iFixIt Gives Surface Laptop Lowest-Possible Score (0 of 10)

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, NZLaurence said:

Nothing on the laptop is expected to ware out over its predicted three year life. Even the battery won't take a huge hit in that time. If something does go wrong, warranty is there to cover you. Buy the extended Microsoft warranty, or don't if you live in a country that has good consumer protection. 

So what you're saying is that when you buy a Surface, you should expect to throw it out after 3 years? Because that's kind of what your post sounds like, and that's crazy for something this expensive.

By the way, even in countries with good consumer protection, battery wear is considered to be normal and you won't get a replacement for that.

 

4 hours ago, NZLaurence said:

Have you actually picked one up? The use of glue and tight solid parts makes them feel extremely solid and high quality.

Nothing screams "high quality" quite as superglue.

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

No one batters an eyelid when you tell them your 4 year old $1000 ipad is no longer supported, they just tell you to get over it and update to a new one because it's past it's useful life and is now obsolete.

The iPads most people buy do not cost 1000 dollars. The new iPad Pro costs 650 dollars for the 64GB model.

650 to 1000 is a VERY big difference. The 128GB iPad (non-pro) is 430 dollars which is an even bigger difference.

It's a bit easier to justify throwing a 430 dollar device away after 4 years than it is to throw away a 1000 dollar device after the same amount of time.

But I think the price for the iPad Pro is a hard pill to swallow too. Also, have you not seen the thread about Apple dropping 64 bit support? There are definitely people upset about it, so I don't know where you get "no one batters an eyelid" from.

[Brennan Price]

4 hours ago, Scruffy90 said:

This is what every company seems to be doing now a days

 

Haha yes that's true. It's almost as if it has become the standard for major companies, they just want the money and don't actually care about their customers and market anymore

[suicidalfranco]

the most premium material ever available since 1964, people have been scratching for the past 50 years doing nothing till now

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So what you're saying is that when you buy a Surface, you should expect to throw it out after 3 years? Because that's kind of what your post sounds like, and that's crazy for something this expensive.

By the way, even in countries with good consumer protection, battery wear is considered to be normal and you won't get a replacement for that.

 

Nothing screams "high quality" quite as superglue.

 

 

The iPads most people buy do not cost 1000 dollars. The new iPad Pro costs 650 dollars for the 64GB model.

650 to 1000 is a VERY big difference. The 128GB iPad (non-pro) is 430 dollars which is an even bigger difference.

It's a bit easier to justify throwing a 430 dollar device away after 4 years than it is to throw away a 1000 dollar device after the same amount of time.

But I think the price for the iPad Pro is a hard pill to swallow too. Also, have you not seen the thread about Apple dropping 64 bit support? There are definitely people upset about it, so I don't know where you get "no one batters an eyelid" from.

I did pay $996 for our first Ipad. And:

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

That's pretty much some of the rhetoric on this forum,  Just check the IOS devices 64 bit only getting the latest updates thread for similar comments about not holding on to obsolete technology (only talking 4 years old too).

First iteration ipad in Australia was $996,  current basic model (not mini) with 128Gb and cell is $778.  You can certainly get cheaper, the base model with 32G and no cell is $468.

 

 

 

Maybe "no one batters an eyelid" was an overstatement.     My point was more that there are two competing opinions and I was juxtaposing the group who think price should dictate the point of obsolescence to those who think age/support does.   Given I have a device that meets both criteria, it gets tiring to see people question why I would even pay that much for an ipad (deflecting from the facts at hand, how much I paid reflects the features I needed at the time) and people telling me it's 4 years old so past it's usable life expectancy anyway.  

 

Transferring ideology this to the current thread you have people saying it doesn't need to be upgradeable because it will be obsolete by the time you need to and those who say if you pay $1000 for a device you should be able to upgrade it so it lasts longer than 4 years. 

 

Personally the ipad is the only thing I have been annoyed that it became obsolete before it showed any signs of slowing down, basically I just got up one morning and the OS was out of date and I could no longer install even basic apps.

 

 

[linkboy]

I hate stuff like this. It's one of the biggest reasons why I stopped buying Apple's laptop's, even though I love MacOS. I just flat refuse to buy a computer that I can't upgrade the HDD, RAM or replace the battery.

 

With how efficient computers are getting today, a machine from 3/4 years ago can still be a solid machine for the vast majority of people. A 3rd/4th generation Intel Core chip is a fantastic machine for someone who doesn't need demanding specs, and can be picked up for cheap. 

[Misanthrope]

5 hours ago, NZLaurence said:

You do realise the whole base is aluminum and that half that glue you are talking about is to attach the thermal pads to the metal base for heat displacement.

Fair enough, perhaps this has more to do with the fact that I already think that top keyboard material look cheap as shit and this was before I ever saw it bend and get ruined like that on the video.

 

Quote

On upgrades, when was the last time you ever upgraded a laptop. (And don't say RAM as there is no difference between buying a fully load laptop with ram sticks or solder on.) Nobody I have ever heard of buys a ultra book to upgrade it.

 

Again if this is a sticking point, buy something else. I will be happily recommending these to people that want windows ultrabooks. At least while they have the free windows pro upgrade.

Actually this is quite a common upgrade for Apple laptops since they charge so fucking much for minor ram and storage upgrades sometimes. So overall whenever it's done often or rarely doesn't takes away from the fact that it can be done and that there's no good reason for Microsoft to actively block it other than to sell the more expensive products. Again a page straight out of the Apple book to jam the more expensive models up our asses.

[suicidalfranco]

27 minutes ago, linkboy said:

I hate stuff like this. It's one of the biggest reasons why I stopped buying Apple's laptop's, even though I love MacOS. I just flat refuse to buy a computer that I can't upgrade the HDD, RAM or replace the battery.

 

With how efficient computers are getting today, a machine from 3/4 years ago can still be a solid machine for the vast majority of people. A 3rd/4th generation Intel Core chip is a fantastic machine for someone who doesn't need demanding specs, and can be picked up for cheap. 

Reason why i'll be stuck with my 2012 non retina MBP for a looooooong time, just going to replace the disc drive with another SSD as a last investment on it

[linkboy]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

Reason why i'll be stuck with my 2012 non retina MBP for a looooooong time, just going to replace the disc drive with another SSD as a last investment on it

That's essentially what I did last month. Bought a HP Elitebook for $385 with these specs, upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 16GB, replaced the HDD with a 500GB SSD and a 2TB HDD (it's got two SATA drive bays).

 

This machine does everything that I need it to. It's mostly going to be a school laptop, with light gaming (older PC games).  

[suicidalfranco]

2 minutes ago, linkboy said:

That's essentially what I did last month. Bought a HP Elitebook for $385 with these specs, upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 16GB, replaced the HDD with a 500GB SSD and a 2TB HDD (it's got two SATA drive bays).

 

This machine does everything that I need it to. It's mostly going to be a school laptop, with light gaming (older PC games).  

i'm going double SSD on mine so that i can put them in raid 0 and hopefully get a decent further boost in read/write speeds compared to my initial default 500GB hard disk :P.

[Huang420BlazeIt]

What I really hate about new Surface is lack of IO. I would love Thunderbolt 3.0 and at least USB 3.1 C. 

[JupiteL]

I've seen sub $200 chinese laptops before, and they weren't using as much glue as this thousand dollar laptop.

[Hiitchy]

11 minutes ago, Huang420BlazeIt said:

What I really hate about new Surface is lack of IO. I would love Thunderbolt 3.0 and at least USB 3.1 C. 

I used to own a Surface Pro 3, scrapped it 6 months later for that exact reason. I just decided that a thinner laptop with those connections was a better bet than a glorified tablet without them.

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

So what you're saying is that when you buy a Surface, you should expect to throw it out after 3 years? Because that's kind of what your post sounds like, and that's crazy for something this expensive.

By the way, even in countries with good consumer protection, battery wear is considered to be normal and you won't get a replacement for that.

 

Nothing screams "high quality" quite as superglue.

 

 

The iPads most people buy do not cost 1000 dollars. The new iPad Pro costs 650 dollars for the 64GB model.

650 to 1000 is a VERY big difference. The 128GB iPad (non-pro) is 430 dollars which is an even bigger difference.

It's a bit easier to justify throwing a 430 dollar device away after 4 years than it is to throw away a 1000 dollar device after the same amount of time.

But I think the price for the iPad Pro is a hard pill to swallow too. Also, have you not seen the thread about Apple dropping 64 bit support? There are definitely people upset about it, so I don't know where you get "no one batters an eyelid" from.

I'm still finding it funny that 4-5 years ago an equivalent (and arguably better tablet due to its sheer amount of I/O ports & then unique design) Asus Transformer Prime cost far less for the 64GB model than the iPad2 32GB. Also, I think you mean Apple droping 32bit support.

[Huang420BlazeIt]

19 minutes ago, Hiitchy said:

I used to own a Surface Pro 3, scrapped it 6 months later for that exact reason. I just decided that a thinner laptop with those connections was a better bet than a glorified tablet without them.

I'm using now Surface Pro 4. Well I'm happy with it but with Thunderbolt 3 I would connect my GTX 1080 and 1440p 144Hz screen via mini dp and play games. I would not need big PC. 

I guess Microsoft after good SP4 series made nothing new in this series. I mean new Kaby lake? It's not an upgrade

[GoodBytes]

22 minutes ago, Huang420BlazeIt said:

I'm using now Surface Pro 4. Well I'm happy with it but with Thunderbolt 3 I would connect my GTX 1080 and 1440p 144Hz screen via mini dp and play games. I would not need big PC. 

I guess Microsoft after good SP4 series made nothing new in this series. I mean new Kaby lake? It's not an upgrade

Ignoring performance required for a moment, Thunderbolt 3 will not help you. You need a GPU that is compatible with it. If your intel integrated graphics is limited to 800x600 at 30Hz with 16 colors, you can have fiber optics connection, it won't get you a higher resolution or refresh-rate or more colors.

[Jito463]

10 hours ago, NZLaurence said:

Again if you are complaining about not being able to take it apart, you are not the target audience. Buy something else.

 

Would I buy one? No. Because I thing the surface pro is a better fit for me. Would I suggest one to a client as a ultra book? Yes.

Obviously I'm not the target audience, that doesn't mean I can't give my opinion on it.

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

To the "you can't upgrade" arguments,  No one batters an eyelid when you tell them your 4 year old $1000 ipad is no longer supported, they just tell you to get over it and update to a new one because it's past it's useful life and is now obsolete.   This product is no different. It's a $1000 single cycle product.  When it gets slow and can't keep up with the advances in software you put it in the wardrobe and buy a new one. 

I would never buy a $1,000 tablet, either.  If I'm spending that much for a product, I expect it to last far more than 3-4 years.  Heck, I still have my Samsung Blackjack II (even though it's not used as a phone anymore, though I have switched back to it in a couple of emergency situations), and I paid far less than that for it.

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Transferring ideology this to the current thread you have people saying it doesn't need to be upgradeable because it will be obsolete by the time you need to and those who say if you pay $1000 for a device you should be able to upgrade it so it lasts longer than 4 years. 

Even if I accepted your premise, $1,000 isn't the highest price, it's the minimum price of one of these "laptops".  They go up to $2,199, yet are still glued together just the same.  You want to argue that a part more than $2,000 should only last 3 years?  Over $700/year is perfectly fine with you?

 

*EDIT*

Corrected for top configuration price

[Scruffy90]

5 hours ago, Brennan_Price said:

Haha yes that's true. It's almost as if it has become the standard for major companies, they just want the money and don't actually care about their customers and market anymore

Its always been about the money. Now they simply found a way to get more of it. At the lower end, get a sealed machine. At the higher end, pay more for the ability to repair some aspects of your laptop.

 

 

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Scruffy90 said:

Its always been about the money. Now they simply found a way to get more of it. At the lower end, get a sealed machine. At the higher end, pay more for the ability to repair some aspects of your laptop.

 

 

But how can it be about the money when warranty repairs exist. This is a shot in the foot to microsoft, not the consumer. If they wanted more money they wouldnt make it more time consuming to repair and reducing the amount of devices they can repair per day and if the repair is done under warranty then that is money and time they are throwing out. 

 

This was done for form factor not to make a profit on.

[Scruffy90]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

But how can it be about the money when warranty repairs exist. This is a shot in the foot to microsoft, not the consumer. If they wanted more money they wouldnt make it more time consuming to repair and reducing the amount of devices they can repair per day and if the repair is done under warranty then that is money and time they are throwing out. 

 

This was done for form factor not to make a profit on.

For the Surface pro (now laptop) line, I dont believe they repair the devices since I believe all of the Surface Pro's are glued shut. To my understanding, and according to the techs who dealt with my Surface Pro 1 and 4 at MS, instead of repairing the product if it has a hardware issue, they simply replace them. When my Surface Pro 4 had hardware issues, all they did was display the blue screen and gave me a replacement when they saw it was a hardware issue related bluescreen. 

[79wjd]

21 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

For the Surface pro (now laptop) line, I dont believe they repair the devices since I believe all of the Surface Pro's are glued shut. To my understanding, and according to the techs who dealt with my Surface Pro 1 and 4 at MS, instead of repairing the product if it has a hardware issue, they simply replace them. When my Surface Pro 4 had hardware issues, all they did was display the blue screen and gave me a replacement when they saw it was a hardware issue related bluescreen. 

Presumably they don't just throw out the warrantied device though --presumably someone has to take it apart and scavenge good parts and/or refurbish the whole device depending on the issue. 

[Scruffy90]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Presumably they don't just throw out the warrantied device though --presumably someone has to take it apart and scavenge good parts and/or refurbish the whole device depending on the issue. 

Entirely possible. I just know that for the consumer, they don't fix anything, it's almost always automatic replacement. 

[Okjoek]

I think it's just a bad product, plain and simple.

[kaiju_wars]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

First iteration ipad in Australia was $996,  current basic model (not mini) with 128Gb and cell is $778.  You can certainly get cheaper, the base model with 32G and no cell is $468.

 

 

Damn, y'all get handled in pricing in Australia.

But your $1000 comment doesn't hold much weight with Apple tablets here in the US, cause they don't cost $1000.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Obviously I'm not the target audience, that doesn't mean I can't give my opinion on it.

I would never buy a $1,000 tablet, either.  If I'm spending that much for a product, I expect it to last far more than 3-4 years.  Heck, I still have my Samsung Blackjack II (even though it's not used as a phone anymore, though I have switched back to it in a couple of emergency situations), and I paid far less than that for it.

Even if I accepted your premise, $1,000 isn't the highest price, it's the minimum price of one of these "laptops".  They go up to $2,199, yet are still glued together just the same.  You want to argue that a part more than $2,000 should only last 3 years?  Over $700/year is perfectly fine with you?

 

*EDIT*

Corrected for top configuration price

 

Unfortunately if you need the ipad ecosystem (education) and you want a minimum feature set you have to pay for it.  And $1000 is not the most expensive Ipad either, I did qualify earlier that the entry level ipad is $468, but you could pay a lot more if you wanted faster processor, bigger screen, etc. Upto $1848 (for a fucking tablet!).

 

My point is not whether the initial purchase is good value or not (that is mostly end use specific), just that some people were actually saying 4-5 years is an acceptable life cycle for an ipad so get over it, but in this thread the opposite is being said,  you can't keep it alive with upgrades therefore this is not acceptable. 

 

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

I did pay $996 for our first Ipad. And:

 

Maybe "no one batters an eyelid" was an overstatement.     My point was more that there are two competing opinions and I was juxtaposing the group who think price should dictate the point of obsolescence to those who think age/support does.   Given I have a device that meets both criteria, it gets tiring to see people question why I would even pay that much for an ipad (deflecting from the facts at hand, how much I paid reflects the features I needed at the time) and people telling me it's 4 years old so past it's usable life expectancy anyway.  

 

Transferring ideology this to the current thread you have people saying it doesn't need to be upgradeable because it will be obsolete by the time you need to and those who say if you pay $1000 for a device you should be able to upgrade it so it lasts longer than 4 years. 

 

Personally the ipad is the only thing I have been annoyed that it became obsolete before it showed any signs of slowing down, basically I just got up one morning and the OS was out of date and I could no longer install even basic apps.

 

 

 

I think we probably agree more than disagree here,  but to be clear, price isn't the only consideration.   neither is upgradability, if your device dies in obsolescence because genuine technology evolution has meant it can no longer can function (like a 8 year old android phone for example) then regardless of whether it was a $50 device or a $1500 device, it's demise is to be expected. .  All I am saying here is if you spend $1000 even $2000 on one of these then the same rules apply, if it dies a natural death in obsolescence, then the fact it can't be upgraded is moot, because  if the mainboard or CPU can't be replaced to make it function with whatever software might be necessary in X years time then the ability to replace the ssd and ram is makes no difference. 

 

EDIT: maybe it's easier if I just say this:  People are arguing that the price of this laptop is too much for something that can't be upgraded in X years.  I am saying that $1000 for an Ipad that can't be upgrade in the same time frame is also too much.  However many of the response i got for complaining about the ipad are opposite to many of the responses about this device.    

 

[GoodBytes]

The price is expensive, but you guys need to remember, Microsoft has done "just a laptop", because people asked them to do, and they said that.

Problem is:

• Microsoft doesn't want to compete against the OEMs. Windows 10 S is another obstacles that they put to themselves.
• Microsoft never attended to sell any of its product hugely. This includes the Surface Pro. The fact that their products sold well is a testament to the lack of innovation in the PC market. If the Surface Laptop sales OK, it is enough to show how people seek better systems out of their OEMs. You don't have to look far for a better deal: Dell XPS 13. It is on every big store shelves consumers can't miss it. (Not to mention that while Microsoft Surface team are incredible at making good looking hardware, and manage to fit what was thought to be impossible in it (assuming they want to), their firmware skill needs works. Every Surface product have been released with a set of issues. Surface Laptop has as well. Just recently it have been reported that the system randomly goes to hibernation as you are using it for some)
• Microsoft has said since day 1, that they want OEMs to copy them.
• As I said in the past, the high price, and large margin that Microsoft makes, is what makes them keep going and justify these low market share systems. Each Surface systems (beside the Laptop.. although you can claim the 3:2 aspect ratio, and fabric palm rest is one) are experimentation. Risky moves. Imagine you are Dell, HP, ASUS, or whatever, and the Surface lines of system doesn't exists. Would you make a Surface Pro 1? How about Surface Studio? Or the Surface Book? The Pro 1 was said by a mass amount of people on how idiotic it was. It just looked better against Surface RT. But still seen as dump. People didn't see the value of the pen, people didn't see the point of this heavy tablet.. sure it runs Windows, but it throttled when pushed for several minutes continuously.. so no gaming. Poor battery life for the price. Sure it is impressive how much power they mange to fit inside, while old style convertible system could barely fit something that is better than an insult to humanity. But that is about it. Yet it shine, and now Dell, Samsung, Lenovo and HP all have systems like it, and all pushed the enveloped in some way. Remember the cool Dell XPS 12 with the screen that flip... pretty neat. Not perfect, but at least they experimented. Lenovo did the Yoga hinge thing, HP manage to exchange the Core i series with a Core M and put more ports on their Surface like device. Now, we have Eve V.

In other words, a person who buy a Surface Laptop REALLY wants a Surface Laptop. They have their reason to skip all the competitors, sacrifice ports, face the downside of not being able to service anything, to get just that.