Talk:Microsoft Surface

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

1. Lumping the models together is NOT a good idea, they are separate devices
2. The infobox needs to contain information about each individual part of the article
3. The infobox must contain relevant and useful information see WP:IBT
4. CodenameLisa only changed the OS info, not the release dates
5. FC completely removed the info about launch dates
6. FC edits made it seem like all the Surface devices can run Windows RT and Windows 10, this is NOT true
7. FleetCommand is known to collaborate with Codename Lisa's interests
8. Amazon_Kindle and iPad all list more info then we currently have in this infobox

WikIan -(talk) 10:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that simply listing one release date and all the different OS versions without corresponding device names (as in this edit) is not a good idea. OS information especially needs to distinguish between the x86 and RT variants. As for dates, while I cannot comment on the "microformats" that FleetCommand mentioned, I do see that videogame infoboxes, for example, routinely list multiple release dates (for different regions and/or platforms). I wonder why the same cannot be done in this article.

On the other hand, listing both OS information and release dates for each individual device does not seem ideal either - as the Surface family grows, so will the infobox (the iPad article contains an excellent example of the sort of infobox I'd personally prefer to avoid). Also, OS information really should distinguish between the version the device originally shipped with and the latest supported version. It does not seem entirely correct to list only Windows 10 for the earlier devices. The documentation for Template:Infobox information appliance also says the OS field is for "Operating system bundled with the product" (emphasis mine).

Perhaps the solution would be to not go into that much detail in the infobox at all? How about just listing release dates for the very first and the very latest device (explicitly labelled as such), and simply Windows as the OS, and leaving the details for the Model Comparison section as well as the individual articles? Indrek (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Indrek and WikIan: I was unaware of Codename Lisa's edit. But it is quite natural to correct what appears to be contradictory, and I am ready to work on that with you. As a peace offer, I forfeit my change on the date area.

That said, WikIan's blanket revert is very close vandalism. It reverts many of my good changes to citations and syntax, not just the area in which he has a dispute. In addition, his "The socks, the socks are calling!" accusation is nothing new; he did it last time when I, Codename Lisa, ViperSnake151, Cloudbound and some other editors contested his changes. WP:CYCLE is a guideline for friendly editors who acknowledge their problem and their area of dispute, and are ready to work on it. But it is clear that WikIan is not here to build an encyclopedia.

As for the video game articles, I am very sorry, but this is the worst case of other shit exists discussion. They are already violating 23 cases of policy and guidelines. Their infobox is the only non-standard infobox in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I was asking if there was a technical reason why multiple release dates work in some infoboxes and not in others, and videogame articles were simply the first example that sprang to mind. I was not suggesting we should list multiple release dates simply because videogame infoboxes do so, and you'll note my final proposal was in fact to not list individual release dates at all. Hopefully this clarifies things. Indrek (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Indrek. I don't know if it is appropriate for me to comment here while this clash of titans is going on, so I hope for the best. I believe you and I discussed the microformat thing before, on 16 January 2015, and I never used this word ever again. But I guess it is pretty much true that many people view Wikipedia on mobile devices and use Wikipedia apps to do this. Generally, I think subverting a parameter's purpose is not a good idea before being prepared for it.

Also, about the iPad article: The infobox is so long that I have to scroll 8 desktop screens, 10 mobile screens or 6 A4 pages! By then I reach the §"Model comparison" where I get all those info once again. In the mobile version, it is worse: The infobox is no longer a sidebar. You have to scroll that much just to reach the table of contents! A whole article is crammed into that infobox! May the God help those poor souls who have a screen reader that reads the whole infobox.

I am more at home with what Xbox, iPod (not iPad), Windows NT and Microsoft Office articles do: Specifying an initial release for the whole franchise. The lead needs to be concise; a little vagueness is a virtue, not a bad thing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am look at CL's edit right now and this is what she wrote:

"Windows 8, RT, 8.1 or 10, depending on the model; c.f. § Model comparison"

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)

Fleet Command,

I have no idea what you are doing and why you are breaking the guidelines and in fact, your edits seem like vandalism to me. Ever heard of WP:HOUND? It seems like you are doing this to me by mentioning other editors and looping them into this discussion. The discussion about the template is not related to this discussion at all, but I do have something to say about that. Other editors were disputed the reason for the template to exist, and I disagreed. I am entitled to my opinion and you, yours, but you CANNOT harass me or call me out for it. In fact other editors now share similar beliefs

Now back to this discussion. 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. That is inaccurate information. I reverted the edit you made because of this and if you revert it again, I will report it to an admin. I'm sorry some of your backend syntax got lost in the revert, but that is not nearly as important as the content.

Secondly, the infobox should provide the most useful information, which in this case are release dates to tell readers quickly how old the model is. The rest of the specs are left to the Model Comparison sections. As you said in one of your edits, the page is about the Surface series and not a single tablet, you have the release date set to just the first generation Surface. I know because I pre-ordered it on that day, but I also happen to know the Pro 3 was NOT released back then. Again, inaccurate information. WikIan -(talk) 10:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

1. Exactly. That's the idea. According to WP:IBT, the infobox must be a summary.

2. Your version is misleading and wrong. Period. No matter what version comes, yours needs to go.

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.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@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)

This article is about the whole series. If we specify "Windows 10" only, we are in effecting saying that the whole series runs Windows 10. So, I am afraid I find WikIan's version more plausible than yours. Fleet Command (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole series now officially runs Windows 10. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No! Surface RT and Surface RT2 do not! If we specify "Windows 10" only, we are in effecting saying that the whole series always ran Windows 10. Fleet Command (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the infobox isn't even really that big. If it was anything like the iPad infoboxes, then maybe we could remove it. However, as it stands currently length is a non-issue. WikIan -(talk) 05:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No! Surface RT and Surface RT2 do not!

Sure, in my version it was explicitly stated. Windows RT for Surface and Surface 2, Windows 10 for all other.

currently length is a non-issue

Small length of the infobox is not a justification for adding unnecessary information there. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the above discussion, the OS field of Template:Infobox information appliance is for, quote, "Operating system bundled with the product" (emphasis mine). While the case could be made that all currently available models are now sold with Windows 10, for older discontinued models the latest bundled OS would still be Windows 8 or 8.1. Saying that "the majority of them were upgraded already", even if that can be shown to be true, does not change that fact.

If no agreement can be reached, I repeat my earlier suggestion to simply list Windows as the OS in the infobox and leave the details for the subsections and individual articles. Indrek (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, never checked the Template:Infobox information appliance. Seems like we should stick to the current version, since Surface Pro and Surface Pro 2 are discontinued and the latest devices were shipped with Windows 8 and Windows 8.1.

One suggestion: let's drop the Windows 8.1 and keep Windows 8 only. Windows 8.1 is just a minor version of Windows 8.TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

If you're thinking of having the infobox list full details of all devices in the Surface family, please don't. That's largely already covered in the Model comparison section. I see no benefit of duplicating it. Indrek (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the iPad article has WP:SPLIT the comparison table so I can see why it's separated there, but if this would ever happen to this article in the future (as has already happened to Nokia & Microsoft Lumia's article) then I can see the benefit of it, but you're completely right, it would be double as of right now.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 09:37, 27 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":

• From Surface 3: Pogue, David (May 22, 2014). "Smart, Versatile Surface Pro 3 Can Do It All — Maybe Even Lift the Windows 8 Curse". Yahoo Tech. Yahoo. Retrieved 2014-05-24.
• From Microsoft Lumia: Finance, Yahoo! (11 November 2014). "Microsoft Lumia 535: "5x5x5" Innovation with an Affordable Price Tag". Yahoo! Finance.

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)

Do you mean this interview from the D5 Conference? If so, the Surface that's referred to is now known as Microsoft PixelSense. Indrek (talk) 16:50, 30 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)

Never mind the splitting. I didn't realize each device had its own article. However, that now understood, there seems to be too much detail in this article. Thoughts? heat_fan1 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest we remove the tables, assuming their equivalent is already present in each article. Or at least cut them down to essentials. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:32, 3 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)

Wrong talk page? I think you want Talk:Surface Pro instead. This article is about the entire family of devices. Indrek (talk) 05:21, 26 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)

That's just because no Surface device has left its support life cycle. As soon as that happens (in early 2023, when Windows RT is no longer supported) this column will become indicative. It's existence is also consistent with other pages, so lets keep it.--YannickFran (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2022 (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? ShadowWarfare 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)

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.

• 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. Having said that, the reason for the colors was that as devices would completely leave support, no styling would be necessary at all, while that red tint used for "End of life" is completely excluded because frankly it gives some poor contrast (as does the grey for "legacy", be it less so).
• There are templates specifically to calculate periods, we should use them, nor is there any reason to embolden the lifespan. Also, the random use of saying its "more than" or not is just pointlessly confusing.
• 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. Configurations go in and out of sale often and such distinctions are never made on any similar tables elsewhere. And most importantly; this table does just serve as a summary. Noting such events should be left to the section about the device or its article.

• This applies to the Surface Go, Surface Pro X 2nd generation, and the Surface Book 2, although in case for the Book 2 the row should mayhaps indeed be split up since its entire support life cycle differs widely between versions, which is why my revert does include this.
• As a further note in relation to the Pro X devices; devices with the same name are always made distinct by noting their generation, not by noting a technical aspect of the product. We don't call the latest few iPad Pro's "iPad Pro M1" and "iPad Pro M2", and neither should we refer to the Pro X's as "Pro X SQ1" and "Pro X SQ2", especially not when you then add a "Pro X (Wi-Fi)" when that device also uses an SQ1 or SQ2 (this isn't even a single product, again why it shouldn't be included, it's just a cheaper variant of the 1st and 2nd gen Pro X).

• 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.

• I've been going over each existing model table and will add this row to it as I do so, I've already added it to the Book, Studio and Laptop table.

• 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".

• My revert does retain changes like including updated EOL dates for Windows 10, some sources (and further expands on those), and other minor adjustments.

YannickFran (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@YannickFran:

• First of all, merging Surface Book and Surface Laptop Studio should not be done. These 2 are distinct product lines.

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.

• 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.

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). [1]

• 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.

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.

• 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.

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.

• There's also no reason to differentiate between present and past tense in table headings.

Okay, so how about let's not have any verbs in the headers? So "End of support date", etc.

• 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".

I did not notice the L vs .1 part. Yeah, that is something to keep consistent. Awesome Aasim 23:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

The Surface Book and Surface Laptop Studio have clear different form factors, names, target audiences and use cases. Meanwhile the Surface Go is market as a successor to the Surface 3 sharing its form factor and target audience. Yes, also a different name, but unlike the Laptop Studio, this change was much more in line with what Apple did with the iPad where the 4th generation iPad was followed up by the iPad Air which very much was meant to just be a fancy name for the "iPad 5" (marking the current 5th generation iPad as the 5th generation and move the iPad Air out of that line was done retroactively). They have the same form factor, share much of the same hardware specs (given their 3 year separation) and actually target the same audience and use cases. This is not the case for the Book and Laptop Studio (and also why the Book 4 doesn't just link to the Laptop Studio or even Surface for that matter). An argument can be made for the Surface and Surface Go lines to be split in the table, but the other way around is just merging lines that have nothing to do with one-another beyond being vaguely the same kind of form factor.

• 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).

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). And to the point about parts; that is not the same date as the drivers either. Regardless, I hope you do agree that either dates are out of scope for a summary table anyways?

It's also important to note that an "End of driver support" column implies something that doesn't actually happen at these given dates. First of all, Microsoft isn't the only one who provides drivers for the internals of Surface devices and that date specifically applies only to Microsoft. Intel, Nvidia, Marvell, etc. all can and do provide drivers on their own terms. And since this is Microsoft and Microsoft does Microsoft things; they themselves don't actually hold on to these dates *at all*. The Surface Pro 6 for example reached its end on June 30, 2023. Yes since late September 2023, Microsoft themselves have released at least 3 new drivers updates for it anyways. These kind of shenanigans are also why the Windows 10 EOL date previously wasn't here because we don't actually know the real EOL before it happens. It's the officially announced one, so fair to include it, however Microsoft regularly releases updates after they have declared they wouldn't. It happened with Windows 10 Mobile, it happened with Windows Phone 8, with Windows Phone 7, with Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP, etc. I'm almost certain the only example of the past 2 decades where that didn't happen is with Windows 8.

tl:dr; Drivers on Windows are a complex thing and just because 1 supplier says they stop, that doesn't mean all the others do, even if that supplier is the OEM themselves This isn't exclusive to Microsoft either.

• 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.

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. On the other hand, not only are the iPhone and iPhone Pro lines marketed as 2 separate products (both at events, as well as on Apple's website), but they also distinctly are; the internal built of the base iPhone and the iPhone Pro are often completely distinct between generations (although later generation inherit changes from the former and this happens in both directions from base to Pro and visa versa), as is of course the outer design. Swapping out one chip for another or the difference between a WiFi and 4G/5G SKU is quiet a different thing.

• 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.

Of course they do, but I'm saying that to the end user that date specifically isn't really relevant enough to be taken up in what is supposed to be a summary of devices. Listing multiple EOL dates for various aspects is, I'd argue, a bit to much detail for a table with the purpose to some up which OS runs on which device (note the title of the table).

• Okay, so how about let's not have any verbs in the headers? So "End of support date", etc.

The point isn't that the phrasing is in a tense, the point is that there is no need to put it in multiple different tenses. "Ended" is just fine as is used on many other pages. YannickFran (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sharing the same price doesn't make it target the same audience. Microsoft's marketing for the Book and Laptop Studio are clearly different and do not target the same audience. I ungrouped them on the timeline because they are not part of the same group. Welcome to Wikipedia, where "the data look ugly" is not an argument for making it incorrect. Grouping the tablets, laptops, etc. together is something that is done on various of these templates (e.g. timeline of iOS devices).

I never said it wasn't encyclopedic. I said it isn't relevant in a summary of which OS is supported on which device. That's the purpose of that table. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't put words in my mouth. Apple has a clear system for when certain devices are"obsolete", "vintage", etc. That isn't something Wikipedia just made up. Microsoft doesn't have that. Then there is of course also the fact that Apple's way of updating devices is vastly different then how Windows does it. For iOS devices, you only have 1 kind of update: the OS, firmware, drivers are all packed into 1 update. That is of course not how Windows works.

You're not giving any examples, the Surface Pro 5 not having an LTE variant with i7 doesn't change anything about the argument, of course chips are gonna be different between i5 and i7, but that doesn't mean that an LTE variant only having an i5 variant means that is an entirely different product, because it simply isn't. It's the same product, different SKU. Continuing to suggest that the Pro 4 and Pro 7 only differ in which chip they have just makes your argument look ridiculous. Try opening them up and tell me again that it's just a different chip. Heck, the Pro 4 and Pro 5 have a different body design... the Pro X's Wi-Fi only variant isn't a different product from the SQ1 and SQ2 versions, they are just different SKUs of those missing the 5G modem that shipped in the original devices to reduce cost and give them a cheaper point-of-entry. Having a different support date doesn't make it an entirely different product, let alone its own generation. YannickFran (talk) 13:18, 12 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]

But if that crosses into WP:SYNTH, then we can look at Microsoft's support documentation, which lists the Surface Laptop Studio under the "Surface Laptop" lineup. [3] The Surface Go is also listed as its own lineup and is not grouped with the RT devices.

I am not sure where you are getting the impression that the Surface Book and Surface Laptop Studio are marketed differently. Do you want to maybe get additional opinion at WP:3O? Awesome Aasim 04:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)