This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Surface Book article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Surface Book appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't often contribute to Wikipedia (lack of time) but Marking this page for deletion is some form of insanity. You couldn't get a more public impactful announcement of a new product than today's presentaion in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.48.56 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The infobox should NOT be removed from this article, unless you can remove it from the iPhone 6S and MacBook (Retina) first without anyone complaining! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth having this discussion now. The page currently calls it as a tablet - I'm not sure if I agree with this for a few reasons:
I feel this differentiates it from other devices that are designed as a tablet with laptop-like features (eg, Surface Pro 4, even others like the Asus Transformer and HP Spectre 13 x2). Unlike these devices, the tablet is secondary to the base, not the other way round.
It's also classified as a laptop in all of Microsoft's releases.
-- Strata8 ( talk) 14:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Another thing that differentiates the Surface Book from the Surface Pro 4 (both categorised as "2-in-1 detachable tablets") is the inclusion of a hinge and base that can completely support the screen/tablet, allowing use of the device in the form a traditional laptop. The ASUS Transformer and HP Spectre 13 x2 would then both fall into the same category. The Surface Pro series in comparison requires a kickstand and would never be mistaken for anything but a tablet.
Personally I don't see why the distinction has to be made between "2-in-1 detachable laptops/tablets" (eg, Surface Book, ASUS Transformer) and "2-in-1 non-detachable laptops" (eg, Lenovo Yoga). The Lenovo Yoga is currently classified as a 2-in-1 convertible tablet laptop which just sounds silly. I'd simplify it and group them into "2-in-1 laptop" (Surface Book, Transformer, Yoga) and "2-in-1 tablet" (Surface Pro, Lenovo Miix) categories. The linked article would then describe the different forms of each. Both of these even could go even under a "2-in-1 computer" article.
The media are also largely referring to it as a laptop:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9694/microsoft-reveals-the-surface-book
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/microsoft-unveils-lumia-950-and-950-xl-smartphones-and-surface-book-its-first-ever-laptop-in-hardware-blowout-20151006-gk2uoq.html
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/07/microsoft-surface-book-laptop-tablet-apple-macbook-pro
http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/06/microsoft-surface-book-hands-on/
http://techreport.com/news/29156/surface-book-is-microsoft-take-on-what-the-laptop-should-be
-- Strata8 ( talk) 11:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/6/9466091/microsoft-event-recap-video-surface-book-pro-4-lumia
"Microsoft finally made a laptop"
"Then there's the Surface Book, which has easily attracted the most attention. It's Microsoft's play for the high-end laptop market. It's a full power laptop that has a detachable screen for use as a tablet " "Is the Surface Book competing with the MacBook Pro? Yeah, that's about right."
There are several misunderstandings about the Surface Book in above comments that needs to be corrected before people decide on this
1. Zero hardware components to make the Surface Book function are found in the keyboard. The normal models have all components in the tablet. Only the most expensive model have an extra GPU in the keyboard.
2. The Surface Book tablet like any tablet can be charged independently from the keyboard. https://www.reddit.com/r/Surface/comments/3nrdfb/it_would_appear_that_the_surface_book_tablet_can/
3. Company marketing should never dictate how Wiki describes a device. Microsoft most likely have a big interest in promoting this device as a laptop since it differentiates it more from the Surface Pro and in peoples minds makes it more of a competitor to the MacBook Pro as was heavily promoted at the Microsoft device event.
4. Several other similar 2-in-1 tablets from other manufactureres have been described by the same media as above as just that, 2-in-1 tablets, and this device should not be treated differently. http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/08/asus-transformer-book-t300-chi-review/
5. The only-the-headphone-jack-and-charging-port-is-found-on-the-tablet argument is not an argument since most tablets only have a headphone jack and charging port.
6. The tablet has an active digitizer with a stylus which suggests that a major use case of this device would be as a tablet.
User:Us456879 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:ViperSnake151, please bother yourself a little and explain why you rolled back Surface-series integrated quality version and replaced it with the current content. rv; disruptive edit, promotional is not sufficient explanation. What you currently doing is start of the edit warring, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. TranslucentCloud ( talk) 16:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ ViperSnake151 your edits are WP:OWN and you are changing the article to conform to YOUR layout. Stop. We have a specific layout in place across all Surface articles. WikIan -( talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with simply calling it a Keyboard since it is an integral part of the product, not an accessory like a dock might suggest. Kernel Patch ( talk) 04:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, WP:NOTGUIDE for buyers and there is absolutely no reason to have a distinct "Known issues" section for each notable consumer product. It does not have any encyclopedic sense.
If there is some serious and persisting issue, which was not resolved across product hardware and/or software update cycles, the issue notoriety of which has been discussed a lot and analyzed in number of articles of respected authors, it does make encyclopedic sense and belongs to the Reception > Issues.
Refer to the iPad (3rd generation)#Issues for an example of a proper use and placement of the Issues section. TranslucentCloud ( talk) 13:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an slow edit war going on about this at least back to November. I strongly suggest continuing this discussion or bring in either a more formal discussion ( such as an RfC ) or possibly one of the suggestions at resolving content disputes with outside help. PaleAqua ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested. It is difficult to offer a third opinion for two reasons, but I will try. First, the questions are not concise or focused. Second, on its face this looks like a dispute among multiple editors. If I didn't know that IP addresses jump all over the map, I would decline it for that reason. As it is, I only very strongly advise the unregistered editor to register, and, in particular, to register if they plan to pursue dispute resolution in the future. If the question is whether there should be an Issues section, other consumer products often have one. Even if the issues have been resolved, their inclusion is history. If that isn't the question, please re-ask the question, which I am closing as answered. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, guys.
I understand your problem is about one paragraph seen in revision 722362273. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with it. i.e., neither the word nor the spirit of WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:UNDUE have anything to do with it. If anything, it goes towards comprehensiveness required by WP:FACR. That said, this edit war over such a trifle is far worse the damage of omitting or the benefit of including it. If you people don't know how to reach a compromise or consensus over such a trifle, how are you ever supposed to help with anything major in Wikipedia?
If I were TranslucentCloud I'd have either left the matter well alone a long time ago (as a compromise) or would have invited additional parties to this discussion via WikiProjects or RFC. Even at the times when one of the involved parties is refusing to participate in consensus-building, the consensus can be still built with the help of other community members in order to legitimately deal with non-participants.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
17:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
As to my opinion, I think that the issue is notable, but that it probably should be balanced with additional information about the battery and battery life if possible. There is already coverage about the specs and how the Surface Book has two batteries, but would be nice to get third party sources on real world usage. If we do include an issue section, there have been other issues that probably also desire a mention such as the hello camera not turning on after a suspend. PaleAqua ( talk) 03:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Since it seems like we are in agreement I did a first pass and incorporating some of the issues/fixes etc. Il think we still need more details in the hardware section. For example about the camera and battery life in particular. Some of this will probably need to be done to Surface Pro 4 but that page is currently fully protected after the RPP and it's probably best to start here anyways. PaleAqua ( talk) 01:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Issues and fixes
Windows Hello
The a firmware update prevent the infrared camera failed to initialize after a suspend preventing Windows Hello from working correctly.[9] Firmware updates were issued in April and May to fix the camera.[10]
Battery Life
The device had an issue where it failed to sleep properly, draining the battery very quickly.[11] Microsoft developed a fix that was available on February 17, 2016.[12]
Anyone see a problem with the words (if you can call them that) directly underneath the "Windows Hello" heading?
Per the format of the information under the heading "Battery Life", should read:
The device had an issue where the infrared camera failed to initialize after a suspend, preventing Windows Hello from working correctly. Microsoft developed fixes that were available on April (EXACT DATE) and May (EXACT DATE) [or in April and May of (YEAR)].
Thanks for confirming this! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbertprime ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
How come there is nothing in this article on the Surface Book's repairability?
(By way of background I've been designing, building, maintaining, and repairing computers since 1962, portable computers since the late 1980s, and laptops since the early 1990s. I also founded and ran a company during 2000-2010 making miniature x86 computers. I'm accustomed to repairing whatever I'm currently using whenever it breaks, and therefore have experience with repairs to dozens of kinds of computers.)
A few months ago the display port on my high-end 2015 Surface Book (i7, 16GB, 512GB, dGPU) went on the blink, possibly due to a total solder meltdown in the badly designed connector of the 65W power adapter (the more recent 102W adapter I replaced it with is way cooler). This was merely annoying: in August I was the opening speaker at a conference in Brasilia and therefore had to revert to my older Sony Vai Pro 13. Then the other day a pin in the SD socket of my SB base came loose, rendering it useless. That was the last straw: with now two things broken in the base I decided it was time to fix them both.
Now older laptops are screwed together, which would have made it easy to fix both these problems. However the Surface Book is glued together, requiring heating to open it up. I had it half open when the heat ignited one of the batteries, which went off like a roman candle, melted some of the keyboard's keys, and sprayed carbon etc all over my workbench, wall, and nearby appliances, not to mention stinking the whole house to high heaven and prompting my wife to ask what chemicals it had deposited in our lungs and to demand I close the door to my workshop and air it out.
Normally when a part fails like that one buys a new one. If your car engine explodes you buy a new engine. But apparently Microsoft doesn't think like that. If the base half of your computer explodes, Microsoft says that you don't replace it, you buy a whole new computer at the new price of $3000, even though most of that money is for the perfectly functional tablet half with its i7 cpu, 16 GB of RAM, and 512 GB of storage where all of your data lives, and moreover which is what I'm typing on right now, using a very cute Microsoft bluetooth keyboard and mouse in lieu of the considerably heavier base.
Just imagine if Ford or GM said you had to replace the body of your car when its engine died.
On a scale of 1 to 10 for repairability I would therefore rate the Surface Book 1/10.
But I am not alone in that judgment. 1/10 is exactly the repairability rating of iFixit for the Surface Book.
While there are degrees of planned obsolescence, the Surface Book surely takes the cake! Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Surface Book article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Surface Book appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't often contribute to Wikipedia (lack of time) but Marking this page for deletion is some form of insanity. You couldn't get a more public impactful announcement of a new product than today's presentaion in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.48.56 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The infobox should NOT be removed from this article, unless you can remove it from the iPhone 6S and MacBook (Retina) first without anyone complaining! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth having this discussion now. The page currently calls it as a tablet - I'm not sure if I agree with this for a few reasons:
I feel this differentiates it from other devices that are designed as a tablet with laptop-like features (eg, Surface Pro 4, even others like the Asus Transformer and HP Spectre 13 x2). Unlike these devices, the tablet is secondary to the base, not the other way round.
It's also classified as a laptop in all of Microsoft's releases.
-- Strata8 ( talk) 14:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Another thing that differentiates the Surface Book from the Surface Pro 4 (both categorised as "2-in-1 detachable tablets") is the inclusion of a hinge and base that can completely support the screen/tablet, allowing use of the device in the form a traditional laptop. The ASUS Transformer and HP Spectre 13 x2 would then both fall into the same category. The Surface Pro series in comparison requires a kickstand and would never be mistaken for anything but a tablet.
Personally I don't see why the distinction has to be made between "2-in-1 detachable laptops/tablets" (eg, Surface Book, ASUS Transformer) and "2-in-1 non-detachable laptops" (eg, Lenovo Yoga). The Lenovo Yoga is currently classified as a 2-in-1 convertible tablet laptop which just sounds silly. I'd simplify it and group them into "2-in-1 laptop" (Surface Book, Transformer, Yoga) and "2-in-1 tablet" (Surface Pro, Lenovo Miix) categories. The linked article would then describe the different forms of each. Both of these even could go even under a "2-in-1 computer" article.
The media are also largely referring to it as a laptop:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9694/microsoft-reveals-the-surface-book
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/microsoft-unveils-lumia-950-and-950-xl-smartphones-and-surface-book-its-first-ever-laptop-in-hardware-blowout-20151006-gk2uoq.html
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/07/microsoft-surface-book-laptop-tablet-apple-macbook-pro
http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/06/microsoft-surface-book-hands-on/
http://techreport.com/news/29156/surface-book-is-microsoft-take-on-what-the-laptop-should-be
-- Strata8 ( talk) 11:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/6/9466091/microsoft-event-recap-video-surface-book-pro-4-lumia
"Microsoft finally made a laptop"
"Then there's the Surface Book, which has easily attracted the most attention. It's Microsoft's play for the high-end laptop market. It's a full power laptop that has a detachable screen for use as a tablet " "Is the Surface Book competing with the MacBook Pro? Yeah, that's about right."
There are several misunderstandings about the Surface Book in above comments that needs to be corrected before people decide on this
1. Zero hardware components to make the Surface Book function are found in the keyboard. The normal models have all components in the tablet. Only the most expensive model have an extra GPU in the keyboard.
2. The Surface Book tablet like any tablet can be charged independently from the keyboard. https://www.reddit.com/r/Surface/comments/3nrdfb/it_would_appear_that_the_surface_book_tablet_can/
3. Company marketing should never dictate how Wiki describes a device. Microsoft most likely have a big interest in promoting this device as a laptop since it differentiates it more from the Surface Pro and in peoples minds makes it more of a competitor to the MacBook Pro as was heavily promoted at the Microsoft device event.
4. Several other similar 2-in-1 tablets from other manufactureres have been described by the same media as above as just that, 2-in-1 tablets, and this device should not be treated differently. http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/08/asus-transformer-book-t300-chi-review/
5. The only-the-headphone-jack-and-charging-port-is-found-on-the-tablet argument is not an argument since most tablets only have a headphone jack and charging port.
6. The tablet has an active digitizer with a stylus which suggests that a major use case of this device would be as a tablet.
User:Us456879 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:ViperSnake151, please bother yourself a little and explain why you rolled back Surface-series integrated quality version and replaced it with the current content. rv; disruptive edit, promotional is not sufficient explanation. What you currently doing is start of the edit warring, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. TranslucentCloud ( talk) 16:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ ViperSnake151 your edits are WP:OWN and you are changing the article to conform to YOUR layout. Stop. We have a specific layout in place across all Surface articles. WikIan -( talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with simply calling it a Keyboard since it is an integral part of the product, not an accessory like a dock might suggest. Kernel Patch ( talk) 04:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, WP:NOTGUIDE for buyers and there is absolutely no reason to have a distinct "Known issues" section for each notable consumer product. It does not have any encyclopedic sense.
If there is some serious and persisting issue, which was not resolved across product hardware and/or software update cycles, the issue notoriety of which has been discussed a lot and analyzed in number of articles of respected authors, it does make encyclopedic sense and belongs to the Reception > Issues.
Refer to the iPad (3rd generation)#Issues for an example of a proper use and placement of the Issues section. TranslucentCloud ( talk) 13:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an slow edit war going on about this at least back to November. I strongly suggest continuing this discussion or bring in either a more formal discussion ( such as an RfC ) or possibly one of the suggestions at resolving content disputes with outside help. PaleAqua ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested. It is difficult to offer a third opinion for two reasons, but I will try. First, the questions are not concise or focused. Second, on its face this looks like a dispute among multiple editors. If I didn't know that IP addresses jump all over the map, I would decline it for that reason. As it is, I only very strongly advise the unregistered editor to register, and, in particular, to register if they plan to pursue dispute resolution in the future. If the question is whether there should be an Issues section, other consumer products often have one. Even if the issues have been resolved, their inclusion is history. If that isn't the question, please re-ask the question, which I am closing as answered. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, guys.
I understand your problem is about one paragraph seen in revision 722362273. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with it. i.e., neither the word nor the spirit of WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:UNDUE have anything to do with it. If anything, it goes towards comprehensiveness required by WP:FACR. That said, this edit war over such a trifle is far worse the damage of omitting or the benefit of including it. If you people don't know how to reach a compromise or consensus over such a trifle, how are you ever supposed to help with anything major in Wikipedia?
If I were TranslucentCloud I'd have either left the matter well alone a long time ago (as a compromise) or would have invited additional parties to this discussion via WikiProjects or RFC. Even at the times when one of the involved parties is refusing to participate in consensus-building, the consensus can be still built with the help of other community members in order to legitimately deal with non-participants.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
17:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
As to my opinion, I think that the issue is notable, but that it probably should be balanced with additional information about the battery and battery life if possible. There is already coverage about the specs and how the Surface Book has two batteries, but would be nice to get third party sources on real world usage. If we do include an issue section, there have been other issues that probably also desire a mention such as the hello camera not turning on after a suspend. PaleAqua ( talk) 03:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Since it seems like we are in agreement I did a first pass and incorporating some of the issues/fixes etc. Il think we still need more details in the hardware section. For example about the camera and battery life in particular. Some of this will probably need to be done to Surface Pro 4 but that page is currently fully protected after the RPP and it's probably best to start here anyways. PaleAqua ( talk) 01:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Issues and fixes
Windows Hello
The a firmware update prevent the infrared camera failed to initialize after a suspend preventing Windows Hello from working correctly.[9] Firmware updates were issued in April and May to fix the camera.[10]
Battery Life
The device had an issue where it failed to sleep properly, draining the battery very quickly.[11] Microsoft developed a fix that was available on February 17, 2016.[12]
Anyone see a problem with the words (if you can call them that) directly underneath the "Windows Hello" heading?
Per the format of the information under the heading "Battery Life", should read:
The device had an issue where the infrared camera failed to initialize after a suspend, preventing Windows Hello from working correctly. Microsoft developed fixes that were available on April (EXACT DATE) and May (EXACT DATE) [or in April and May of (YEAR)].
Thanks for confirming this! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbertprime ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
How come there is nothing in this article on the Surface Book's repairability?
(By way of background I've been designing, building, maintaining, and repairing computers since 1962, portable computers since the late 1980s, and laptops since the early 1990s. I also founded and ran a company during 2000-2010 making miniature x86 computers. I'm accustomed to repairing whatever I'm currently using whenever it breaks, and therefore have experience with repairs to dozens of kinds of computers.)
A few months ago the display port on my high-end 2015 Surface Book (i7, 16GB, 512GB, dGPU) went on the blink, possibly due to a total solder meltdown in the badly designed connector of the 65W power adapter (the more recent 102W adapter I replaced it with is way cooler). This was merely annoying: in August I was the opening speaker at a conference in Brasilia and therefore had to revert to my older Sony Vai Pro 13. Then the other day a pin in the SD socket of my SB base came loose, rendering it useless. That was the last straw: with now two things broken in the base I decided it was time to fix them both.
Now older laptops are screwed together, which would have made it easy to fix both these problems. However the Surface Book is glued together, requiring heating to open it up. I had it half open when the heat ignited one of the batteries, which went off like a roman candle, melted some of the keyboard's keys, and sprayed carbon etc all over my workbench, wall, and nearby appliances, not to mention stinking the whole house to high heaven and prompting my wife to ask what chemicals it had deposited in our lungs and to demand I close the door to my workshop and air it out.
Normally when a part fails like that one buys a new one. If your car engine explodes you buy a new engine. But apparently Microsoft doesn't think like that. If the base half of your computer explodes, Microsoft says that you don't replace it, you buy a whole new computer at the new price of $3000, even though most of that money is for the perfectly functional tablet half with its i7 cpu, 16 GB of RAM, and 512 GB of storage where all of your data lives, and moreover which is what I'm typing on right now, using a very cute Microsoft bluetooth keyboard and mouse in lieu of the considerably heavier base.
Just imagine if Ford or GM said you had to replace the body of your car when its engine died.
On a scale of 1 to 10 for repairability I would therefore rate the Surface Book 1/10.
But I am not alone in that judgment. 1/10 is exactly the repairability rating of iFixit for the Surface Book.
While there are degrees of planned obsolescence, the Surface Book surely takes the cake! Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)