I was going to buy a Surface Pro when I realized I already have a MBPr

[destrekor]

So basically, you're not really using Windows 8.

I'm using Win8 on my triple-display desktop, AND of course on my Surface Pro.

It's rather silly to suffer from such an inability to adapt. If you were competent in Windows before Windows 8, aside from a case of "omg I finally have to adapt to the first radical changes to the Windows desktop paradigm since the Win 3.x/Win95 era? NOOO!", it shouldn't be much more a struggle than that. In other words, it shouldn't be anything other than being a little bit stubborn to adapt to new changes. If you know your way around Windows, and you CAN'T adapt to Windows 8, you need to give up on computing, imho.

It's not perfect, but it's actually pretty darn nice imho. Especially on a touchscreen device.

 

[destrekor]

I'm using the Windows 8 operating system. It has other advantages. In general, the desktop is faster than Win7, and there are a lot of nice improvements to Explorer. Also, startup and shut down are much faster. I don't have to use metro to take advantage of Windows 8, and while a lot of people hate metro so much they don't give the desktop a chance, it actually is a superior desktop experience to Win7 in my experience.

Yep. At it's core, it's easily the best Windows product to date. So it has some new funky abilities that may not be everyone's cup of tea - but if you have even the weakest ability to eventually adapt if given enough of a chance, it's well worth it.
It's the fastest Windows ever. The Windows NT 6.x kernel series has been extremely impressive, and great to see it just keep getting better. Vista was only marred due to the fact it was 6.0 and featured a radically new kernel/driver stack, and required significant driver rewrites and manufacturers were slow to answer that call, or at least slow to produce stable releases that played well with others.
Win7 was an absolute blessing - it was everything Vista was, made even better, and even harder to shake down with driver issues or through other means.
Win8 is faster in every way I've been able to witness, and while I miss the Aero theme, the new theme has really grown on me, and does conceivably lend a hand in giving the overall system a boost.

I was always a fan of the Ribbon interface in recent Office releases, and am very pleased and satisfied with its implementation almost universally across the board in Windows.

The new Task Manager is, alone, almost entirely worth the upgrade. It's freaking insane how much of a boon that is, and in having to deal with systems at work that are all Win7/2008R2 or older, I find myself very sad when I open up those task managers.


edit:

and we're going off topic here.
Then again, as others have said, the whole point of this thread is quite moot. It's an imbalanced comparison. If you don't want the defining characteristics of the Surface Pro (able to be used as a tablet, obviously complete with touch), then it's a completely asinine concept to even consider purchasing it. If you are comfortable with, and desire something along the lines of the MBP, then you have to consider equal comparisons for the conclusion to be just - like, comparing price/performance/features against Ultrabooks.

 

[Owls]

I don't think it is an unbalanced comparison. The touch aspect would be a nice thing to have but not a must have for me. If I could consolidate equipment to the size of a surface pro for my techs I absolutely would but at the price point that it is at currently makes it fair game to consider other similarly size form factor ultra books.

 

[ThePolarSky]

...

 

[destrekor]

I don't think it is an unbalanced comparison. The touch aspect would be a nice thing to have but not a must have for me. If I could consolidate equipment to the size of a surface pro for my techs I absolutely would but at the price point that it is at currently makes it fair game to consider other similarly size form factor ultra books.

No, not really.

If you don't want touch, then you don't want a laptop that can disconnect from it's keyboard and be carried like a tablet.

If you don't want any of that, then you want an ultrabook (or MBA/MBP).
Actually, you're comparison is even worse, come to think of it: if you want to be remotely accurately, (yet still wrong), the Macbook Air is the one to compare to the Surface Pro. And that's generally what Ultrabooks compare to - the MBA. But Ultrabook is a fairly loose concept, and many compete with the MBP.

Again, if you don't want major features of a product, you would be wasting money to buy that product. If you want more performance than the Surface Pro, and don't want it to be tablet-like, then the Surface Pro is the worst product to throw into the ring for comparison.


While what I am about to say is stretching things a little, you're comparison really isn't that far from comparing desktop and laptop. You might compare the categories against each other if you just aren't sure what you actually want/need, but once you have a vague idea of what you want and don't want, you aren't going to compare an iMac against a Thinkpad.

 

[Owls]

Uh you are beyond stretching it. A desktop and laptop are two completely different products. A tablet and an ultrabook are supposed to be portable machines except that the tablet has the capability of a touchscreen. If the Surface Pro with all the goodies wasn't $1100+ there would be no argument as to the value proposition and what it's supposed to do. I suppose the only thing that you could agree with me on is that the SP is a bit overpriced and/or too closely priced to some very capable ultrabooks.

 

[finbarqs]

why are you even considering the surface pro? I have no idea besides to start something up. It's completely illogical to me here why even the comparison. Why not look at the HP Envy Spectre? Why not look at the chromebook pixel?

What makes you even remotely want the surface pro at all? You never mentioned why you wanted to even take a look at the surface pro. It doesn't meet any of your requirements. Don't forget it doesn't have an ethernet port also, and only 1 USB port.

 

[WelshBloke]

Hell yes I do!

Any particular reason? I'm not knocking Android, I think it's great on a phone. I'm just not seeing the pull of it on a laptop.

What is it going to do better than Windows, osx or the various Linux disros built for laptops?

 

[Crono]

why are you even considering the surface pro? I have no idea besides to start something up. It's completely illogical to me here why even the comparison. Why not look at the HP Envy Spectre? Why not look at the chromebook pixel?

What makes you even remotely want the surface pro at all? You never mentioned why you wanted to even take a look at the surface pro. It doesn't meet any of your requirements. Don't forget it doesn't have an ethernet port also, and only 1 USB port.

I think he missed the part about it being a tablet/laptop hybrid.
Which is the whole point of Surface. If you just need one or the other there are far cheaper options with better battery life or better specs.
Surface Pro really is the best and worst of both worlds, though. Right smack in the middle. Haswell is supposed to make the next generation a lot better, but Surface (or other full Windows tablet/laptop hybrids) probably won't be simply "the best of both worlds" until the third generation.

I want a Surface Pro, but I'm waiting until the price drops to $700 or lower. For myself I can't justify spending $1,000 for any computer right now.

 

[finbarqs]

if he wanted a hybrid, he should've mentioned it, but his rMBP completely makes this irrelevant, because he says rMBP is better. rMBP is NOT a hybrid. They share almost nothing, besides that they are high priced (~$1k)

 

[Red Storm]

Any particular reason? I'm not knocking Android, I think it's great on a phone. I'm just not seeing the pull of it on a laptop.

What is it going to do better than Windows, osx or the various Linux disros built for laptops?

But you're kinda implying that by default I should be getting a Windows or Linux laptop. Why? I have no need of Windows. I also haven't really seen a good GUI on any Linux distro. An Android laptop would be perfect. Low cost, good battery life, a good selection of apps that I already use every day. What's not to like?

 

[kevinsbane]

I'm using the Windows 8 operating system. It has other advantages. In general, the desktop is faster than Win7, and there are a lot of nice improvements to Explorer. Also, startup and shut down are much faster. I don't have to use metro to take advantage of Windows 8, and while a lot of people hate metro so much they don't give the desktop a chance, it actually is a superior desktop experience to Win7 in my experience.

Which is basically Win7 with some tweaks. The big differences in user experience in Win8 are in the Metro/whatevertheywanttocallitnow part, and those things are heavily geared towards touch - without it, the metro portion is mostly pointless.

It's rather silly to suffer from such an inability to adapt. If you were competent in Windows before Windows 8, aside from a case of "omg I finally have to adapt to the first radical changes to the Windows desktop paradigm since the Win 3.x/Win95 era? NOOO!", it shouldn't be much more a struggle than that. In other words, it shouldn't be anything other than being a little bit stubborn to adapt to new changes. If you know your way around Windows, and you CAN'T adapt to Windows 8, you need to give up on computing, imho.

It's not perfect, but it's actually pretty darn nice imho. Especially on a touchscreen device.

Exactly - on a touchscreen device. I don't have a compelling reason to dislike Windows 8 if one has a touchscreen device - it's actually quite a likeable experience. The problem being that without a touchscreen, the new Win8 features are either unusable or nowhere near as useful; and in fact get in the way, much of the time. There is a reason why Microsoft is finally relenting and allowing booting to desktop and a start button (albeit no start menu).

 

[Deeko]

Which is basically Win7 with some tweaks. The big differences in user experience in Win8 are in the Metro/whatevertheywanttocallitnow part, and those things are heavily geared towards touch - without it, the metro portion is mostly pointless.

So if Windows 7 is great, and the desktop mode in Windows 8 is superior (even if slightly), what's the problem? You don't have to use metro if you don't want to.

 

[kevinsbane]

So if Windows 7 is great, and the desktop mode in Windows 8 is superior (even if slightly), what's the problem? You don't have to use metro if you don't want to.

There isn't a problem - it's just not what Windows 8 really is. The Big Thing® that Windows 8 is about, is Metro - and Metro is what Microsoft is pushing as Windows 8. If all you're doing is going straight to the desktop, how is that any different from Win 7? It would almost be like running Win 7 - but immediately going to Windows XP mode. Yeah, it's Win7 technically... but you aren't really using Win7. I have a feeling that if Microsoft found a way to get rid of desktop without outcries of rage and a mass exodus of users, they'd've done it.

I don't think there should be any argument over my point - Windows 8 pushes touchscreen capabilities heavily. Without it, there is little to distinguish between Win7 and Win8. Why upgrade if you don't have a touchscreen?

 

[destrekor]

I don't think there should be any argument over my point - Windows 8 pushes touchscreen capabilities heavily. Without it, there is little to distinguish between Win7 and Win8. Why upgrade if you don't have a touchscreen?

Because it's faster?

It's a pretty important part of the overall equation.
Yes, new versions of Operating Systems generally bundle a new feature or a set of new features, but many people upgrade not with the end goal to have those new features, but rather to get the many under-the-hood improvements.

If you had Windows Vista, why upgrade to Windows 7?
Performance and stability

If you have Windows 7, why upgrade to Windows 8?
Performance and stability

 

[kevinsbane]

Because it's faster?

It's a pretty important part of the overall equation.
Yes, new versions of Operating Systems generally bundle a new feature or a set of new features, but many people upgrade not with the end goal to have those new features, but rather to get the many under-the-hood improvements.

Why aren't more people doing it then? Adoption rates of Win8 are very slow, and even worse, are slower than Windows Vista - an indictment if I ever saw one.

If you had Windows Vista, why upgrade to Windows 7?
Performance and stability

If you have Windows 7, why upgrade to Windows 8?
Performance and stability

If you had Windows XP, why upgrade to Windows Vista? Performance and stability? If you had Windows 98 SE, why upgrade to Windows ME? Performance and stability? As it stands, I think people would upgrade to Win8 in droves - if they had touchscreens. But they don't, and the performance and stability (if any) improvements in Win8 simply aren't enough reason for people to upgrade.

 

[dagamer34]

Why aren't more people doing it then? Adoption rates of Win8 are very slow, and even worse, are slower than Windows Vista - an indictment if I ever saw one.


If you had Windows XP, why upgrade to Windows Vista? Performance and stability? If you had Windows 98 SE, why upgrade to Windows ME? Performance and stability? As it stands, I think people would upgrade to Win8 in droves - if they had touchscreens. But they don't, and the performance and stability (if any) improvements in Win8 simply aren't enough reason for people to upgrade.

Because average people rarely upgrade operating systems, they buy new computers to get a new OS. And more people are spending that "PC upgrade" money on tablets because their PC is doing just fine.

A 4 year old laptop today from 2009 would be running just fine. A 4 year old laptop 4 years ago (from 2005) would be a hot piece of crap almost ready to spontaneously combust (remember, pre-Core 2 Duo, max <4 GB RAM, pathetic GPU). Huge difference.