AppleInsider said:

It's even hard to justify the Surface Go 2 as an ideal Windows tablet, as it is supplied with Windows 10 in S Mode, a locked-down version that forces the use of apps only downloaded from the Microsoft Store.

Ultimately, while it is fair to say that Apple continues to have the upper hand in this particular case, credit does have to be given to Microsoft for trying to take on the iPad with a device that squeezes a lot into a very thin and small iPad-like profile. It's just not quite where it needs to be to become a viable opponent.

Malcolm, Windows 10 in S Mode is not what you're thinking of. S Mode can simply be switched off, they just happen to have it on by default.

You also didn't bother discussing the key advantage the Surface Go 2 has over the iPad, the fact it's running full blown Windows 10 and can run anything you throw at it (as long as the core m3 meets the requirements)! It can run the full version of any application, you could even create light weight virtual machines or run Windows Subsystem for Linux 2 (WSL 2) with Microsoft's Linux kernel.

At the end of the day, if you want a device for consumption and light workloads, the iPad is great. However, if you want a device of this size for productivity, the Surface Go 2 is without rival.

Japhey said:

Kuo v. Prosser.

Does anyone want to pick the over/under for the price of these things?

Microsoft's Hololens 2 is $3,500 for enterprise. So I'd guess something lower than that.

jdb8167 said:

Where are all those posters saying that Apple is "years" behind the industry with the MacBook Pro. Sure, they just bought out Intel's entire stock of the new 28 W 10th gen CPUs but they are hopelessly behind.

Years is typically an exaggeration, but Apple is behind.

Fall 2019, is when Ice Lake came to market. Razer launched a 3 lbs 13" laptop with a 25 W i7-1065G7, they also had another laptop with the 15 W i7-1065G7 and a GTX 1650 Max-Q 4 GB. Here we are in May and Razer already refreshed that laptop with the 25 W i7-1065G7 and a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 4 GB.

So while Apple is waiting 6+ months to get the 28 W variant (iGPU only) of a 25 W CPU, other OEMs already launched their devices with that same CPU and an actual dGPU in a 13" laptop half a year ago.

Meanwhile, laptops with AMD's Ryzen 4000 U series are coming to market now and are significantly more powerful than Intel's Ice Lake. They're offering performance competitive with Intel's 45 W H series chips.

To top it off, other OEMs are already testing Intel's upcoming Tiger Lake-U with Xe graphics for laptops coming to market in roughly 5 months. 

maltz said:

Apple hardware has variously been 1 to 5 (Mac Mini/Pro) years behind the industry's cutting-edge for a over a decade, while selling at prices at least slightly higher than the latest-and-greatest.  The headline is accurate, but hopefully not a surprise to anyone.

Yes. The Mac Pro especially is extremely overpriced and behind in performance for what you get.

After Effects

While Macs often perform fairly well, in After Effects there is simply no argument that a PC workstation is both faster and significantly less expensive. Compared to the $20k Mac Pro we tested, a $4k PC using an Intel Core i9 9900K and NVIDIA GeForce 2080 Ti ended up being about 5% faster overall, while a $5.5k PC using an AMD Threadripper 3960X is about 18% faster. Even compared to the much better priced iMac Pro, a PC that costs $1K less is going to be about 35% faster.

What this means is that you can get the same or faster performance from a properly configured PC at a quarter (or less) the cost of a Mac Pro. With an application like After Effects where you can distribute renders across multiple machines using plugins like BG Render Max or RenderGarden, this isn't even about just getting similar performance at a lower price point. You can decrease your render times by 4-5x by purchasing multiple PCs and using network rendering to split up the work between each system. This only improves render performance (not live playback), but also gives you a ton of flexibility to have renders running on multiple machines while simultaneously working on other comps on your primary workstation.

Or, you can simply save that $15k and spend it on a new car, home remodel, or a really, really fancy vacation.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-performance-PC-Workstation-vs-Mac-Pro-2019-1718/

Photoshop

Since Photoshop is largely unable to take advantage of higher CPU core counts, there often isn't much of a difference between most modern mid/high-end CPUs - and that applies for a Mac just as much as it does for a PC workstation. Overall, if Photoshop is your primary concern, you can get about 10% higher performance from one of our $4,200 Puget Systems workstations with either an AMD Ryzen 3900X or Intel Core i9 9900K compared to the $19,599 Mac Pro (2019) we tested.

Now, is 10% going to be a game-changer for your workflow? Probably not - it is right on the edge of what you might be able to notice in everyday work. The main takeaway here is not necessarily the performance alone, but rather how much you have to pay to get it. Even if you forget the Mac Pro and go with the much more reasonably priced iMac Pro, you are still likely to pay about twice the cost for equivalent performance.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-performance-PC-Workstation-vs-Mac-Pro-2019-1716/

Premiere Pro

Since there are so many reasons why either a Mac or a PC may be right for you, we generally try to focus on the straight performance results and not tell you which you should purchase. But in this case, the Mac Pro is so underwhelming that it is hard to not simply say "Don't buy a Mac Pro for Premiere Pro".

This isn't like our Photoshop testing where the Mac Pro was only a hair slower than a PC, or our After Effects testing where a PC can easily be 20% faster at a much lower cost. This time, we are talking a PC being up to 50% faster on average for 1/3 the cost. We understand that there is a lot of benefit to staying in the Apple ecosystem if you also have an iPhone, MacBook, etc., but that is a huge amount of performance and cost savings you will be giving up to get a Mac Pro.

By skipping the Mac Pro and going with a PC, you could easily save $14,000 which could be used for a host of other things to improve your workflow. Maybe you can finally upgrade your reference monitor to a really nice Eizo or Flanders Scientific model. Or use it as an opportunity to move to a central NAS storage unit from LumaForge. Or just take a couple months off to recharge. And this isn't taking into account the amount of money you might be able to earn due to the higher performance of a PC.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-performance-PC-Workstation-vs-Mac-Pro-2019-1719/

Fred257 said:

A 14.1 inch MacBook Pro will be released in the fall.  Just like the 16 inch was.  And, you’ll be able to get new led screen and 6 core configurations. 

I don't recall there being any 6 core Tiger Lake-U chips.