Microsoft Unveils Surface Pro 7 and Surface Pro X (venturebeat.com) 41
At an event today, where Microsoft announced the Surface Laptop 3, Windows 10X, and an Android smartphone, the company also unveiled refreshed editions of its laptop-tablet hybrids: the Surface Pro 7, and the Surface Pro X. About the Surface Pro 7, which features a USB-C port: The price tag has also changed slightly: The Surface Pro 7 starts at $749 ($150 less than its predecessor). It's available for preorder today and ships on October 22. Microsoft has simply replaced the Mini DisplayPort with USB-C. There is still a USB-A port for all your existing accessories. Adding a USB-C port finally puts the Surface Pro on par with the Surface Book 2 of two years ago and last year's Surface Go. Surface fans have long asked for USB-C ports and Microsoft has been very slowly delivering. Surface Pro 7 comes with 10th-generation Intel Core processors (upgradeable all the way up to quad-core) and starts at 128GB of SSD storage (upgradable to 1TB). Like its predecessor, the Surface Pro 7 still comes with 4GB, 8GB, or 16GB of RAM. Otherwise, the design is largely unchanged. The Surface Pro 7 still has a 12.3-inch display, 2736 x1824 resolution, and 267ppi. The Surface Pro 6 was available in black and silver, and so is the Surface Pro 7. About the Surface Pro X: Seattle tech giant unveiled the Surface Pro X, the spiritual successor to the Surface, the Surface 2, the Surface 3, and the Surface Go. It's ultra-slim and lightweight, with a bezel-to-bezel 13-inch display and an adjustable kickstand. And it's the first machine to ship with a custom-designed, ARM-based Microsoft SQ1 system-on-chip co-engineered with Qualcomm. The Surface Pro X will be available on November 5, starting at $999, and Microsoft will begin taking preorders today.
On the display front, you're looking at a PixelSense panel with 2880 x 1920 resolution with a 267-pixel-per-inch screen density and a 1400:1 contrast ratio. Microsoft says it has the thinnest bezels of any 2-in-1. Under the hood, the Surface Pro X sports the aforementioned 7-nanometer SQ1, which Microsoft says delivers more performance per watt than the chip in the Surface Pro 6. It's an octa-core processor Qualcomm-designed Kryo cores clocked at 3GHz and running at 7 watts maximum, sitting alongside a redesigned GPU and integrated AI accelerator. Altogether, it delivers 9 teraflops of computational power, with the graphics chip alone pushing 2.1 teraflops.
On the display front, you're looking at a PixelSense panel with 2880 x 1920 resolution with a 267-pixel-per-inch screen density and a 1400:1 contrast ratio. Microsoft says it has the thinnest bezels of any 2-in-1. Under the hood, the Surface Pro X sports the aforementioned 7-nanometer SQ1, which Microsoft says delivers more performance per watt than the chip in the Surface Pro 6. It's an octa-core processor Qualcomm-designed Kryo cores clocked at 3GHz and running at 7 watts maximum, sitting alongside a redesigned GPU and integrated AI accelerator. Altogether, it delivers 9 teraflops of computational power, with the graphics chip alone pushing 2.1 teraflops.
ARM? Bloody hell MS! (Score:2)
No one wants a Windows device that can't use Windows apps. MS just doesn't seem to get this. But now they try shoving down our throats an ARM processor as the only option on their most premium hardware? I hope this thing sells poorly then finally they may get the frigging point.
The Surface Pro X screen looks nice. I wish it were available on the Pro 7. But at least the Pro 7 has a USB-C port.
Just in time to retire my Pro 3 I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Win 10 arm runs x86 applications but is much lighter and has much better battery life. The question is will it be annoyingly sluggish like the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is probably close to releasing ARM-based computers too, given how powerful their Ax-series processors are in the iPhones and iPads.
Like it or not, the future seems to be ARM-based computers. Old x86-based apps will be replaced. Soon enough, people will complain about "those crappy old x86 programs".
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait...
Re: (Score:2)
I can. ARM is a world full of proprietary boot loaders, binary firmware drivers and odd and incompatible hardware. It's nothing like the Intel-compatible PC world where you can install the standard Windows 10 or any standard Linux distribution iso image on it and away you go. Linux does run on ARM of course, but it usually requires a specialized distro (even if it's intended to run on lots of devices like Armbian).
This all is great for Apple and Microsoft, though. Locked down hardware and software.
Reall
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The other poster claimed it was from lack of popularity of ARM, which can't be true since ARM devices like phones outnumber PCs by a wide margin.
But yes, ARM does not have anything like a BIOS nor have they defined standards for things like boot loading. ARM licenses the the CPU design and companies build it in all sorts of variations, including SoCs, or with discrete chipsets.
I can understand different hardware trees, but the lack of boot standardization is maddening. Some boards can boot a custom distro
Re: (Score:2)
It really a lack of popularity in the desktop space that has caused that and should change as things go forward.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is probably close to releasing ARM-based computers too, given how powerful their Ax-series processors are in the iPhones and iPads.
Like it or not, the future seems to be ARM-based computers. Old x86-based apps will be replaced. Soon enough, people will complain about "those crappy old x86 programs".
And, as someone else posted, Win 10 ARM runs x86 Applications using a JIT Compiler technique. Shouldn't HAVE to be slow, (except on first-launch), because it won't be instruction-level x86 emulation, but rather cross-compiling.
That methodology worked great for Apple's 68k to PPC transitional period. No reason it shouldn't work for MS now.
Re: (Score:2)
That methodology worked great for Apple's 68k to PPC transitional period.
You and I remember that period very differently. I remember developers scrambling to update due to horrendous performance. The difference is Microsoft doesn't have the same closed special purpose ecosystem that Apple did, and the transition cost Apple a lot of die hard goodwill and brand recognition as the creators platform when many special purpose applications started preferencing Windows development due to the shit Apple was doing.
No reason it shouldn't work for MS now.
Remember the monkey man, developers developers developers developers dev..
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a closed ecosystem and a history telling developers to adapt or don't forget to validate parking on the way out. The same can not be said for the Windows platform. Incidentally this has also pissed off "Apple first" developers enough to actually start branching out to windows. Case in point Adobe: A company that was mac first with windows releases lagging behind eventually skipped a whole version on the mac while continuing windows development during the Cocoa transition, to say nothing of not rel
Re: (Score:1)
Case in point Adobe:
You wanna hold out Adobe as a shining example of good Development practices???
Well, alrighty, then!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, x86 is far from winning the computing-power-per-watt against ARM. People want lightweight portable devices (tablets and laptops), so the easiest way to lower the weight of the devices is to use smaller batteries. To use smaller batteries, you need low-power components.
ARM CPUs, combined with the upcoming microLEDs which are supposed to need less power than either LCD or OLED, is the way forward.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no doubt about that. But are people willing to buy a device that doesn't run their software or act like their traditional PC to make the switch? Windows RT says no, the Netbook generation says no, and Apple's insistence that the iPad pro is the only PC you need also says no (though that has at least been partially successful as a more powerful toy).
For this to work you need developers behind you. They've also said no ... multiple times.
Re: (Score:2)
https://channel9.msdn.com/Even... [msdn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And? We've been here before only last time it was PPC emulation on x86. It's a slow useless clusterfuck of a kludge, not a premium device experience.
Re: (Score:1)
No one wants a Windows device that can't use Windows apps. MS just doesn't seem to get this. But now they try shoving down our throats an ARM processor as the only option on their most premium hardware? I hope this thing sells poorly then finally they may get the frigging point.
The Surface Pro X screen looks nice. I wish it were available on the Pro 7. But at least the Pro 7 has a USB-C port.
Just in time to retire my Pro 3 I think.
This is actually great news for Apple fans wanting an ARM-based Mac; because, with a full-blown ARM-based product out like this, it signals to everyone that Windows-on-ARM is a "real thing", and so consequently, those people wanting an ARM-based Mac, but worried about losing Windows compatibility (probably not a small group!), will be able to maintain those capabilities, regardless if Apple (wisely) moves to ARM for macOS.
I thought USB-C was "bad", so what changed? (Score:2)
I seem to recall many people being upset about the "useless" or "dongle required" USB-C port on Apple devices. Now people seem quite pleased that Microsoft caught up with Apple. How is this acceptable now? Just a bunch of Apple bashing and Microsoft fan boys?
What is the USB-C port capable of doing? It replaces the Mini-DP port so I assume it supports video output. I assume it must also support USB 3.x. Does it support power input? How much power can it provide to attached devices?
I like USB-C. I wan
Re: (Score:1)
I seem to recall many people being upset about the "useless" or "dongle required" USB-C port on Apple devices. Now people seem quite pleased that Microsoft caught up with Apple. How is this acceptable now? Just a bunch of Apple bashing and Microsoft fan boys?
What is the USB-C port capable of doing? It replaces the Mini-DP port so I assume it supports video output. I assume it must also support USB 3.x. Does it support power input? How much power can it provide to attached devices?
I like USB-C. I want to see it supported on more devices. I'm just confused on why it is hated on Apple devices but demanded on Microsoft devices.
The Apple-Haters will claim that MS saved EVERYTHING by including a single, precious USB-A port (when they could have had another USB-C port with FAR more capability, of course).
Also, does the MS version of the USB-C port include the Thunderbolt 3 Protocol? Because if it doesn't, it is an EPIC FAIL.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an Apple user, and I wish Apple would put at least one USB-A port on their current laptops. It's not like they don't have the space... Although actually that's wish #2. #1 is to bring back a semi-decent laptop keyboard.
I'm still fine with my 2015 MacBook Pro - but it's not gonna last forever!
Re: (Score:1)
I'm an Apple user, and I wish Apple would put at least one USB-A port on their current laptops. It's not like they don't have the space... Although actually that's wish #2. #1 is to bring back a semi-decent laptop keyboard.
I'm still fine with my 2015 MacBook Pro - but it's not gonna last forever!
Stop it with the USB-A meme! That was frickin' THREE YEARS AGO. Let it go.
Laptops don't have serial, parallel PS/2 or SCSI ports now, either.
Time. Marches. On. March with it, or get trampled.
And they (Apple) do seem to be (finally!) redesigning the keyboard mech.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a lot easier to find external devices which have USB-A than which have USB-C.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a lot easier to find external devices which have USB-A than which have USB-C.
And it's trivial to find a USB-A to USB-C adapter for $5 to $10, perhaps less if bought as a pack and/or if the buyer only cares about USB 2.0 compatibility.
With the exception of mice and keyboards I found it's pretty trivial to find USB-C versions of most anything for the same price as the USB-A version. It's "easier" to find the USB-A version, especially when shopping in a brick-n-mortar store, but not "a lot easier". They tend to be on the peg to the left or right of the USB-A product when hanging on d
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple-Haters will claim that MS saved EVERYTHING by including a single, precious USB-A port
You realise that their previous line of devices only had a single USB-A port, so all I am seeing is that Apple removed all USB-A options, while MS literally double the number of USB devices that could be directly attached to the system and doubled the options for how to connect them.
Yep I'm an Apple hater. I looked it up on Google:
Apple Hater
noun:
1. Person who likes choice.
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint against the Macbooks was never about the USB-C port itself. The complaint was that Apple switched entirely to USB-C ports, dropping the USB-A ports and forcing you to use a dongle if you want to attach an older USB-A device. (Also, some
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint against the Macbooks was never about the USB-C port itself. The complaint was that Apple switched entirely to USB-C ports, dropping the USB-A ports and forcing you to use a dongle if you want to attach an older USB-A device.
Oh, boo hoo. I'm not mocking you, just those that think a dongle is some kind of major hassle. I bought a 10-pack of USB-C to USB-A adapters for something like $50, a minor expense when considering the laptop cost over a kilobuck, and most any kind of cable cost $10. I put the adapters on all my old devices that I thought I'd use with the laptop. Now when I plug something in I don't have to think about having the right side up. Since every device has an adapter I don't much worry about losing them as t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this acceptable now?
You remember history very differently than I do.
Apple: Several years before USB-C is common place releases all their products with only USB-C.
Microsoft: When USB-C is finally becoming common place releases a variety of products with a mix of USB-C and USB-A support and the only device that is USB-C only is an ARM machine likely to sell as well as a 2 week old fish in the sun.
This would have been perfectly acceptable if Apple did it back in the day, but they didn't. They fucked over their users who had to ca
Re: (Score:2)
They fucked over their users who had to carry around a whole wad of dongles.
Have you seen a laptop made in the last decade? They all need "a whole wad of dongles".
To connect a display the smaller and lighter laptops had mini-VGA, mini-DVI, then later a more standardized mini-DisplayPort. These all needed dongles to plug in a display. Mini-DisplayPort is common enough now that there are cables with mini-DisplayPort on one end and whatever you want on the other. Kind of like how USB-C to whatever cables are becoming quite common.
Or, do as I do and buy a "wad of dongles" for USB-A
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen a laptop made in the last decade? They all need "a whole wad of dongles".
Looks down at my 2 month old dongle free laptop with 6 different devices cables into it only 3 of which are USB.
Yep, you're an idiot. I don't think I'm going to bother reading the rest of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks down at my 2 month old dongle free laptop with 6 different devices cables into it only 3 of which are USB.
Yep, you're an idiot. I don't think I'm going to bother reading the rest of your post.
{golf clap} Good for you, you are in the minority.
Let's back this up to your original premise, that by having only USB-C ports on their laptops that Apple is removing choices and therefore is hostile to their customers.
If I have a device with one USB-A port and one USB-C port then how many USB-A devices can I plug in? Two. I'll need a $5 adapter that can be purchased anywhere from computer shops, cafes, cell phone kiosks, truck stops, and grocery stores. These are not expensive, not all that hard to fin
Re: (Score:2)
What is the USB-C port capable of doing? It replaces the Mini-DP port so I assume it supports video output. I assume it must also support USB 3.x. Does it support power input? How much power can it provide to attached devices?
Dunno about the actual specs, but right now I'm running a USB C docking station into convertible light laptop [fujitsu.com]. The docking station provides power to charge and run, has mouse/kb via USB, and display out via DP & HDMI. I was using dual 1080p external screens but am testing a single 34" Samsung 3440*1920 screen (can't run 2 of these through the dock) plus of course the onboard display.
When I head to a meeting it's one cable to unplug which is very handy.
Interesting question about Surface Pro X is... (Score:2)
..if it has such excellent x86 emulation, how well would a serious app like Adobe CS (which is probably not available in native binaries for the QCOM/MSFT ARM ISA) run in x86 emulation compared to a $999 x86 system. Or does it just run as well as a $399 x86 system?
Probably no one in their right mind will try to run serious x86 software on it but Microsoft wants to continue to suggest to users "jump in, the emulation is fine" this will get tested. At some point. MSFT, if they really want to do an new archit
Re: (Score:1)
..if it has such excellent x86 emulation, how well would a serious app like Adobe CS (which is probably not available in native binaries for the QCOM/MSFT ARM ISA) run in x86 emulation compared to a $999 x86 system. Or does it just run as well as a $399 x86 system?
Your entire premise is faulty.
It isn't Emulation, it is Cross-Compiling. The laptop won't know what x86 is. It will JIT Compile the Application into ARM on "First Run", then every time you launch the Application, it will be a "Native" ARM Application, not an Emulated one.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because an x86 binary is cross-compiles to ARM doesn't magically mean it will be as performant as if the same app was compiled natively you ARM. There's a lot of information the compiler/linker has that a binary translation won't have when it comes to optimization. That's the whole reason things like the CLR or JVM use a bespoke intermediate representation rather than just translating x86 instructions.
It remains to be seen what sort of performance the SPX is going to have with legacy Windows apps. How
Re: (Score:2)
So you really think the time on first run of JIT plus the performance of the JIT's emitted ARM code is going to make Photoshop a satisfying experience? I have my doubts
(And the mechanics of this still boil down to that ARM system emulating a x86 system)
Not ARM, please! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Again, NOT Emulation.
Cross-Compiling.
HUUUUUUGE Difference!