Microsoft Discontinues Its $4,500 All-in-One Desktop, 'Surface Studio' (arstechnica.com) 28
An anonymous reader shared this report from the blog Windows Central:
Microsoft has ended production on the Surface Studio 2+, its ultra-premium all-in-one desktop PC designed for creatives and commercial customers. Starting at a whopping $4,500, the Studio 2+ was the ultimate Windows all-in-one with the best touchscreen display on a unique hinge that allowed the screen to lay down like a draft board... So, if you're interested in buying a Surface Studio 2+, you better hurry, as whatever stock is remaining is all that's left. Unfortunately, it's likely that the end of production on the Surface Studio 2+ also marks an end to the Surface Studio line as a whole. My own sources tell me there's no Studio 2+ successor lined up currently.
Ars Technica points out that over the eight-year run of the Surface Studio, Microsoft only updated it twice. Like the Surface Laptop Studio, the desktop's claim to fame was a unique hinge design for its screen, which could reposition it to make it easier to draw on with the Surface Pen. But the desktop's high cost and its perennially outdated internal components made it a less appealing machine than it could have been...
The longest-lived Studio desktop was the Surface Studio 2, which was released in 2018 and wasn't replaced until a revised Surface Studio 2+ was announced in late 2022. It used an even higher-quality display panel, but it still used previous-generation internal components. This might not have been so egregious if Microsoft had updated it more consistently, but this model went untouched for so long that Microsoft had to lower Windows 11's system requirements specifically to cover the Studio 2 so that the company wouldn't be ending support for a PC that it was still actively selling.
The Studio 2+ was the desktop's last hurrah, and despite jumping two GPU generations and four CPU generations, it still didn't use the latest components available at the time. Again, more consistent updates like the ones Microsoft provides for the Surface Pro and Surface Laptop could have made this less of a problem, but the Studio 2+ once again sat untouched for two years after being updated.
Ars Technica points out that over the eight-year run of the Surface Studio, Microsoft only updated it twice. Like the Surface Laptop Studio, the desktop's claim to fame was a unique hinge design for its screen, which could reposition it to make it easier to draw on with the Surface Pen. But the desktop's high cost and its perennially outdated internal components made it a less appealing machine than it could have been...
The longest-lived Studio desktop was the Surface Studio 2, which was released in 2018 and wasn't replaced until a revised Surface Studio 2+ was announced in late 2022. It used an even higher-quality display panel, but it still used previous-generation internal components. This might not have been so egregious if Microsoft had updated it more consistently, but this model went untouched for so long that Microsoft had to lower Windows 11's system requirements specifically to cover the Studio 2 so that the company wouldn't be ending support for a PC that it was still actively selling.
The Studio 2+ was the desktop's last hurrah, and despite jumping two GPU generations and four CPU generations, it still didn't use the latest components available at the time. Again, more consistent updates like the ones Microsoft provides for the Surface Pro and Surface Laptop could have made this less of a problem, but the Studio 2+ once again sat untouched for two years after being updated.
High end All-in-One? (Score:2)
Re:High end All-in-One? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, forget the babble about missing latest bling. Paying for an expensive built-in display every upgrade just sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leo Laporte has (or at least had... it's been a few years since I've watched) one on the set of his TWIT podcast studio. He seemed to like it quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, forget the babble about missing latest bling. Paying for an expensive built-in display every upgrade just sucks.
This is exactly why Apple didn't release a new 27" iMac; nor a new iMac Pro. Instead, they released two MiniPCs, that easily covered the performance range of those market segments; reducing the sale price of the actual computer while greatly increasing flexibility, allowing Users to decide their particular needs for compute-power vs. Display; which are, in fact, often not closely related.
You will notice that they still kept, and even updated to M4 their AIO "sweet spot" system, the 24" iMac; for educational
Re: (Score:2)
very few purchases who choose high end want an all in one and when they do they rarely buy one again. Even Apple has dropped the iMac Pro and the 27inch iMac in favour of the mac studio which has more convenient ports and you can still buy good quality screens which don't get replaced when the computer is upgraded. The most common thing I see lately is the small "backpack" computer that is stuck on the back of a screen effectively making an all in one that is "upgradeable"
What is this penchant for hating a Desktop computer that, horrors! sits on your Desktop?
An M4 Mac mini or a Mac Studio (or any MiniPC, like a NUC) take less space than a typical Mousepad, and are generally fairly silent (especially the Mac Studio). So why put all your ports a few feet off your desktop, and behind a big plate; so every time you so much as want to plug in a USB stick, you have to dig around behind the display? It makes about -100% sense.
That sort of mounting is perfect for lobby displays, som
It kinda sucks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It kinda sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Fun fact about the Studio (Score:4, Informative)
When Microsoft released Windows 11 along with the system requirements for the CPU they limited the CPU to the 8th generation Intel CPUs and newer. There was one singular exception: i7-7820HQ[1] with note1 stating: [1] Only select devices that shipped with modern drivers based on Declarative, Componentized, Hardware Support Apps (DCH) design principles.
Who wants to take a guess at what CPU the Surface Studio 2 has in it?
Turns out that Microsoft had an issue releasing a version of windows which didn't support their flagship device they were *actually still selling at the time*
I really love the Surface devices, but the way Microsoft treated the Surface Studio was in many ways even worse than the way Apple treated the Mac Pro. Neither company should be doing anything in the professional workstation space, they are both grossly incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair they weren't charging for the CPU. They were charging for a 28" digitiser. In this regard it was a bargain considering their closest competitor was the Wacom Cintiq Pro 27" which comes in at an eye watering $3,500 ... and you still need to buy a PC to plug it in to.
Re: (Score:3)
The MS unit had a stupidly nice screen for the money; but it's permanently tied to a quad core mobile CPU from 2021, a 6GB 3060(the weaker laptop variant), and a maximum of 32 GB of RAM. There is no provision for running the system in some sort of 'monitor mode' that takes video input and pipes touch and stylus events over USB to something else. W
Re: (Score:2)
Good news for the receptionist who will end up getting a really nice screen because they've got a highly visible desk and relatively lightweight computing requirements
Yes, this is why Dell and HP sell $500 all-in-ones (Lenovo $600); they are lightweight machines suited and priced for the task.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble in comparison to the Cintiq pro is that is rapidly goes from "you still need to buy a PC to plug it in to" to "you can plug it into a different PC".
The question is do you want to and at what cost? You could have bought both the Surface Studio and the Surface Studio 2 for the cost of one Cintiq Pro + attached PC. The question of upgradability needs to consider the concept of cost.
but it's permanently tied to a quad core mobile CPU from 2021, a 6GB 3060(the weaker laptop variant), and a maximum of 32 GB of RAM
If you're in the target market for this screen then this is probably more than fine. You're not solving wave equations on this thing or spending all day compiling Linux kernels. Or playing Cyberpunk 2077. The selling point was a touch screen used for art and basic CAD. If it ca
Re: (Score:2)
They were charging for a 28" digitiser. In this regard it was a bargain considering their closest competitor was the Wacom Cintiq Pro 27" which comes in at an eye watering $3,500 ... and you still need to buy a PC to plug it in to.
That makes even less sense. A Wacom for its high price is made for professionals whereas the Studio 2 seems more like a gimmick as the CPU/GPU is very underpowered for that kind of application. You could get a much better desktop and the Wacom at the time for almost the same price. And unlike the Studio 2, you can pair a Wacom with any PC and the Wacom is portable. If you want to use the digitizer aspects with a Studio 2, you're stuck with using the Studio 2 at a desk. Forever.
At first glance in the right l
Re: (Score:2)
A Wacom for its high price is made for professionals whereas the Studio 2 seems more like a gimmick as the CPU/GPU is very underpowered for that kind of application.
No it's not in the slightest. Most graphic design programs don't even use a small portion of that capability. Shit man most graphic design programs actually run on the far cheaper Surface Pros which were used professionally by many. This is just the same thing tethered to a desk with a huge arse screen.
No one is sitting here compiling Linux kernels all day, or training AI, or playing Cyberpunk 2077. Shit a 3060 is waaay overpowered for what this thing would normally do, and most of the software isn't CPU bo
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not in the slightest. Most graphic design programs don't even use a small portion of that capability.
Blender [blender.org] disagrees with you. The minimum CPU is 4 cores. The recommended is 8 cores. Guess which of these both Studio models. The minimum. The CPUs cannot not be upgraded.
Shit man most graphic design programs actually run on the far cheaper Surface Pros which were used professionally by many. This is just the same thing tethered to a desk with a huge arse screen.
1) Do you understand what a "desktop" is? The Surface Studio is a desktop. 2) You do understand the Studio cannot be upgraded? If an artists purchases a Wacom and a PC, they can upgrade the PC or heck buy a new one and still use the Wacom. 3) Surface Pros had better CPUs than the Studios and they were launched at the same time for a lot le
Re: (Score:2)
Blender doesn't disagree with anything. It's not remotely what this thing is designed for. File that under compiling Linux kernels. If you bought this for doing advanced 3D graphics you done fucked up.
Come back to me when Inkscape requires a 4 core CPU.
And yeah I understand what a desktop is, I literally pointed it out. This is the desktop version of Surface Pros, and no where in a desktop definition do you need upgradability.
If an artists purchases a Wacom and a PC, they can upgrade the PC or heck buy a new one and still use the Wacom
Cool. So nothing like suggesting people spend several thousand dollars more to do
Re: (Score:2)
Blender doesn't disagree with anything. It's not remotely what this thing is designed for. File that under compiling Linux kernels. If you bought this for doing advanced 3D graphics you done fucked up.
You are aware that artists also work in 3D as well as 2D, right? You are aware that fields like animation, motion graphics, visual effects, etc employ artists that use Wacom tablets right?
Come back to me when Inkscape requires a 4 core CPU.
I already pointed you know jack shit if you think that artists don't use Blender. They do.
And yeah I understand what a desktop is, I literally pointed it out. This is the desktop version of Surface Pros, and no where in a desktop definition do you need upgradability.
Again no. Studios are underpowered desktop versions of Surface Pros. Release at the same time. Like I said, an artists could buy a Surface Pro and a Wacom and be better off than the Studio. It does not make sense.
and no where in a desktop definition do you need upgradability.
That is the most idio
Re: (Score:2)
To whom it may concern at Microsoft:
You are a software company. Stop trying to limit hardware. Are you stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no. It's not a case of software limiting hardware, it's a case of hardware limiting software. It was a deficiency in the hardware / driver interface they were able to work around on a firmware level since they controlled the device. Since the initial carve out for the i7-7820HQ several other 7th gen CPU platforms (all mobile, and all integrated with motherboards) also received compatibility sign-off after vendors made some firmware adjustments.
The issue was very much hardware. MS was looking for sp
Surface Studio (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:2)
Once upon a time... (Score:2)
Now they showcase how their software definitely wont run on hardware it wasnt designed for.
That tabletop Surface ... (Score:2)