Partially copying my comment from the Copilot+ thread They do some sleight of hand when doing the comparisons during the release today. The Surface Laptop is physically a competitor to the actively cooled MacBook Pro (in fact it’s thicker). Their performance and battery metrics are against the slimmer and passively cooled MacBook Air. Their performance comparison is between the M3 and the Snapdragon X Elite when the…
Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
91–100 of 120 posts
Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have serious trust issues when microsoft makes a claim about battery life.
Yeah, I bought past versions of the Surface and the Surface Book. They would often never wake up from sleep or the battery would be dead unexpectedly. Hard for me to trust them after feeling like I wasted money multiple times.
Even on an old, well-understood, and revered[0] laptop (the ThinkPad T530), I was having an unexpectedly-dead battery when running Windows.
It's a work laptop, and it is pretty much only used for occasional actually-portable computing work like programming of other devices in the field. It spends most of its time in the work truck, hibernated and unplugged -- sometimes, for weeks at a stretch.
I began to accept its increasingly-poor apparent battery health and started to explain it to myself as "Well, it is pretty old."
Or so I thought, anyway: One day it was sitting there on a table, unplugged, and I noticed that it came to life by itself and then hibernated again a few minutes later.
WTF?
Waaaay too much investigation later, I found that a part of an HP printer driver was forcing it to wake every couple of hours...for reasons that I don't care to explore, since none of those reasons could possibly have any positive merit.
Waaaay too much poking-and-prodding after that, I was able to disable the offending thing using powercfg on the command line.
And now, it seems fine. The battery life is not particularly good and never will be, but at least it's not "Surprise! I'm completely dead!!!" anymore.
This kind of sloppiness in software seems to be considered normal in the Windows space, and an abusive HP printer driver doesn't care if it is running on a 9-year-old ThinkPad or a 9-day-old Surface: It will abuse all of them just the same.
[0]: I hate numeric keypads, and gamer laptops, and computers that are built down to a budget as a primary design criteria. The T530 is approximately the last 15" PC laptop that lacks a numeric keypad, and that does not have stupid gamer-glam functions or styling, and that isn't built down to a budget price. It is stoic and plain and black, and both the keyboad and the touchpad are centered on the screen.
Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#93So the new pro-level laptop from MS+QCOM (they are bragging of the specs of the one with Snapdragon X Elite chip which starts at $1,500) and ships in a month beats last year's entry-level mac, which starts at $999 and has been shipping for a year?
Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why battery claims are always UP TO not AT LEAST.
It still fraud (in my opinion) if you can never reach those numbers under any circumstances. It's not "up to a million hours usage", because it's impossible to use it for a million hours.
Who said they never reach those numbers? All manufacturers have disclaimers that the "UP TO numbers" have been achieved in their labs in their own controlled environment, and some even specify some the conditions: Pass Mark, wifi, power-mode screen brightness, etc.
Your car also specifies some very optimistic MPG/range specs that most owners will never reach but they were reached in a lab somewhere running on a dyno.
Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#95Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still fraud (in my opinion) if you can never reach those numbers under any circumstances. It's not "up to a million hours usage", because it's impossible to use it for a million hours.
>It still fraud (in my opinion) if you can never reach those numbers under any circumstances. Who said they never reach those numbers? All manufacturers have disclaimers that the "UP TO numbers" have been achieved in their labs in their own controlled environment, and some even specify some the conditions: Pass Mark, wifi, power-mode screen brightness, etc. Your car also specifies some very optimistic MPG/range specs…
I'm of the opinion that's getting into the realm of impossible numbers, absent evidence otherwise.
If you get it out of the box and it doesn't get what they specify - that's misleading at best, fraud at worst.
The car tests do specify the testing conditions, so I would expect that my car would perform the same under the specified conditions.
Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#97I think hours of video call with five other people need to be a metric for devices now.
Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#98Re: Microsoft says new Surface Pro is faster than 15" M3 MacBook Air
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It still fraud (in my opinion) if you can never reach those numbers under any circumstances. Who said they never reach those numbers? All manufacturers have disclaimers that the "UP TO numbers" have been achieved in their labs in their own controlled environment, and some even specify some the conditions: Pass Mark, wifi, power-mode screen brightness, etc. Your car also specifies some very optimistic MPG/range specs…
The root comment we're replying to here is saying that the previous model Surface was out by 2-4x. I'm of the opinion that's getting into the realm of impossible numbers, absent evidence otherwise. If you get it out of the box and it doesn't get what they specify - that's misleading at best, fraud at worst. The car tests do specify the testing conditions, so I would expect that my car would perform the same under the…
And how can we verify that he didn't have some power virus running in the background to generalize that 2-4x claim as being a universal fault with all devices?
The manufacturer makes a claim based on a (obviously biased) controlled lab condition. When you use the device outside that lab condition then it obviously won't apply anymore (duh).
The manufacturer can't promise an exact battery life on YOUR use case since everyone's use case will be completely different, and once you introduce external apps beyond the manufacturer's own control, then everything goes out the window.