Surface Pro shows what Macbook could have been, what new Macs need?

[boltjames]

I hope you were joking about that. Windows doesn't have the software I need, thus why I run OS X.

No joke, no joke at all.

In my line of work I need to interact with clients and their Excel files, Word documents, Powerpoint presentations, databases, forecasts, etc, and each have their own nuances and issues when created/opened/edited/saved on OSX vs. Windows. If in your profession OSX is the norm, that's cool, you have what you need and can interact smoothly with the rest of the 7%'ers running that OS.

And if you find this unbelievable, please remember, of the 93% of the world's PC's using Windows, 75% are running Windows 7 and Windows XP. And that's no joke. Compatibility between operating systems and their associated software therefore has to be compared to conditions in 2001 and 2007. That's what's going on in the real world. Outside of Apple, all the products you buy, all the food you eat, all the banks that hold your money, all the restaurants you eat at, all the trains you ride, all the hospitals you are treated at, they're all run in significant numbers on old versions of Windows. It's cool for a student or an artist to eschew Windows and commit to OSX. But here in Big Business America, that's suicidal.

BJ

 

[Nebrie]

Chasing big businesses and their current needs is fine, but the end result is that you become IBM. Mainframe sales have actually grown for most of the last 30 years but we don't talk about them because they've been eclipsed by the PC (which was also initially seen as a toy). Apple clearly has decided that a shrinking legacy market is not a good place to expend it's finite engineering resources.

 

[PDFierro]

No joke, no joke at all.

In my line of work I need to interact with clients and their Excel files, Word documents, Powerpoint presentations, databases, forecasts, etc, and each have their own nuances and issues when created/opened/edited/saved on OSX vs. Windows. If in your profession OSX is the norm, that's cool, you have what you need and can interact smoothly with the rest of the 7%'ers running that OS.

And if you find this unbelievable, please remember, of the 93% of the world's PC's using Windows, 75% are running Windows 7 and Windows XP. And that's no joke. Compatibility between operating systems and their associated software therefore has to be compared to conditions in 2001 and 2007. That's what's going on in the real world. Outside of Apple, all the products you buy, all the food you eat, all the banks that hold your money, all the restaurants you eat at, all the trains you ride, all the hospitals you are treated at, they're all run in significant numbers on old versions of Windows. It's cool for a student or an artist to eschew Windows and commit to OSX. But here in Big Business America, that's suicidal.

BJ

Well you basically said it yourself, for those in a creative profession...Macs are better. I could never switch to Windows.

 

[xPad]

Nailed it. Fact is that mid-high market aren't interested in 2-in-1 or hybrids like Surface. Either they are mostly hard core gamers or professionals who needs a workstation level computer or a students that depend on a extremely reliable device such as a Mac with OS X.

Exactly.

The high end isn't interested in saving money by taking two great products and combining them into one mediocre product. If you have the money to buy a Surface Book, you have the money to buy a MacBook and an iPad.

On the other end, if you need to justify your expenditures more closely, you aren't going to waste your money on a Surface Book. If you're a PC guy, you'll buy a cheaper PC, if you are an Apple guy, you'll buy a MacBook or MacBook Air, and maybe a lower end iPad.

The only people that will want Surface Books are business execs, a handful of artists who really liked the Surface Pro, and a smattering of random nerds.

As a consumer product, it's a complete dud.

 

[jimboutilier]

LOL, You must get up extra early everyday to be so anti Windows

I'm not a Windows hater, but he does have a point. Apple has over a 90% market share for PC's sold over $1000. Its the reverse for machines under $1000, with that going to Windows machines over 90% of the time.

That could be interpreted as "people with money" or "people with a choice" buy Mac's over 90% of the time. But there are many possible interpretations.

I have a foot in both worlds and prefer the reliability and usability of Macs. But in the business world, there is not always that choice. Economically there is not always that choice. And I'm sure there are a lot of folks that just like PC's over Macs. Those and other things give Windows the vast majority of the PC market share.

 

[Barna Biro]

Can someone link us to an article explaining how exactly are Macs considered more *reliable* than PCs? ( I'd like numbers if possible, a proper analysis, not just some random guy stating that *that's how I feel* or *none of my friends ever had any issues* ) We could argue that Apple has better customer service / support than most of its competitors ( maybe even better than all of them ), but are Macs *more reliable*? Really? So that's why the forum is flooded with unhappy people and piles and piles of threads on different bugs / defects / glitches / slowness / wi-fi randomly dropping, etc. I have a feeling that many of you people don't understand the meaning of the word *reliable* or most of you have a very limited definition of the word ( are you by any chance referring to the good old "Macs don't get viruses" jazz? Is that really the *big thing* reliability generally boils down to? Hah... don't even get me started. )

 

[boltjames]

Chasing big businesses and their current needs is fine, but the end result is that you become IBM. Mainframe sales have actually grown for most of the last 30 years but we don't talk about them because they've been eclipsed by the PC (which was also initially seen as a toy). Apple clearly has decided that a shrinking legacy market is not a good place to expend it's finite engineering resources.

Apple has a great and profitable niche and one I'm happy to be a part of. But it's not what the world uses on their desktops. I think that's really the point here if we're talking operating system 'battles'.

To the topic of a convertible notebook, if there was supposed to be one Apple surely would have led the way. They've decided it's not a good product, I happen to agree for a multitude of reasons, and so traveling with an iPad Air II and a Retina MacBook is the best-in-class experience right now and one I am thoroughly enjoying.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Well you basically said it yourself, for those in a creative profession...Macs are better. I could never switch to Windows.

Having owned several Mac's over the years (my wife and kids primary machines) and working with those in the Creative profession for decades, here's a little secret that very few people want to discuss because it isn't as glamorous as the "Windows vs. OSX" war:

It's not about the operating system. It's about the software.

What's an operating system anyway? It's a signon, it's app launching, it's task switching, not much else. MS Word, Excel, Outlook, Photoshop, Illustrator, pick a piece of software, they're identical for Windows and OSX. Nuances? Slight variations? Sure, of course. But in the end, I could sit at a Mac and edit a Powerpoint presentation no differently than if I was on Windows. Mouseclick here, menu location there, might take me 15 minutes to acclimate, otherwise it's the same thing.

When it comes to ultra-portable notebooks, yes, "Macs are better" but that's only because of the thin/light design of the RMB hardware. As for it's operating system, I'm running Windows for 5 months now (three months Windows 8, two months Windows 10) and it's been perfect, not a single crash or blue screen, all the drivers work for Bluetooth and the like, you'd never know my MacBook isn't a native Windows device.

I can switch to OSX on a whim but there's no need to except for FaceTime when I'm in Hong Kong and want to video chat with the kids on their iPhone's and iPad's. Again, that's not a feature of the 'operating system'. That's software, those are app's, if Apple released them for Windows 10 it would be no different than Skype or Dropbox or other agnostic programs.

I don't get the operating system slamming either way; OSX and Windows are the same thing, they're just the white bread onto which the rest of the sandwich is built. You use your OS for the 15 seconds it takes to sign on, after that you're using third-party apps and the OS does what it's supposed to do- fade into the background so you can get to work.

BJ

 

[PDFierro]

It's not about the operating system. It's about the software

Actually, I get so much joy out of using OS X. I don't think I could be productive using Windows. It's a personal thing I guess. And OS X itself has many things that Windows doesn't that really helps me out in the day-to-day. So at least for me, it is about the operating system as much as it is the hardware. Plus the build quality/design of the laptop itself.

 

[boltjames]

Actually, I get so much joy out of using OS X. I don't think I could be productive using Windows. It's a personal thing I guess. And OS X itself has many things that Windows doesn't that really helps me out in the day-to-day. So at least for me, it is about the operating system as much as it is the hardware. Plus the build quality/design of the laptop itself.

Completely understand personal preference, I'm the same way.

But can you give examples of what is great about OSX that you believe Windows 10 doesn't offer? I'm a Windows guy, but obviously I'm using a MacBook for it, wondering what OSX offers that I'm missing out on by sticking to Windows. I understand the app differences (FaceTime, iMessage, AirDrop) but I'm curious about the actual OS stuff.

BJ

 

[cbautis2]

Can someone link us to an article explaining how exactly are Macs considered more *reliable* than PCs? ( I'd like numbers if possible, a proper analysis, not just some random guy stating that *that's how I feel* or *none of my friends ever had any issues* ) We could argue that Apple has better customer service / support than most of its competitors ( maybe even better than all of them ), but are Macs *more reliable*? Really? So that's why the forum is flooded with unhappy people and piles and piles of threads on different bugs / defects / glitches / slowness / wi-fi randomly dropping, etc. I have a feeling that many of you people don't understand the meaning of the word *reliable* or most of you have a very limited definition of the word ( are you by any chance referring to the good old "Macs don't get viruses" jazz? Is that really the *big thing* reliability generally boils down to? Hah... don't even get me started. )

It's not about feeling. It's the fact that OS X does not have the WTF quirks like the computer just randomly BSOD when you click on something, or installing an app then that install gets corrupted and now you have to "system restore", but the **** corrupted Windows directory/registry and now you have to reformat. Also, those drivers are PITA where on Macs there's no need to play around with ****. PCs slow over time even with 16GB RAM and SSD and a lot of apps/drivers are so poorly written that they cause Memory leak then you get the IRQL less equal BSOD. Also, every Windoze update feels like dropping a benign bomb that can suddenly explode and make your OS unstable/glitch, error, etc.

For example: see this: http://news.softpedia.com/news/wind...093266-fails-to-install-for-some-493300.shtml

The **** problem is that Windoze 10 autoupdates those failed updates and those keep failing until your Windoze directory is corrupted then you have to System Restore which works 50/50 while Time machine works 100%.
Then you have to have a degree in Windoze to fix the problem. Apparently this guy is a power user that knows how to fix this update. Guess how many casual users are left alone if the solution that they need to find is as obscure as this:


That's why people pay more for a more reliable OS and device such as a Mac. Only masochists that love to tinker/troubleshoot software will pay for a cutting edge expensive Windoze device.

I NEVER EVER had a software/hardware problem with my 2011 MBA 13 which currently runs Yosemite.

 

[xPad]

Can someone link us to an article explaining how exactly are Macs considered more *reliable* than PCs? ( I'd like numbers if possible, a proper analysis, not just some random guy stating that *that's how I feel* or *none of my friends ever had any issues* ) We could argue that Apple has better customer service / support than most of its competitors ( maybe even better than all of them ), but are Macs *more reliable*? Really? So that's why the forum is flooded with unhappy people and piles and piles of threads on different bugs / defects / glitches / slowness / wi-fi randomly dropping, etc. I have a feeling that many of you people don't understand the meaning of the word *reliable* or most of you have a very limited definition of the word ( are you by any chance referring to the good old "Macs don't get viruses" jazz? Is that really the *big thing* reliability generally boils down to? Hah... don't even get me started. )

Wait, so you want sourced analysis for why Macs are more reliable, but are fine with anecdote as evidence for them not being more reliable?

That type of thinking is part of the problem, and you could have easily solved it with a quick internet search.

Which is what I did on your behalf. Here's an article for 2012: http://www.zdnet.com/article/consumer-reports-apple-still-tops-in-reliability/

What's funny (and all too common "logic" in the tech press) is that their "mixed results" caveat is:

"However, in CR's laptop computer ratings, Apple only edged out the many PC competitors by a couple of percentage points. The worst was Dell with a 12 percent rating compared to Apple's 8 percent."

In other words, Apple's lead is not all good news, because they only lead every company?

Anyway, if you want analysis for more recent data (2012 isn't that old, but things can change quickly) or different methodologies or whatever, by all means look into it further yourself. You may be surprised at what you find.

 

[xPad]

The **** problem is that Windoze 10 autoupdates those failed updates

...

I NEVER EVER had a software/hardware problem with my 2011 MBA 13 which currently runs Yosemite.

Even though it might feel nice, using the term "Windoze" isn't really helpful.

Anyway, on the topic of Windows unreliability and update issues, I've encountered multiple PCs that have failed updates right out of the box. As in, after first boot, going in to run the updates and they fail at some point, requiring manually correcting the problem.

Of all the things you'd expect to work 100%, this should be at the top of the list!

 

[ahostmadsen]

Just pre-ordered a surface book -- for my wife. Microsoft is really doing some interesting things with their hybrid devices and OS. And while Windows 8 was rather bad, with Windows 10 they might have nailed it. Right now I'm carrying around an rMB and an iPad air 2; having one device that could do both would be great. I'll see how the surface book is, and next time I upgrade it might be to Microsoft rather than Apple. Microsoft is the innovator these days.

 

[zhenya]

Just pre-ordered a surface book -- for my wife. Microsoft is really doing some interesting things with their hybrid devices and OS. And while Windows 8 was rather bad, with Windows 10 they might have nailed it. Right now I'm carrying around an rMB and an iPad air 2; having one device that could do both would be great. I'll see how the surface book is, and next time I upgrade it might be to Microsoft rather than Apple. Microsoft is the innovator these days.

This is the problem with the Surface line at the moment, IMO; it can't actually replace my other devices. This is what I wrote earlier today in a different thread:

I of course realize that the iPad is not directly comparable to the Surface line, the problem is that the Surface is supposed to be a device that integrates both work and casual computing into one. It's a great work device. But it's still a poor casual, personal device, so it fails at one of its primary goals. I can't rely on my Surface to have the battery life I want (or even for it to have any battery left when I want to use it) so as I result I still end up carrying my iPad with me. I'm basically fine with the size and weight of the device as a tablet - and enjoy the larger screen - but for casual use reliable battery is paramount to me, and I have yet to see a Windows device ever deliver on this front.

The Surface Book will be even worse on this front if you expect to use it as a tablet replacement - only 1/4 of the batteries are in the screen half of the device, giving it ~3 hours of claimed battery life - which means, in my extensive experience with Surface devices, that it will last about 1.5 hours...

 

[cbautis2]

Completely understand personal preference, I'm the same way.

But can you give examples of what is great about OSX that you believe Windows 10 doesn't offer? I'm a Windows guy, but obviously I'm using a MacBook for it, wondering what OSX offers that I'm missing out on by sticking to Windows. I understand the app differences (FaceTime, iMessage, AirDrop) but I'm curious about the actual OS stuff.

BJ

Believe it or not, it runs best on a Mac. Even M$ can't make their OS reliable on their OWN device.

 

[ahostmadsen]

This is the problem with the Surface line at the moment, IMO; it can't actually replace my other devices. This is what I wrote earlier today in a different thread:

I of course realize that the iPad is not directly comparable to the Surface line, the problem is that the Surface is supposed to be a device that integrates both work and casual computing into one. It's a great work device. But it's still a poor casual, personal device, so it fails at one of its primary goals. I can't rely on my Surface to have the battery life I want (or even for it to have any battery left when I want to use it) so as I result I still end up carrying my iPad with me. I'm basically fine with the size and weight of the device as a tablet - and enjoy the larger screen - but for casual use reliable battery is paramount to me, and I have yet to see a Windows device ever deliver on this front.

The Surface Book will be even worse on this front if you expect to use it as a tablet replacement - only 1/4 of the batteries are in the screen half of the device, giving it ~3 hours of claimed battery life - which means, in my extensive experience with Surface devices, that it will last about 1.5 hours...

Interesting. I wondered about the battery lift without the keyboard. Probably my wife will use it primarily as laptop, secondarily as tablet, so it might be OK . But I could change to a surface Pro [my wife needs to use Windows as some of here software is Windows only, so Apple is not even an option]

As for me, my worry with surface is that perhaps you get a tablet that is not as good as an iPad, and a computer that is not as good as a MacBook. And carrying a rMB+iPad Air 2 is actually lighter than carrying a Surface Book (with Pro it's opposite). So, for now I stay with Apple, but now I can play around with my wife's surface, and see if it's for me next time.

 

[xPad]

Just pre-ordered a surface book -- for my wife. Microsoft is really doing some interesting things with their hybrid devices and OS. And while Windows 8 was rather bad, with Windows 10 they might have nailed it. Right now I'm carrying around an rMB and an iPad air 2; having one device that could do both would be great. I'll see how the surface book is, and next time I upgrade it might be to Microsoft rather than Apple. Microsoft is the innovator these days.

MS is "the innovator"? You're confusing novelty and gimmick for innovation. Innovation is things like the new keyboard mechanism to solve a problem. The new trackpad to enhance an existing technology. 3D touch to add a dimension to an input method.

These are innovation.

Taking two separate things and gluing them together is not innovation. It's evidence of the complete inability to innovate. If they could innovate, they would come up with something new, not just combine things, poorly.

If a Surface Book can replace a MacBook and an iPad for you, then cool, you should get one, but for most of us, a Surface Book is both a sub par notebook and a sub par tablet. Most people would rather have the two best devices instead of just one mediocre device.

 

[Cape Dave]

Even though it might feel nice, using the term "Windoze" isn't really helpful.

Anyway, on the topic of Windows unreliability and update issues, I've encountered multiple PCs that have failed updates right out of the box. As in, after first boot, going in to run the updates and they fail at some point, requiring manually correcting the problem.

Of all the things you'd expect to work 100%, this should be at the top of the list!

Agree. This forum should auto correct that word. Sad that people still feel it is somehow OK to use it.

 

[ahostmadsen]

MS is "the innovator"? You're confusing novelty and gimmick for innovation. Innovation is things like the new keyboard mechanism to solve a problem. The new trackpad to enhance an existing technology. 3D touch to add a dimension to an input method.

These are innovation.

Taking two separate things and gluing them together is not innovation. It's evidence of the complete inability to innovate. If they could innovate, they would come up with something new, not just combine things, poorly.

If a Surface Book can replace a MacBook and an iPad for you, then cool, you should get one, but for most of us, a Surface Book is both a sub par notebook and a sub par tablet. Most people would rather have the two best devices instead of just one mediocre device.

I agree, 3D touch is innovative, and does make me want to get an iPhone 6s.

But Apple's innovations are more like evolution. With Surface [and Windows 8] Microsoft has done something that is disruptive, which is a marker of true innovation.

My worry is exactly that the hybrid device is worse than each component. When I bought my rMB, I considered hard buying a surface to replace both MacBook Air and iPad, but in the end decided I would get something that would be inferior at either task. But next time I might go the other way.

 

[xPad]

Completely understand personal preference, I'm the same way.

But can you give examples of what is great about OSX that you believe Windows 10 doesn't offer? I'm a Windows guy, but obviously I'm using a MacBook for it, wondering what OSX offers that I'm missing out on by sticking to Windows. I understand the app differences (FaceTime, iMessage, AirDrop) but I'm curious about the actual OS stuff.

BJ

Those are actual OS stuff.

Quicklook, Spotlight, a UNIX shell, more powerful drag and drop, Time Machine, easier to type shortcuts, more universal shortcuts, app state saving that allows for less disruptive reboots, less rebooting for updates (especially not being automatically rebooted), better multi workspace support (which is only just now part of Windows as of July). Handoff, iCloud, App Store, dearth of malware.

These are all things that are valuable aspects of OS X.

None of this means you need to value them yourself. ahostmadsen was telling you why he is more productive with OS X than with Windows, not that everyone is more productive with OS X.

You seem to be specifically trying to draw a sharp line between OS and application, which is fair in some contexts, but in this context, it doesn't matter if you want to label FaceTime an app or part of the OS (in this case, it's both), or AirDrop (which actually is completely part of the OS, not just a bundled app). These are things that you gain by running OS X, and don't have to go out of your way to get (like, say, claiming that Photoshop is why OS X is better, or AutoCAD, or something, which really isn't OS-specific).

 

[xPad]

I agree, 3D touch is innovative, and does make me want to get an iPhone 6s.

But Apple's innovations are more like evolution. With Surface [and Windows 8] Microsoft has done something that is disruptive, which is a marker of true innovation.

I understand where you are coming from, but that's "true" innovation is almost always evolution. What you are looking at is novelty, not innovation. Novelties can be innovations, but only if they stick around, and to do that, they need to be better than the thing they are novel from.

Sadly, the Surface isn't better (broadly speaking), just novel. The only thing it does "better" is it's one device instead of two. The problem is that that's more meta. It's not a better notebook or a better tablet, it's it's one device instead of two, which, all else remaining equal, is usually considered better.

But all else isn't equal.

My worry is exactly that the hybrid device is worse than each component. When I bought my rMB, I considered hard buying a surface to replace both MacBook Air and iPad, but in the end decided I would get something that would be inferior at either task. But next time I might go the other way.

You gotta go with what works best for you. Even though I'm saying it's not better in general (and I think you agree with me), that doesn't mean it can't be better in specific circumstances. You may be in such a circumstance.

 

[xPad]

Agree. This forum should auto correct that word. Sad that people still feel it is somehow OK to use it.

Honestly, it's one of the least problematic bad mannerism that plagues Apple-centric sites, it just happens to be one of the easiest to define.

 

[zhenya]

MS is "the innovator"? You're confusing novelty and gimmick for innovation. Innovation is things like the new keyboard mechanism to solve a problem. The new trackpad to enhance an existing technology. 3D touch to add a dimension to an input method.

These are innovation.

Taking two separate things and gluing them together is not innovation. It's evidence of the complete inability to innovate. If they could innovate, they would come up with something new, not just combine things, poorly.

If a Surface Book can replace a MacBook and an iPad for you, then cool, you should get one, but for most of us, a Surface Book is both a sub par notebook and a sub par tablet. Most people would rather have the two best devices instead of just one mediocre device.

If you don't think the Surface Book has some good innovation in it, you need to look closer. A hinge that solves the fundamental imbalance of having the computer guts in the screen in hybrid devices. A latch mechanism triggered by a special alloy metal wire that contracts when electrified. A system that can switch between the internal and external GPU's on the fly. A (sort-of) water-cooled heat sink on the Surface Pro.

There is a lot of really interesting innovation in these products. Don't put your blinders on.

 

[Barna Biro]

@cbautis2: It sounds like you had a really rough time with PCs. I'm quite sure we can find plenty of Mac owners who could tell us about similarly unpleasant experiences with Macs ( beachball of death, etc. ). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend of bash either ( I - a software engineer by profession - have used PCs most of my life, but I've switched to Macs 6-7 years ago and I was seemingly lucky enough to never have had any outstanding issues with either - except the occasional manufacturing / hardware problems ), faulty crap can ( did and will most likely ) happen in both camps, Microsoft might indeed have a worse history, but it's not as if Apple never ****ed up ( and quite seriously ) in the past with their software updates or even hardware. Then again, Microsoft sold significantly more units than Apple... it's kinda like saying ( I'm sure you've heard this before ): "statistically, airplanes are safer than cars". While that statement might be true, it's quite simplistic and naive because it ignores many, many factors when comparing the two categories.

@xPad: Not sure which part of my post wan't clear, but I do invite you to read it again. Thanks for posting that link though, not to be rude, but I'll have to disregard it. Why? Because it's an amateurish and ******** article where one random little guy throws around with some percentages saying that those results are based on some survey we know nothing about. How many people have participated, what was the number of Apple product owners, Dell product owners, etc.? Even so, these "tech surveys" conducted by some random little guys are quite often extremely limited... yet, they like rushing to conclusions and others are happy to assimilate this new, wonderful and quite limited information that is given to them.

Reality is that the Surface Book is an interesting piece of hardware. It happens to come equipped with Windows, so what? Put Linux on it... heck, even try running OSX on it ( who knows, you might be pleasantly surprised ). People talking about reliability should first understand that the ******** they are trying to preach is purely about "software vs software" and most of the time, they don't even know what they are talking about... they can only relate to personal experience or some random ******** they might have heard / read who knows where ( a *very reliable* source of course ). Hilarious...