feels like Apple is trying to segment the market to maximize profits -- good idea -- but doing it in a way that it makes everything look bad. Dropping 1mm of thickness but losing the Magsafe adapter? Not having enough ports? Forcing users to buy ugly dongles to go with your beautiful designs? Borking your perfect keyboard for something that has had multiple issues? It comes across as penny wise, pound foolish.

As someone else noted it comes down to how long can they hold off the market shifting completely away from Mac with just "well, it's still got OSX and the trackpad is the best". I've looked at Airs and Surface Books and come away underwhelmed with both. Thus I keep sticking with my 2011 and am starting to look at used 2015's... but that doesn't exactly instill a ton of confidence in Apple as a whole.

 

[kingtj]

As a person working regularly with large image and sound libraries, you've already excluded yourself from "the majority of users". I mean, not saying your observations are invalid in ANY way, shape or form. But you're the type of user companies like Samsung are making faster SSD's like the 970 series for.

I say as this as a person who works in I.T. for a company full of creative types who work in the marketing space. Out of around 100 people we hire, there are less than 10 who actually need a high-spec machine like a new Macbook Pro with dedicated graphics card and at least 16GB of RAM.

I mean, honestly? Most of the really big video content we've got comes from freelancers hired on a project by project basis to capture full resolution video of presentations or speeches at show sites. They record the content and hand it to us on an external hard drive. Typically, it gets copied up to a server or a corporate DropBox folder someplace and sits there, archived, just in case it's ever needed again.

When the time comes where there's a need to clip out a portion of one of those videos and compress it down to manageable sizes? One of the people who DOES have a more capable machine will let it crunch on that and then pass the resulting file on to the rest of the group.

These people really don't need a blazing fast SSD to edit signage in Adobe Creative Suite, or to edit Word templates, or to touch up some photos. And that's before you even consider the daily workflow of the others who perform the general office tasks or work in Finance or H.R. Again, none of them are craving really fast disk read/write times to work in Excel or a financial package or MS Office apps.

Feel free to speak for other users. I know better.

As someone who works with large image and sound libraries the difference is huge.


"You can't even use a new Samsung NVMe type M.2 SSD, for example, in a machine with an older type of SSD socket."

Of course not. That's because most interfaces are PCIe-based. But for those that can use the speed, Apple's custom NVMe interfaces and SSD, along with those in the PC world with the correct M.2 NVME and Samsung drive can realize superb transfer rates.

Interestingly, I've yet to see anyone with the proper interface and Samsung 970 SSD not rave about real-world transfer rates.

I suspect your assessment of the above Samsung SSD (and proper interface) users is their increased 10-15X performance make little difference. Curious...tell me about your personal experience using the above Samsung drive over a common SSD. Makes little to no difference?

 

[citysnaps]

As a person working regularly with large image and sound libraries, you've already excluded yourself from "the majority of users". I mean, not saying your observations are invalid in ANY way, shape or form. But you're the type of user companies like Samsung are making faster SSD's like the 970 series for.

I say as this as a person who works in I.T. for a company full of creative types who work in the marketing space. Out of around 100 people we hire, there are less than 10 who actually need a high-spec machine like a new Macbook Pro with dedicated graphics card and at least 16GB of RAM.

I mean, honestly? Most of the really big video content we've got comes from freelancers hired on a project by project basis to capture full resolution video of presentations or speeches at show sites. They record the content and hand it to us on an external hard drive. Typically, it gets copied up to a server or a corporate DropBox folder someplace and sits there, archived, just in case it's ever needed again.

When the time comes where there's a need to clip out a portion of one of those videos and compress it down to manageable sizes? One of the people who DOES have a more capable machine will let it crunch on that and then pass the resulting file on to the rest of the group.

These people really don't need a blazing fast SSD to edit signage in Adobe Creative Suite, or to edit Word templates, or to touch up some photos. And that's before you even consider the daily workflow of the others who perform the general office tasks or work in Finance or H.R. Again, none of them are craving really fast disk read/write times to work in Excel or a financial package or MS Office apps.

No worries, mate. If 250 to 500 Mbytes/sec SSDs meet your needs, then please stay with them.

Also... Since most (all?) SSDs in current Apple products support rates >2,000 Mbytes/sec, maybe you should give them a heads-up about your assessment of their customer base, and that they're wasting money including such speedy SSDs.

 

[BigBoy2018]

No worries, mate. If 250 to 500 Mbytes/sec SSDs meet your needs, then please stay with them.

Also... Since most (all?) SSDs in current Apple products support rates >2,000 Mbytes/sec, maybe you should give them a heads-up about your assessment of their customer base, and that they're wasting money including such speedy SSDs.

I would love to see a blind test where you used a laptop with a 3000mbs SSD and another duplicate laptop with a 500mbs SSD and see how much you really felt it changed your workflow.
Spoiler alert: It wouldnt

 

[citysnaps]

I would love to see a blind test where you used a laptop with a 3000mbs SSD and another duplicate laptop with a 500mbs SSD and see how much you really felt it changed your workflow.
Spoiler alert: It wouldnt

By all means, stay with slow SSDs as they meet your needs. They certainly don't for me. Glad Apple has moved ahead on this across their whole computer line.

 

[deputy_doofy]

Admittedly Numbers, Pages and Keynote don't offer all the functionality of the Office equivalents but I'd argue most users would get by with using them.

Agreed. Amazing how many people THINK they need "Microsoft Office" and don't.

 

[LotusLord]

Agreed. Amazing how many people THINK they need "Microsoft Office" and don't.

And if they do need Office it is available on both platforms pretty easily.