Review Microsoft Surface Pro X Review: We’re Just Not Compatible

[Admin]

The Microsoft Surface Pro X is plagued with app compatibility issues, but it shows amazing growth in Microsoft’s Surface design.

Microsoft Surface Pro X Review: We’re Just Not Compatible : Read more

 

[thisisaname]

One year warranty in the UK I think not.
How long are electrical goods guaranteed for in UK?
Because manufacturers tend to give one year's warranty on goods, retailers will usually push you in their direction if the product breaks inside the first year. However, SOGA provides cover for goods bought for up to six years – in England and Wales. This means if a TV fails after 13 months, you still have rights.

 

[StewartHH]

Honestly Microsoft would have to cut the price in half as in price of Samsung TAB S6 to even consider this as valid option and I not sure that would be good enough. Windows and ARM does not mix - compatibility is off the drawing board and maybe that it Microsoft entire hope to get rid of x86 applications. Without that Windows has no value - look where Windows Phone and Windows RT.

I am concern the poor customers who purchase this thing expecting there applications will run.

I was actually really surprise of it battery life compare to Ice Lake - that was major shocker and yet another nail in coffin.

 

[Giroro]

The pricing for this tablet seems -WAY- off the mark.
$150 for a basic slim keyboard. A stylus that makes the Apple Pencil look like a good value.
$300 for an additional 128GB of SSD? Seriously? Seriously?!

Look I know Redmond is an elite ultra-expensive elitist city with salaries high enough to make us pleb engineers in Seattle look like we should be on welfare. I imagine it is easy to get out of touch with the value of a dollar when you can easily afford the $750k mortgage on your 600 square foot studio condo.
But regardless, this never should have left the lab until Microsoft could get the pricing down to a level that makes sense to the other 99.9% of us in the mainstream. And I think they could have gotten there by simply charging a normal amount of markup - that or their cost to manufacture these things must be totally out of control.

Here's the thing, this is an early iteration of an unusual architecture with bad software support and a barely-functional fork of Windows. If Microsoft wants to get any amount of 3rd party support whatsoever for Windows on ARM, then they're going to have to move a lot of hardware in the mainstream. They can't launch a premium product with what appears to be higher-than-Apple profit margins on the first go and expect anybody to buy it. Do they really think there's a market for an iPad-competitor that does less and costs more (or even for a Surface that does less and costs more)? Is there even still a market for the iPad itself?
I would call this the Zune of tablets, except that the Zune was technically more feature-rich than the iPod and was less expensive.

 

[StewartHH]

I would call this the Zune of tablets, except that the Zune was technically more feature-rich than the iPod and was less expensive.

I had on those Zune, maybe best thing that could happen to this tablet, it that it would land in a future Guardians of Galaxy movies as some obsolete item from the past.

 

[ChrisGX]

What a strange comparison. Normally, the existence of some common feature or detail of significance is the basis on which a comparison or contrast can be made but the Microsoft Surface Pro X and the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (with Intel Core i7-1065G7) have literally nothing in common that would justify a comparison between the two. The processors are incomparable. The Microsoft SQ1 (a thinly veiled Snapdragon 8cx) has been deliberately promoted by Qualcomm as offering performance in the class of the Intel Core i5-8250U (a moderate performer quite different to the 15W TDP category leading Intel Core i7-1065G7). Moreover, the SQ1 is not about offering markedly higher performance than the Core i5-8250U. On the contrary, it is the (putative) similar performance of the SQ1 to the Core i5-8250U that justifies making a comparison in the first place. The advantage of the SQ1 when compared to the Core i5-8250U, be it noted, is the notably lower power consumption - around 7W TDP - that makes possible a thin and light tablet experience free of fans. And, consistent with that thin and light goal reduction of the size of the battery of the Microsoft Surface Pro X has been possible without putting battery life in jeopardy. Likewise, a device like the Surface Pro X - that is frugal with battery power and offers LTE connectivity - makes always on always connected mobility a realisable goal. So, again, the target markets for the Microsoft Surface Pro X and the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 are completely unrelated and not a basis for comparison.

Looking at the price of the units we again see that no meaningful comparison can be made. The Surface Pro X once kitted up to a suitable configuration to begin to make a comparison we see the price for the unit coming to $1568.99 ($999 for the base unit + $269.99 for the Surface Pro X Signature Keyboard with Slim Pen bundle + $300 for a storage upgrade to 256GB). The price for the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (with Intel Core i7-1065G7), on the other hand, is $3098.99 (or $2,633.99 at a discount from Dell and Amazon). It stretches credulity to seek to compare this very expensive computer with the the Surface Pro X that is about half the price of the Dell unit (in the configuration described in the article).

Finally, allowing the comparison is misfired it behooves Tom's Hardware to at least gather valid benchmark data. The Geekbench 4.1 Multi-core score of 6863 is ridiculous. More accurate data can be found in the Geekbench database. The Multi-core score for the SQ1 is certainly above 11,000. I can only assume that Tom's failed to run Geekbench built for ARM. That low score is probably the 32 bit x86 build of Geekbench (for Windows) running in emulation on Surface Pro X. So, the score isn't a mistake, exactly, but it is utterly meaningless.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=SAMSUNG+ELECTRONICS+CO.,+LTD.+Galaxy+Book+S
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?page=1&q=Qualcomm+CLS&utf8=✓