chia

78Bandit said:

A lot of the problem is Microsoft has to design its OS to run on tens of thousands of different hardware combinations by multiple manufacturers with new CPUs, motherboards, and video cards released every month.  Even though they do control the hardware in the surface the underlying OS still has to be able to run on an almost unlimited combination of other components.

Apple has comparatively minuscule variations in hardware, revises its devices at a glacial pace, provides extremely limited opportunity for the user to upgrade after purchase, and is in complete control of the system from top to bottom.  Apple can identify and eliminate potential issues much easier than Microsoft.

Having said that though, I would still recommend a Surface for anyone looking for a Windows based device.

Your post only helps to underline what a comparatively inferior job Microsoft is doing with its Surface range compared to Apple's products.

As you have stated, Microsoft has complete control of how Windows and its drivers are written for its Surface products and complete control on the components it uses for the Surface.  It's fully within its power to create an ideal Windows configuration for its ideal Surface range.

If the ideal Windows configuration on what should be the ideal hardware make for a less than satisfactory user experience, what hope is there for a good experience of Windows from the hardware of multiple manufacturers who have little to no control over the Windows code, with their tens of thousands of hardware combinations and almost unlimited combination of components?

Updated via the over the air updates an iPhone 6S and a first generation Apple Watch. So far so good.

Meanwhile officials have an easier time spotting those smuggling the Samsung Note 7.

I'm surprised to find all these "professionals" aggrieved at Apple lack of 32GB MacBook Pros have time to spare writing such long grumbling comments.  Surely they don't have any spare time whilst struggling to get work done before deadline with 16GB?

I'm fortunate to have friends and family in creative, healthcare and financial industries.  Our collective experience and observation is that it's much faster, and even safer, to have work on fast "centralised" storage than to be constantly backing up from or restoring to individual laptops, which can (for large enterprises will) be damaged or stolen.
All professionals working with valuable data should be routinely backing it up as an insurance against loss or damage; those who don't aren't worthy of the title.

The industry-leading SSDs on the current MacBook Pros seem perfect for this style of working: the laptop's storage being a very fast temporary store and work area whilst "out in the field".

appex said:

What I like most of Mac is macOS. The problem with Apple is that it is a monopoly internally. All these problems would go if there were Mac clones.

I'm so glad you weren't running Apple during the nineties otherwise there wouldn't have been an Apple today to make the great products we use now.

You forget that Apple makes money from selling hardware.  Mac cloners won't have the same overhead R&D costs as Apple but will be chasing the same money in the same market as Apple.

Apple allowing Mac clones will be like carrying a competing runner for three quarters of a race only for them to leap off your back and cinch the gold medal.