How did Microsoft screw this up? - Surface Pro X (SQ2) vs M1 Macbook Air

[RILEYISMYNAME]

Windows on Arm laptops have been out for years now - so how does Microsoft's flagship Arm device, the Surface Pro X SQ2, measure up to Apple's arm-powered M1 Macbook Air? 

 

 

 

Buy Apple Macbook Air M1

On Amazon (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/HIu91

On Best Buy (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/zvrNBv

On B&H (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/TynL

 

Buy Surface Pro X SQ2 :

On Microsoft Store (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/O60z

 

[WhitetailAni]

I'm curious how they compare in looks.

Based on the thumbnail, the SQ2 looks like it has a cloth shell?

[Dutch_Master]

First desktop OS on ARM?

 

Linux wants to know your location

[s_k]

Running Windows better in a VM on MacOS than natively on the more expensive surface pro. That's honestly shocking. I bought an M1 Mac because I am just so impressed. I don't even like MacOS, so this is good news

[bit]

wow i'm totally shocked i tell you, shocked. after the amazingly insane performance of the last surface x, who could've seen this coming?

[Radium_Angel]

Microsoft screwed this up for the same reasons Kodak and Polaroid are now mere footnotes in the photography world.

Fear of change and failure to adapt.

 

Rather than embrace new technology, MS has always been behind the curve, terrified of eating into their main revenue sources of Office and Windows. 

The list of "interesting" tech from MS that has failed, is almost as long as Google's graveyard of tech.

 

Under Balmer (IIRC) most of MS spent fighting among its internal teams, always having to bow to the Windows and Office teams for recognition and resources. It was called "the lost decade" and everything about the Surface Pro X only further serves to reinforce the viewpoint that they view anything not x86 and Windows/Office, as suspect.

 

It's no wonder it runs like crap, it's a token gesture to say they tried. Not enough to cannibalize sales of their main products, but juuust enough to say "Look! we exist here too!"

[Amias]

Microsoft doesn't deserve its position in this market anymore.

 

Oh well ... I look forward to our Apple everything future.

[SenKa]

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Red :)]

big oof, MS

big oof

[rand_althor_cometh]

There's a version of parallels that runs the windows in a VM much better on the M1 than the VM shown, at least based on some benchmarks I have seen. 

 

This means that the comparison plot could have been even more ridiculous. You guys should sign up for the tech review version and give it a try for the lulz. See if we can run Windows apps 2x better than an expensive surface pro on the fanless MacBook Air.

[rand_althor_cometh]

1 hour ago, kedstar99 said:

The surface pro X is what the first gen ipad is to iOS. It's comparison should be done against the ipad. It is basically can I run OneNote, Office and a Browser on a surface pro x form factor with exceptional mobile battery life. Would you say lightroom, blender and cinebench are appropriate benchmarks for ipad gen 1?

ipad gen 1 came out 10 years ago. You really want to compare a $1500+ machine to a 10 year old one? Or is your point that Microsoft is years behind?

 

Most of the programs you can run on current gen top end iPad you cannot even run on the this $1500+ machine and the ones that you can seem to run worse. Given that the m1 MacBook Air isn't 2-10x better than the current top tier iPads.

 

Geekbench5 score for top iPad is around 4600 and for M1 MacBook Air is around 6900 according to Tom's Hardware. So even a last-gen iPad is better than the SQ2. Don't get me wrong, I actually like the usability of the Microsoft's surface devices, but there is no contest.

[Luscious]

I wouldn't say the Surface RT was that bad - Microsoft were ahead of the curve with the device and they did face massive scrutiny at the time. It was the pundits glorifying tablets and snubbing netbooks that killed the device off, along with any hope of it maturing further.

 

That said, the Surface RT did have it's successor - the Surface Go. Pretty much the same hardware footprint but with significantly more horsepower under the hood, a full desktop OS this time, and far greater expandability with docks/ports and other accessories. I've had mine for a few years now. Fits right in between those use cases where a larger laptop is overkill and a smartphone OS based tablet just doesn't cut it.

[rand_althor_cometh]

5 minutes ago, kedstar99 said:

If I was a Uni student wanting to write notes, run my supervisors java applets what option do I pick? The iPad can't do that, the macbook doesn't have pen support or remote connectivity.

 

If I was working for a company, they have a proprietary plugin that checks my office documents for compliance. The ipad won't do that, the macbook won't have the pen, remote connectivity or battery life.

 

If I was a coder wanting to run vscode, sign my company documents, draw graphs. The surface can fit my niche, which apple product can do all of the above?

 

If I have any form of legacy software that is outside of Apple's ecosystem, what does it matter what performance the macbook has. The surface pro/surface pro X running it is better than not at all.

 

Note that there is a majority shit tonne of prototyping/rough software that will be outside of Apple's ecosystem.

This is not a Mac vs Windows argument. Please don't take it that way. It's really dumb. And a billion companies can work with Mac, Linux, or other OS's. No problem. There are virtually no solutions that don't exist on a multi-OS, never mind non-Windows machines. And that is a good thing. Finally, if you are worried, just run parallels and get better performance than the Surface while running Windows.

All of that is beside the point though. Microsoft is clearly behind in the arm-powered or non-X86 computer race despite their long-running head start. They have been massively out maneuvered by Apple. There is no denying it.

 

Doesn't make buying a Surface a bad purchase or something. Just don't deny reality or whine about comparison to 10 year old iPads...

 

[Laborant]

The Surface Pro X has its competitors within the very own company. Why should someone buy a Surface Pro X when the regular Surface Pro comes with many advantages and very few disadvantages? (Battery Life and Fan Noise).

Just because Apple has been able to pull this transition off after years of gaining experience in SoC design, optimizing the very own OS to the very own SoC without needing to support 3rd party hardware manufacturers, doesn't mean that Microsoft can suddenly... do magic.

I guess, Microsoft would LOVE it, when Qualcomm would have a Snapdragon that could compete with the Apple M1. I guess, they would LOVE being able to add a deeper level of integration. I guess, they would LOVE making a certain accelerator family standard for the operating system. But they can't. They briefly started with SoC development (on datacentres, if the rumours are true) and need to keep the hardware market open to not piss off their direct customers.

I expect apple to pull ahead even further.

[captain_to_fire]

a Mac now gives a better value for your money than a Windows 10 tablet.

[fulminemizzega]

For many years it's been said that ARM architecture would be used also in laptops and servers, and Apple M1 Macbooks could be one major "milestone" reached (I'm using quotes because M1 uses only ARM ISA, not ARM IP). I like to think that there is yet another segment, the desktop.

Let's say that in a few years, x86 CPUs will be not as common as today in those segments and sales volume will be much smaller than today. This could mean that x86 CPUs will be too expensive for consumers.

Then, what kind of chips will be left for the desktop (if it still exists)? Cut down server CPUs (something like threadripper?), or "bottom of the barrel" mobile silicon?

...maybe the only difference is going to be soldered CPUs even there (and a new huge pile of software issues).

[Dark.314]

If Apple is equipping Ipads with M1 chips that run MacOS in their laptops, why don't they let us use MacOS on the Ipad? Apple has always been ahead of it time in terms of hardware. But in terms of software, between the surface and Ipad, The Surface wins the game. Yes, of course you can run windows on the Ipad using a virtual machine. But, why would you buy a device on which you have to scratch your heads to install the firmware you want? Don't get me wrong. I am not a microsoft fanboy but I think that the surface has a lot of potential too. And it deserves a place int hem market too

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, Dark.314 said:

If Apple is equipping Ipads with M1 chips that run MacOS in their laptops, why don't they let us use MacOS on the Ipad? Apple has always been ahead of it time in terms of hardware. But in terms of software, between the surface and Ipad, The Surface wins the game. Yes, of course you can run windows on the Ipad using a virtual machine. But, why would you buy a device on which you have to scratch your heads to install the firmware you want? Don't get me wrong. I am not a microsoft fanboy but I think that the surface has a lot of potential too. And it deserves a place int hem market too

This partly touches on what Benji said, but I'll say the primary reason is likely the intended software experience.

 

MacOS isn't optimized for touch. There are a few things that are theoretically more touch-friendly in Big Sur (and now Monterey), but it's still largely intended for a mouse and keyboard. You'd have to buy a Magic Keyboard or a similar keyboard/trackpad combo just to avoid going bonkers. Apple has also repeatedly said it doesn't like touchscreens on Macs, as that would require that you constantly raise your hand to perform tasks.

 

Apple wants you to use iPadOS, as that software is built for touch from the ground up. I wouldn't say that even iPadOS 15 is enough for what highly demanding pros want in terms of interface, but it's also much, much better suited to touch input than macOS is. You can buy only the iPad Pro by itself and still feel like you can do everything the device can handle.

 

I'd argue that the Surface line illustrates the problem. The Surface Pro/Go lines are fine machines, but buying the keyboard attachment is virtually mandatory given that using Windows with touch-only input is... painful. I suspect Microsoft only sells Surface tablets without keyboards in order to please business customers that don't need keyboards in their deployments. And that's part of why the Surface line has never seriously threatened the iPad in terms of sales. They're basically laptops with optional keyboards, and many people in the market for laptops would just buy a laptop.

[TargetDron3]

On 1/5/2021 at 12:46 PM, Radium_Angel said:

Microsoft screwed this up for the same reasons Kodak and Polaroid are now mere footnotes in the photography world.

Fear of change and failure to adapt.

 

Rather than embrace new technology, MS has always been behind the curve, terrified of eating into their main revenue sources of Office and Windows. 

The list of "interesting" tech from MS that has failed, is almost as long as Google's graveyard of tech.

 

Under Balmer (IIRC) most of MS spent fighting among its internal teams, always having to bow to the Windows and Office teams for recognition and resources. It was called "the lost decade" and everything about the Surface Pro X only further serves to reinforce the viewpoint that they view anything not x86 and Windows/Office, as suspect.

 

It's no wonder it runs like crap, it's a token gesture to say they tried. Not enough to cannibalize sales of their main products, but juuust enough to say "Look! we exist here too!"

Microsoft makes it's main source of income on business sales, not consumer sales.  Windows OS for businesses, Office applications and Server OSes are their main profit drivers.  Next would be cloud offerings, which is gaining steam with the 365 suite and related offerings such as OneDrive, Azure, etc.  Selling a notebook/tablet is just a game for them.  Microsoft could just not sell hardware and they would be ok.  The problem Microsoft really has is it wants to be Apple because Apple has the "image", but Microsoft is how business gets done and they have a captive audience.  Large businesses aren't going to switch from Microsoft unless Microsoft does something drastic.  If they do something drastic and businesses determine it's cheaper to go with another vendor, ie Apple or Chromebooks/google services, Microsoft will be done.  They can't change to much.  They have to do it little by little to give businesses chances to slowly migrate.  

[da na]

4 hours ago, Dark.314 said:

If Apple is equipping Ipads with M1 chips that run MacOS in their laptops, why don't they let us use MacOS on the Ipad?

Because no one would buy Macs if an ipad was literally just a mac with a touchscreen

[hishnash]

17 hours ago, Mel0nMan said:

Because no one would buy Macs if an ipad was literally just a mac with a touchscreen

No not really true, using the iPad as a mac is not that great a UX (from a form factor perspective). Due to being a tablet first all the internals (including battery) are in the screen so when you provide a keyboard the keyboard need to have extra weight (at the moment this is just lumps of led not even extra battery) meaning if you are mostly using the device as a keyboard attached laptop an iPad with a keyboard will weight more than a MBA. Furthermore the high refresh rate screen and the higher pixel density of the screen will meant he battery life when running macOS (compered to the MBA) will be much worse.  Also just have 1 port is really not good.