A lot of the problems are also with the Windows OS interactions. Imagine taking your MBP and shrinking the screen down to 8" (because the native resolution on the Surface has so many pixels and things don't work well if you resize). But since Windows 10 wasn't well tailored for the mobile form factor a lot of the touch aspects don't play along well -- it really wants you to use a multi button mouse or trackpad. So what happens? You end up reverting to the keyboard and trackpad all the time. You might as well use a laptop instead with its fine keyboard. The Surface's trackpad leaves much to be desired when compared to the one on any Mac with multi touch.
I have had several times where I used the pen on the Surface. The UI was so tiny that fingers were useless and repeatedly pinching/spreading got very unproductive. I've never yearned for a pen on an iPad nor a Mac (I have not used the iPad Pro).
While MacOS handles high DPI screens much better than Windows 10 it does work okay (ignoring the Java JVM bug which is fixable).
The pen is provided so you can use desktop apps in tablet mode and for taking notes and drawing.
Thank you to those of you who shared your experience with the Surface!
My take-aways from what I've read here, combined with my own experiences with Apple devices and the desktop version of Microsoft's touch, are:
- Not surprisingly, there's no consensus. Some people feel that the compromises make the Surface unsuitable for both laptop and tablet applications, while others feel that the convenience of having some of the benefits of both in a single device is better than having to split their work between two devices. I say "not surprisingly" because even Apple users argue over the merits of its devices -- whether or not real work can be done on an iPad and the direction taken with the new MacBook Pro. It comes down to the nature of the tasks one needs to perform and personal preferences. A compromise that one person may consider acceptable will be a deal-breaker for someone else.
- Most of the complaints seem to be based on desktop UI elements being too small for convenient selection with a finger. That's encouraging because it's something that can be solved relatively easily.
- While I haven't decided whether or not a combo device is what I want, I would still like Apple to add touch capability to desktop and laptop computers in addition to the trackpad/mouse and keyboard. While it's not the ideal human interface method for EVERYTHING, it's better for SOME things. Since including it would have no adverse affect on those who choose not to use it and would provide benefit to those who do, it seems like a positive step.
- Most of the complaints seem to be based on desktop UI elements being too small for convenient selection with a finger. That's encouraging because it's something that can be solved relatively easily.
- While I haven't decided whether or not a combo device is what I want, I would still like Apple to add touch capability to desktop and laptop computers in addition to the trackpad/mouse and keyboard. While it's not the ideal human interface method for EVERYTHING, it's better for SOME things. Since including it would have no adverse affect on those who choose not to use it and would provide benefit to those who do, it seems like a positive step.
The Surface was released over 4 years ago. If it's an easy fix why haven't they done it yet?
Apple is in dire straights. Okay, most Mac users will not move to Windows. But, with the Surface, Apple will not be gaining Windows switchers, and definitely will be losing any chance of getting corporate buy-in, and will not be getting blow-back from Mac users asking to BYO.
I've been around long enough to see unassailable companies die a relatively quick death or become shells of former self because they failed to see the competition and respond: Nokia, Blackberry, CD stores, video stores, Dec, Wordperfect, Sun, Cray, CDC, Univac, Burroughs, Datacraft, Harris, BBN, Xerox, HP, NCR, Novell, TI, Kodak, Radio Shack, Heathkit, (all these I've professionally relied on over the years and expected to be forever in existence), and many more whose names escape me at the moment.
Apple is getting eaten alive by companies with a lot less resources than Apple, coming up with solutions, imperfect though they may be, to problems which their customers want to solve.
This is s joke post, right?
According to the tech press, Apple has been dying for 40 years now and is on the verge of bankruptcy.
The Surface isn't the only PC. Apple will get switchers from people tired of Dell, HP, etc.
did you know IBM has switch to Apple?
How again are they getting eaten alive?
This time, it's different. It certainly seems and feels different. Like many in this forum, I've been following the company's moves very close for a while now (13 years, to be more exact) and studied its history all the way back to 1976 and the history of the industry at large all the way to ENIAC, Engelbart, Ted Nelson, Xerox PARC et al., and I can assure you that nothing good will come out of Apple's current egregious strategy…
And it feels different and inherently wrong because Steve Jobs very recently said one thing about “trucks”, whereas Tim Cook and Phil Schiller are trying to fool us into believing that they, too, still see the Mac as a “truck”. Nope, it may seem to some wishful thinkers that they do, and they may state otherwise in order not to estrange current followers too quickly, but no, they don't.
They currently see it the same way Steve Jobs saw the Apple II and the Lisa, as machines they had to kill or water down in order to make way for the newfangled toy (then the 68K Macintosh, now iOS devices). The problem is, much like what happened with the Mac back then (and much unlike the Apple II and, as eloquently stated by another user, convertible Surface devices), iOS on the iPad Pro still hasn't and might never have enough killer apps… Sure, Serif will be a great example and may seriously disrupt the creative market in unforeseen ways with their cross-platform compatible Affinity suite, but its iOS versions will still be lacking some functionality (its devs stated as much!), as is MS Office (is it just me or Microsoft is at it again, crippling one of its biggest and near-monopolistic cash cows on a competing platform just to advance their own? They still haven't gotten round to add hyphenation support in Word, a basic – and format-breaking when absent – feature which shouldn't be OS/interface mode-dependent in any way whatsoever).
Apple is betting the farm on an unfinished, unsupported, unproven platform (iOS) and sub-par services (iCloud), ginormous and locked-in as its userbase may be (but isn't it more fickle than the Mac userbase? And isn't lock-in a somewhat abusive way of keeping customers, which may backfire spectacularly in the event they get fed up with something down the road?), while neglecting and crippling a profitable, stable, supported and, most of all, loved platform (the Mac), by which all its evangelists, pro customers, etc. live and die professionally. For a company so specialized in doing successful transitions (68K to PPC, Mac OS Classic to Mac OS X, PPC to x86 and x64), they certainly are rushing this one *while blatantly lying to its customers and/or deluding themselves about it* (do I sense the existence of, more than an RDF, an echo-chamber in Cupertino?), and it will bite them in the ass, mark my words.
I'm not saying they should do slow, protracted, uncommited and never-finished transitions like those Microsoft does or tries to do every now and then, and I do laud them from killing arcane interfaces and technologies (ADB, VGA, floppy disks, the 32-pin dock connector, optical discs and – *finally!* – USB A), but neglecting an entire platform, killing off profitable and well-loved peripherals (displays, routers… what next?) and failing to update some of their professional offerings for 1000+ days? That's a bit too much on the reckless side, methinks. And it gives its most loyal users pause (even those who never owned a Mac Pro or Apple-branded display but already used both on jobs before, like myself), and rightfully so.
The Surface tries to be a tablet and a laptop and fails at both. Apple figured out that the same OS doesn't do well for both tasks so they put iOS on the iPad instead of OS X.
That's a popular talking point, but nobody ever seems to mention any specifics.
How does the Surface fail as a tablet? What does it not do well? How does it fail as a laptop? What are its shortcomings? I'm not taking a position here, I simply don't know because I've never used one. What leads you to judge it a failure on either front?
WHY is it a bad idea to run a desktop OS on a portable? Why is a device with a detachable touchscreen any less suitable for a desktop OS than a laptop? I run the same OS on my desktop and laptop, why would running on my tablet be a bad idea?
I just bought the most maxed out 2016 MacBook Pro I could buy so I've demonstrated where I'm most comfortable for now, but at work I use Windows machines all day and I gotta tell ya, a touchscreen is a really nice bonus. I wish my Mac had one. I also wish I could use my iPad Pro in the same environment and performing the same tasks as I do with my Macs, but it just doesn't work. Having a tablet than can also be a computer, or a computer that can double as a tablet, sounds like a really handy idea to me.
So what am I missing?
It fails because in laptop form the onscreen elements take up too much room, and then it tablet form the application menus are hard to get your big fingers on. Not enough apps have been converted to the new structure.
Secondly, tapping on the screen in laptop mode feels very unnatural and needs subtle adjustment depending on the angle of the screen. It was also a little bit laggy, but not uncomfortably so. I'm also not sure if this was a hardware or software problem, or just because I'm used to the smooth response I get from my old iPad.
I had to use one a while back. In the end it was easier to leave it in laptop mode.
Still, I would expect Apple to lose lots of older users after each significant switch, so this hardly surprising. This isn't a problem as long as they pick up younger users to replace them.
The touchbar is a key indicator of what Apple believes the new generation is looking for in a professional machine. These kids have grown up typing on flat surfaces, so Apple will be looking to take advantage of that in their next generation of devices.
Not sure if you had really used it, the onscreen elements do not take up room in any sense. It is still a content rich interface, and ability to switch tablet to desktop mode automatically.
The tapping is not at all unnatural, but complements in touch pad in many occasions. On the contrary, the way I see people using keyboards on iPads is really unnatural as for every non-typing interaction they are forced to touch (no touch pad!). But almost all iPads with keyboard do it anyway, almost all enterprise users have keyboards.
On the touchbar, still not convinced how useful it is. The ability to change contextually is its advantage and also the biggest problem. Positional memory is important when it comes to keyboard productivity, so the bar actually kills it. In terms of use cases everything that a touch bar can do , is possible with touch screen and more. Saying touch is important on iPad but not so on MBP does not makes sense, Apple will need to change many things to make OSX touch compatible.
On another note, I have seen multiple MBA users switching to Surface this year in the enterprises. Few specifically for pen and touch, some for the form factor and one for enterprise app compatibility. The numbers are very few, but was surprised that they thought of the change and re-learn few things. The press statement is just marketing, and all organizations do that someway or other, nothing to dwell over.
I had to use one a while back. In the end it was easier to leave it in laptop mode.
Still, I would expect Apple to lose lots of older users after each significant switch, so this hardly surprising. This isn't a problem as long as they pick up younger users to replace them.
The touchbar is a key indicator of what Apple believes the new generation is looking for in a professional machine. These kids have grown up typing on flat surfaces, so Apple will be looking to take advantage of that in their next generation of devices.
On the touchbar, still not convinced how useful it is. The ability to change contextually is its advantage and also the biggest problem. Positional memory is important when it comes to keyboard productivity, so the bar actually kills it. In terms of use cases everything that a touch bar can do , is possible with touch screen and more. Saying touch is important on iPad but not so on MBP does not makes sense, Apple will need to change many things to make OSX touch compatible.
Touch is important on the iPad because the UI is designed for direct manipulation whereas on the MBP the UI is designed for indirect. UI elements on the MBP do not adhere to minimum target sizes in the Apple iOS HIG since the mouse is a more precise pointing element.
On another note, I have seen multiple MBA users switching to Surface this year in the enterprises. Few specifically for pen and touch, some for the form factor and one for enterprise app compatibility. The numbers are very few, but was surprised that they thought of the change and re-learn few things. The press statement is just marketing, and all organizations do that someway or other, nothing to dwell over.
I've said above that I have the SurfaceBook. I like it and can see why enterprise users would switch if they need better MS ecosystem support (i.e. MS Project, Visio, Sharepoint, Excel macros, etc). Many of the business apps and fancy excel financial workbooks don't work on the Mac or suffer odd issues.
OneNote is nice but the danged pen is easy to lose if you use the magnet attachment.
I think more switchers are from Dell than Mac in our enterprise.
Comments
While MacOS handles high DPI screens much better than Windows 10 it does work okay (ignoring the Java JVM bug which is fixable).
The pen is provided so you can use desktop apps in tablet mode and for taking notes and drawing.
My take-aways from what I've read here, combined with my own experiences with Apple devices and the desktop version of Microsoft's touch, are:
- Not surprisingly, there's no consensus. Some people feel that the compromises make the Surface unsuitable for both laptop and tablet applications, while others feel that the convenience of having some of the benefits of both in a single device is better than having to split their work between two devices. I say "not surprisingly" because even Apple users argue over the merits of its devices -- whether or not real work can be done on an iPad and the direction taken with the new MacBook Pro. It comes down to the nature of the tasks one needs to perform and personal preferences. A compromise that one person may consider acceptable will be a deal-breaker for someone else.
- Most of the complaints seem to be based on desktop UI elements being too small for convenient selection with a finger. That's encouraging because it's something that can be solved relatively easily.
- While I haven't decided whether or not a combo device is what I want, I would still like Apple to add touch capability to desktop and laptop computers in addition to the trackpad/mouse and keyboard. While it's not the ideal human interface method for EVERYTHING, it's better for SOME things. Since including it would have no adverse affect on those who choose not to use it and would provide benefit to those who do, it seems like a positive step.
There are a lot of reasons to not offer a touch screen. Just to allow the option for it would require a larger chassis. http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/dont-buy-a-touch-screen-laptop
This time, it's different. It certainly seems and feels different. Like many in this forum, I've been following the company's moves very close for a while now (13 years, to be more exact) and studied its history all the way back to 1976 and the history of the industry at large all the way to ENIAC, Engelbart, Ted Nelson, Xerox PARC et al., and I can assure you that nothing good will come out of Apple's current egregious strategy…
And it feels different and inherently wrong because Steve Jobs very recently said one thing about “trucks”, whereas Tim Cook and Phil Schiller are trying to fool us into believing that they, too, still see the Mac as a “truck”. Nope, it may seem to some wishful thinkers that they do, and they may state otherwise in order not to estrange current followers too quickly, but no, they don't.
They currently see it the same way Steve Jobs saw the Apple II and the Lisa, as machines they had to kill or water down in order to make way for the newfangled toy (then the 68K Macintosh, now iOS devices). The problem is, much like what happened with the Mac back then (and much unlike the Apple II and, as eloquently stated by another user, convertible Surface devices), iOS on the iPad Pro still hasn't and might never have enough killer apps… Sure, Serif will be a great example and may seriously disrupt the creative market in unforeseen ways with their cross-platform compatible Affinity suite, but its iOS versions will still be lacking some functionality (its devs stated as much!), as is MS Office (is it just me or Microsoft is at it again, crippling one of its biggest and near-monopolistic cash cows on a competing platform just to advance their own? They still haven't gotten round to add hyphenation support in Word, a basic – and format-breaking when absent – feature which shouldn't be OS/interface mode-dependent in any way whatsoever).
Apple is betting the farm on an unfinished, unsupported, unproven platform (iOS) and sub-par services (iCloud), ginormous and locked-in as its userbase may be (but isn't it more fickle than the Mac userbase? And isn't lock-in a somewhat abusive way of keeping customers, which may backfire spectacularly in the event they get fed up with something down the road?), while neglecting and crippling a profitable, stable, supported and, most of all, loved platform (the Mac), by which all its evangelists, pro customers, etc. live and die professionally. For a company so specialized in doing successful transitions (68K to PPC, Mac OS Classic to Mac OS X, PPC to x86 and x64), they certainly are rushing this one *while blatantly lying to its customers and/or deluding themselves about it* (do I sense the existence of, more than an RDF, an echo-chamber in Cupertino?), and it will bite them in the ass, mark my words.
I'm not saying they should do slow, protracted, uncommited and never-finished transitions like those Microsoft does or tries to do every now and then, and I do laud them from killing arcane interfaces and technologies (ADB, VGA, floppy disks, the 32-pin dock connector, optical discs and – *finally!* – USB A), but neglecting an entire platform, killing off profitable and well-loved peripherals (displays, routers… what next?) and failing to update some of their professional offerings for 1000+ days? That's a bit too much on the reckless side, methinks. And it gives its most loyal users pause (even those who never owned a Mac Pro or Apple-branded display but already used both on jobs before, like myself), and rightfully so.
Not sure if you had really used it, the onscreen elements do not take up room in any sense. It is still a content rich interface, and ability to switch tablet to desktop mode automatically.
The tapping is not at all unnatural, but complements in touch pad in many occasions. On the contrary, the way I see people using keyboards on iPads is really unnatural as for every non-typing interaction they are forced to touch (no touch pad!). But almost all iPads with keyboard do it anyway, almost all enterprise users have keyboards.
On the touchbar, still not convinced how useful it is. The ability to change contextually is its advantage and also the biggest problem. Positional memory is important when it comes to keyboard productivity, so the bar actually kills it. In terms of use cases everything that a touch bar can do , is possible with touch screen and more. Saying touch is important on iPad but not so on MBP does not makes sense, Apple will need to change many things to make OSX touch compatible.
On another note, I have seen multiple MBA users switching to Surface this year in the enterprises. Few specifically for pen and touch, some for the form factor and one for enterprise app compatibility. The numbers are very few, but was surprised that they thought of the change and re-learn few things. The press statement is just marketing, and all organizations do that someway or other, nothing to dwell over.
Touch is important on the iPad because the UI is designed for direct manipulation whereas on the MBP the UI is designed for indirect. UI elements on the MBP do not adhere to minimum target sizes in the Apple iOS HIG since the mouse is a more precise pointing element.
I've said above that I have the SurfaceBook. I like it and can see why enterprise users would switch if they need better MS ecosystem support (i.e. MS Project, Visio, Sharepoint, Excel macros, etc). Many of the business apps and fancy excel financial workbooks don't work on the Mac or suffer odd issues.
OneNote is nice but the danged pen is easy to lose if you use the magnet attachment.
I think more switchers are from Dell than Mac in our enterprise.