![]() | Microsoft Surface phone was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 May 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Microsoft Surface. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The iPad article has OS information, and an unknown IP made edits without citing any Wikipedia policy, that goes against the policies I mentioned in my edits WikIan -( talk) 05:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Since no one bothers to follow WP:CYCLE, here are my thoughts again
WikIan -( talk) 10:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
WikIan's objection ("FC edits made it seem like all the Surface devices can run Windows RT and Windows 10") does not apply to CL's prose. Furthermore, CL's prose complies with WP:IBT that says "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article". So, why did WikIan revert CL in the first place? Looks like he is inventing the dispute. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)" Windows 8, RT, 8.1 or 10, depending on the model; c.f. § Model comparison"
By reading the infobox the way you and CL have made it, can a reader tell which devices run Windows 8/10 and which ones run Windows RT? No.
Secondly,...I've already forfeited this argument. I have nothing to add. If you like to pick a fight, go to a bar or something.
@ FleetCommand: I will not start and edit war with you WikIan -( talk) 10:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not personally think this is a good idea to list all past OSes in the infobox. Even if some devices were originally sold with some particular OS pre-installed, it does not matter anymore, since the majority of them were upgraded already and the recent operating system endorsed by the manufacturer is Windows 10.
WikIan, I believe, that your argument regarding the fact, that in some countries there are still Surface devices, running Windows 8 is irrelevant: even if there is a bunch of Surface Pro 3 running Windows 8 in the U.S., it does not make any sense. Imagine that I own the Surface Book, which runs Windows XP and there is a bunch of unconfirmed folks doing the same, shall we add Windows XP to the infobox? I believe we should not. P. S. Surface Hub runs Windows 10. TranslucentCloud ( talk) 09:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No! Surface RT and Surface RT2 do not!
currently length is a non-issue
For some reason the infobox on this article lists almost no details, I'm planning on making a few edits to make it more akin (and thus expandable) like the one in iPad, ¿is there a reason why it's different here or could I just go ahead and make the edits? Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have suggested a reform of the Microsoft Surface template used in every Microsoft Surface-related article to be more styled like the Microsoft Lumia template. I have submitted my suggestions at Template talk:Surface models, personally I'd suggest the one where the operating systems are listed as opposed to generations or branding as that would be more consistent with other Microsoft hardware like Microsoft Mobile Oy's Microsoft Lumia, and Microsoft Mobile Oy's Nokia 3-digit series. The reason I am suggesting this is because of how disorganised the template looks at present and there really isn't any organisation in that differentiates between generations and device-types, and this might be confusing to the WP:READER so I have created a few drafts, please reply to me at the linked talk page above, as this discussion is about the template within Microsoft Surface-related articles as opposed to solely this article but I have written/posted this here because most Microsoft Surface-related article editors are here, and changing the template would also directly affect this article.
Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 09:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The usage and topic of surface is under discussion, see Talk:Surface -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
CEO Kyle Wiens claims that it is due to incompetence rather than deliberate design choices.[104]
when fallowing the link i see a page about ipad repair and when i search for incompetence on the linked resource i find nothing. i don't belive this has anything to do with surface pro.
on a side note i am still using my gen 1 surface pro and type cover. and none of the issues reported. in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nntb ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Microsoft Surface's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Yahoo":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I watched an Interview of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates from 2007 where the host mentioned that Steve Ballmer showcased a new Multitouch Tablet device called Surface.
What exactly was this device, is it related to the todays surface and should it be mentioned in the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.171.180.165 ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree that this article is a very complex read? I mean everything is so jumbled. I think from know on we need a better plan. Does the information pertain to a single device? >> If yes move it to that single article, if it pertains two two devices keep it here and organize it. WikIan -( talk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As a reader, this article is becoming challenging to follow, because it goes between discussing the 2-in-1 devices and the family. What do you guys think of splitting it based on WP:CONSPLIT? I envision a summary article for the product family and brand, and another for the Surface and Surface Pro tablets, with Surface Book, Surface Laptop, and Surface Studio remaining independent, but referred to in the family article. If each iPad generation can have its own article, I'm pretty sure 7 Surface tablets can stand on their own. heat_fan1 ( talk) 19:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, up top we have the warning, "This article is about the first generation of a high-end Windows 8 Pro 2-in-1 of the Microsoft Surface series. For other devices of the Pro line, see Microsoft Surface. For the 2017 device, see Surface Pro (5th generation)."
However, that's pretty convoluted. Most people looking up the Surface Pro will want to read about either the entire line, or the latest device. Why not pull out Surface Pro from the Surface article, as it is a distinct line of products, and have the contents of this article under Surface Pro(1rst generation)? It is not even accurate to describe the entire line as consisting of "Windows 8 Pro 2-in-1" devices, because Surface Pros have been running entirely on 10 since the 4th gen was released 3 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth1337 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
After going through the article, I found out it is good enough for a class-C quality.-- IM3847 ( talk) 12:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The information given in the “support lifespan” column of the first table Is meaningless so far as I can tell. it would be useful to know how long the support window is for each model, but it seems pretty clear that that’s not what here. Would someone who knows about this either fix it or get rid of it?
Poihths ( talk) 13:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this should be mentioned but according to https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/05/26/patent-shows-off-microsofts-surface-smart-speaker/ apparently we'll eventually receive a smart speaker that'll be part of the Surface brand would it be worthwhile to mention it on the main article? Shadow War fare 17:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Probably not until (if) it's announced FormularSumo ( talk) 16:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream ( talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
The redirect
Surface Book 4 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § Surface Book 4 until a consensus is reached.
Awesome
Aasim
21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I want to make a couple of comments on why I reverted the changes to the device page.
YannickFran ( talk) 22:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, merging Surface Book and Surface Laptop Studio should not be done. These 2 are distinct product lines.
- Second, unlike Apple products, Surface devices don't go through various stages of deprecation, it makes no sense to try and mimic the meaning of its colors to an equivalent on the Windows side.
- Making distinctions for specific variants of the same product just because they launch at different dates should not be done especially given that this happens regularly.
- Which also applies to the driver column: this is a summary and making a distinction between types of updates in this table should probably be considered out-of-scope and be left to the model comparison tables or the product line and product articles instead.
- There's also no reason to differentiate between present and past tense in table headings.
- Android 14 is not the latest Android version available to any Surface device, Android 12.1 is. The note on what latest means for Android is also redundant since there is no device that has a fluid "latest" as is the case for Windows.
- Also note that the table uses the OS version, not name, as we write "Windows 10 version 22H2" instead of "Windows 10 2022 Update". Hence why we also write "Android 12.1" and not "Android 12L".
- Then is there any explanation for why Microsoft launched the Surface Laptop Studio at the same time as the discontinuation of the Surface Book 3? There is an RfD about Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_25#Surface_Book_4 which has a source that Microsoft will not be releasing a Book 4. The Book and Laptop Studio devices are grouped at the same price point/class. Just as the Surface RT/2/3 were entry level devices in the same manner as the Surface Go/2/3/4.
- I am willing to disagree. Microsoft has their "Legacy products" list with regard to device drivers, which specifies when Microsoft will no longer update a product's drivers. In addition, there is a point (I don't know when) where Microsoft will stop providing support for parts. Right now, you cannot get parts repair for any product earlier than Surface Pro LTE (5th generation).
- The issue is that they have different end of service dates. Otherwise I would agree we should not make distinctions on variations. A similar situation would be the iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max; variations on the same core product targeted at different price points.
- Well, kind of, but also no. Every Windows product has a date when the manufacturer will stop supporting it in the forms of drivers or repairs. Does not matter whether it is Microsoft, Dell, ASUS, Lenovo, HP, etc.
- Okay, so how about let's not have any verbs in the headers? So "End of support date", etc.
The Surface Book and Surface Laptop Studio have clear different form factors, names, target audiences and use cases.They aren't. Microsoft won't be releasing a Surface Book 4 and appeared to discontinue that particular lineup. They are at the same price point and are both 2-in-1 laptops. The Surface Book 3 started at $1600 on launch, while the Surface Laptop Studio started at the same price for consumers. They have different form factors, sure, but so does the Surface 3 and Surface Go. If you are suggesting we should on the summary group every different device series together that is also workable. I also saw on the timeline you ungrouped the Book and Laptop Studio. That leaves a white void that is ugly, so let's not do that.
For Apple the terminology used there and the distinction that comes out of that is something Apple actually does themselves, tho. Calling Surface devices "legacy" because Microsoft stops supporting drivers is something Microsoft doesn't (nor does any OEM because for some that would mean a device is "legacy" as soon as it releases).The OEM end of support date is relevant information as it details when further drivers, and service orders, won't be available. You're suggesting that including information on different stages of product obsolescence might be unencyclopedic it seems for Microsoft, but not for Apple. I'd argue that it is either encyclopedic for all or unencyclopedic for all, there is not really an in-between.
In the case of these Surface devices we're talking about them shipping with a different Intel chip (an aspect where variety already exists between SKUs), there is no internal design difference (beyond leaving away unnecessary components if a specific SKU doesn't need them, e.g.: fan vs fan-less chips), they aren't marketed as their own products.Except when they are. The Surface Pro (5th gen) with LTE Advanced was not available in the i7 configuration. Also, the Surface Pro 4 to Pro 7 share the same form factor; their only difference is the chips they shipped with. And Surface Pro X was listed in three generations on that product lifecycle page: SQ1, SQ2, and Wi-Fi. Awesome Aasim 21:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Microsoft's marketing for the Book and Laptop Studio are clearly different and do not target the same audience.Okay, let's look at what is verifiable. The Surface Book 3 product page linked on Wikipedia redirects to the Surface Laptop Studio. There we go; that's convincing enough evidence Microsoft intended to replace the Surface Book lineup with the Surface Laptop Studio. [2]
Someone should really condense the "Reception section" by removing much of its content, and perhaps move some of it to the "History" section. Much of its content is around 10 years old, and seems irrelevant for decision-making today. "Reported issues" and "Promotion" also seem very outdated. The graph in "Timeline" is particularly interesting, but it's vague about its sources, so it's hard to say how accurate it is. Alenoach ( talk) 12:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Microsoft Surface phone was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 May 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Microsoft Surface. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The iPad article has OS information, and an unknown IP made edits without citing any Wikipedia policy, that goes against the policies I mentioned in my edits WikIan -( talk) 05:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Since no one bothers to follow WP:CYCLE, here are my thoughts again
WikIan -( talk) 10:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
WikIan's objection ("FC edits made it seem like all the Surface devices can run Windows RT and Windows 10") does not apply to CL's prose. Furthermore, CL's prose complies with WP:IBT that says "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article". So, why did WikIan revert CL in the first place? Looks like he is inventing the dispute. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)" Windows 8, RT, 8.1 or 10, depending on the model; c.f. § Model comparison"
By reading the infobox the way you and CL have made it, can a reader tell which devices run Windows 8/10 and which ones run Windows RT? No.
Secondly,...I've already forfeited this argument. I have nothing to add. If you like to pick a fight, go to a bar or something.
@ FleetCommand: I will not start and edit war with you WikIan -( talk) 10:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not personally think this is a good idea to list all past OSes in the infobox. Even if some devices were originally sold with some particular OS pre-installed, it does not matter anymore, since the majority of them were upgraded already and the recent operating system endorsed by the manufacturer is Windows 10.
WikIan, I believe, that your argument regarding the fact, that in some countries there are still Surface devices, running Windows 8 is irrelevant: even if there is a bunch of Surface Pro 3 running Windows 8 in the U.S., it does not make any sense. Imagine that I own the Surface Book, which runs Windows XP and there is a bunch of unconfirmed folks doing the same, shall we add Windows XP to the infobox? I believe we should not. P. S. Surface Hub runs Windows 10. TranslucentCloud ( talk) 09:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No! Surface RT and Surface RT2 do not!
currently length is a non-issue
For some reason the infobox on this article lists almost no details, I'm planning on making a few edits to make it more akin (and thus expandable) like the one in iPad, ¿is there a reason why it's different here or could I just go ahead and make the edits? Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have suggested a reform of the Microsoft Surface template used in every Microsoft Surface-related article to be more styled like the Microsoft Lumia template. I have submitted my suggestions at Template talk:Surface models, personally I'd suggest the one where the operating systems are listed as opposed to generations or branding as that would be more consistent with other Microsoft hardware like Microsoft Mobile Oy's Microsoft Lumia, and Microsoft Mobile Oy's Nokia 3-digit series. The reason I am suggesting this is because of how disorganised the template looks at present and there really isn't any organisation in that differentiates between generations and device-types, and this might be confusing to the WP:READER so I have created a few drafts, please reply to me at the linked talk page above, as this discussion is about the template within Microsoft Surface-related articles as opposed to solely this article but I have written/posted this here because most Microsoft Surface-related article editors are here, and changing the template would also directly affect this article.
Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 09:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The usage and topic of surface is under discussion, see Talk:Surface -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
CEO Kyle Wiens claims that it is due to incompetence rather than deliberate design choices.[104]
when fallowing the link i see a page about ipad repair and when i search for incompetence on the linked resource i find nothing. i don't belive this has anything to do with surface pro.
on a side note i am still using my gen 1 surface pro and type cover. and none of the issues reported. in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nntb ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Microsoft Surface's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Yahoo":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I watched an Interview of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates from 2007 where the host mentioned that Steve Ballmer showcased a new Multitouch Tablet device called Surface.
What exactly was this device, is it related to the todays surface and should it be mentioned in the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.171.180.165 ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree that this article is a very complex read? I mean everything is so jumbled. I think from know on we need a better plan. Does the information pertain to a single device? >> If yes move it to that single article, if it pertains two two devices keep it here and organize it. WikIan -( talk) 19:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As a reader, this article is becoming challenging to follow, because it goes between discussing the 2-in-1 devices and the family. What do you guys think of splitting it based on WP:CONSPLIT? I envision a summary article for the product family and brand, and another for the Surface and Surface Pro tablets, with Surface Book, Surface Laptop, and Surface Studio remaining independent, but referred to in the family article. If each iPad generation can have its own article, I'm pretty sure 7 Surface tablets can stand on their own. heat_fan1 ( talk) 19:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, up top we have the warning, "This article is about the first generation of a high-end Windows 8 Pro 2-in-1 of the Microsoft Surface series. For other devices of the Pro line, see Microsoft Surface. For the 2017 device, see Surface Pro (5th generation)."
However, that's pretty convoluted. Most people looking up the Surface Pro will want to read about either the entire line, or the latest device. Why not pull out Surface Pro from the Surface article, as it is a distinct line of products, and have the contents of this article under Surface Pro(1rst generation)? It is not even accurate to describe the entire line as consisting of "Windows 8 Pro 2-in-1" devices, because Surface Pros have been running entirely on 10 since the 4th gen was released 3 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth1337 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
After going through the article, I found out it is good enough for a class-C quality.-- IM3847 ( talk) 12:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The information given in the “support lifespan” column of the first table Is meaningless so far as I can tell. it would be useful to know how long the support window is for each model, but it seems pretty clear that that’s not what here. Would someone who knows about this either fix it or get rid of it?
Poihths ( talk) 13:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this should be mentioned but according to https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/05/26/patent-shows-off-microsofts-surface-smart-speaker/ apparently we'll eventually receive a smart speaker that'll be part of the Surface brand would it be worthwhile to mention it on the main article? Shadow War fare 17:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Probably not until (if) it's announced FormularSumo ( talk) 16:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream ( talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
The redirect
Surface Book 4 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § Surface Book 4 until a consensus is reached.
Awesome
Aasim
21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I want to make a couple of comments on why I reverted the changes to the device page.
YannickFran ( talk) 22:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, merging Surface Book and Surface Laptop Studio should not be done. These 2 are distinct product lines.
- Second, unlike Apple products, Surface devices don't go through various stages of deprecation, it makes no sense to try and mimic the meaning of its colors to an equivalent on the Windows side.
- Making distinctions for specific variants of the same product just because they launch at different dates should not be done especially given that this happens regularly.
- Which also applies to the driver column: this is a summary and making a distinction between types of updates in this table should probably be considered out-of-scope and be left to the model comparison tables or the product line and product articles instead.
- There's also no reason to differentiate between present and past tense in table headings.
- Android 14 is not the latest Android version available to any Surface device, Android 12.1 is. The note on what latest means for Android is also redundant since there is no device that has a fluid "latest" as is the case for Windows.
- Also note that the table uses the OS version, not name, as we write "Windows 10 version 22H2" instead of "Windows 10 2022 Update". Hence why we also write "Android 12.1" and not "Android 12L".
- Then is there any explanation for why Microsoft launched the Surface Laptop Studio at the same time as the discontinuation of the Surface Book 3? There is an RfD about Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_25#Surface_Book_4 which has a source that Microsoft will not be releasing a Book 4. The Book and Laptop Studio devices are grouped at the same price point/class. Just as the Surface RT/2/3 were entry level devices in the same manner as the Surface Go/2/3/4.
- I am willing to disagree. Microsoft has their "Legacy products" list with regard to device drivers, which specifies when Microsoft will no longer update a product's drivers. In addition, there is a point (I don't know when) where Microsoft will stop providing support for parts. Right now, you cannot get parts repair for any product earlier than Surface Pro LTE (5th generation).
- The issue is that they have different end of service dates. Otherwise I would agree we should not make distinctions on variations. A similar situation would be the iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max; variations on the same core product targeted at different price points.
- Well, kind of, but also no. Every Windows product has a date when the manufacturer will stop supporting it in the forms of drivers or repairs. Does not matter whether it is Microsoft, Dell, ASUS, Lenovo, HP, etc.
- Okay, so how about let's not have any verbs in the headers? So "End of support date", etc.
The Surface Book and Surface Laptop Studio have clear different form factors, names, target audiences and use cases.They aren't. Microsoft won't be releasing a Surface Book 4 and appeared to discontinue that particular lineup. They are at the same price point and are both 2-in-1 laptops. The Surface Book 3 started at $1600 on launch, while the Surface Laptop Studio started at the same price for consumers. They have different form factors, sure, but so does the Surface 3 and Surface Go. If you are suggesting we should on the summary group every different device series together that is also workable. I also saw on the timeline you ungrouped the Book and Laptop Studio. That leaves a white void that is ugly, so let's not do that.
For Apple the terminology used there and the distinction that comes out of that is something Apple actually does themselves, tho. Calling Surface devices "legacy" because Microsoft stops supporting drivers is something Microsoft doesn't (nor does any OEM because for some that would mean a device is "legacy" as soon as it releases).The OEM end of support date is relevant information as it details when further drivers, and service orders, won't be available. You're suggesting that including information on different stages of product obsolescence might be unencyclopedic it seems for Microsoft, but not for Apple. I'd argue that it is either encyclopedic for all or unencyclopedic for all, there is not really an in-between.
In the case of these Surface devices we're talking about them shipping with a different Intel chip (an aspect where variety already exists between SKUs), there is no internal design difference (beyond leaving away unnecessary components if a specific SKU doesn't need them, e.g.: fan vs fan-less chips), they aren't marketed as their own products.Except when they are. The Surface Pro (5th gen) with LTE Advanced was not available in the i7 configuration. Also, the Surface Pro 4 to Pro 7 share the same form factor; their only difference is the chips they shipped with. And Surface Pro X was listed in three generations on that product lifecycle page: SQ1, SQ2, and Wi-Fi. Awesome Aasim 21:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Microsoft's marketing for the Book and Laptop Studio are clearly different and do not target the same audience.Okay, let's look at what is verifiable. The Surface Book 3 product page linked on Wikipedia redirects to the Surface Laptop Studio. There we go; that's convincing enough evidence Microsoft intended to replace the Surface Book lineup with the Surface Laptop Studio. [2]
Someone should really condense the "Reception section" by removing much of its content, and perhaps move some of it to the "History" section. Much of its content is around 10 years old, and seems irrelevant for decision-making today. "Reported issues" and "Promotion" also seem very outdated. The graph in "Timeline" is particularly interesting, but it's vague about its sources, so it's hard to say how accurate it is. Alenoach ( talk) 12:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)