Talk:Surface 3

Remove "Image Needed" Catagory

This page already contains an image of the product, and I'm wondering why it still says it needs an image. Should I add a new image or just remove the banner?
Thanks! (KyGuy2002) (Talk) 20:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ians18 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Microsoft Surface 3 → Surface 3 – Conform with the other articles in the Surface series which do not have Microsoft in the title. Ians18 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence that Surface 3 meets WP:COMMONNAME better than current title. --В²C ☎ 01:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC) see below. --В²C ☎ 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Sampling news articles announcing the Surface 3 all of the ones I saw seem to refer to it just as Surface 3. Some do do start with Microsoft near the name for example the BBC article start with Microsoft's Surface 3 as does the Verge. Wired headline has Microsoft next to Surface 3, but uses just Surface 3 through out the article. Ars Technica refers to it as Surface 3. So does Supersite for Windows, MacRumors, Thurrott.com, <re/code>>, The Next Web. Seems that per WP:CONCISE adding Microsoft to the name is unnecessary. PaleAqua (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources that drop the "Microsoft" only after introducing it don't carry much COMMONNAME weight. Articles may refer to Doe after referring to him as John Doe; that doesn't mean we use Doe as the title about that subject. --В²C ☎ 01:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    • But two of those sources start with "Microsoft's" which is is similar to talking about Apple's iPad, and doesn't imply that "Microsoft's" is part of the name. And yes the last one had a headline that started with "Microsoft Surface 3", but that is one source and not anywhere in the body of the article, not even in the lead pointing to the article which was: "The new Surface 3, the affordable tablet/latop hybrid just announced today, proves Windows RT is dead.". PaleAqua (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Repeating comments from Talk:Microsoft Surface Pro 3#Requested move 31 March 2015: I also wonder if the discussions should be merged as there are multiple discussions on the same topic. The nominator also made a comment at Talk:Microsoft Surface#Naming Convention. Just linking to connect/avoid possible future splits in the discussion. I haven't checked all the links there but do note that one of them ( from 2012 ) does use MS Surface and Microsoft surface in the title/lead. PaleAqua (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• That last one is a specialists' tech publication. More telling is how a generic publication like the NY Times refers to it, which supports your argument[1]. --В²C ☎ 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the same reason as all the previous renaming of other Surface articles. Illegal Operation (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Given source usage as provided by PaleAqua and supported by usage in the NY Times cited by yours truly just above, I'm changing from Oppose to Support. --В²C ☎ 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Assuming the name change to Surface 3, I would suggest that we use the full Microsoft Surface 3 name above the top right-hand column  NeoGeneric 💬  09:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Standardize all the Surface articles

All of the Surface articles are currently very incoherent.

I propose that we standardize on a common structure.

See: Talk:Microsoft Surface Pro 3#Standardize all the Surface articles Illegal Operation (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• In each case we need to look at actual usage in reliable sources. If reliable source usage is standardized like that, then we can too. If not, then not. Just follow usage in reliable sources for all title on WP, except maybe when disambiguation is required. --В²C ☎ 00:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor, this discussion is not about naming convention, but about a general standardization of Surface-series articles. If you want to vote on naming convention, please look for a relevant discussion somewhere else. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbole

Saying that the Surface Pro 3 competes with the MacBook Pro is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Apple's product is at least $1000 more expensive! 2001:470:1F07:383:FCD2:FB97:8840:111F (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Illegal Operation (talk)

The performance "gap"

There's a few problems with this sentence: "At the same time, Atom chips have a significantly lesser performance compared to Core, and due to this gap the Surface 3 might not be able to effectively run a performance demanding applications, such as video editing software."

1. The sentence is very sensationalized. What does "significantly lesser performance" even mean?

2. "might not be able to effectively run a performance demanding applications, such as video editing software": it may or it may not, who knows?

3. The source you point to is not valid because of no original research

4. Assuming that I analyzed the Geekbenchmark that you posted as source (not allow for Wikipedia), the Surface 3 has ~2/3 the performance of the Core i3 Surface Pro 3 in in single-core score and multi-core score that is even better than those of the Core i3 Surface Pro 3. That is not "significantly lesser performance". Illegal Operation (talk)

Does anyone even agree with this statement?: "Some early reviewers, Gregg Kaizer of ComputerWorld among them, has stated that benchmark scores show performance gap between Surface 3 and Surface Pro 3, iPad Air 2 not in favour of the former."

1. Gregg Kaizer is NOT a reviewer. What kind of "reviewer" has never tested the product? I went and look at other articles written by Gregg Kaizer and they were mostly clickbait articles.

2. Why does this sentence even belong here? The RAM 1500 has more torque than the Toyota Yaris, but that doesn't belong in the Toyota Yaris article. TheHoax (talk)

People come here to get acquainted with a new Surface and particularly to understand the differences between the Pro and the non-Pro version. The whole article is constructed around a comparison of two.

The most crucial part of the comparison is a raw performance. That is a CPU performance. It is universally accepted, that Atoms are very basic CPUs (in terms of performance), initially designed for netbooks and that they are incrementally slower than full-fledged CPUs like Cores. However, some editors on Wikipedia do not accept this fact and at one point one of them even demanded reflink.

Here is the evolution of the CPU comparison sentence:

• v.1: Atom-series CPUs designed to be more power efficient and cheaper to produce compared to Core-series processors, which are installed in Surface Pro-series devices, at the expense of performance. — the most neutral version, but User:Illegal Operation didn't like it and removed "at the expense of performance" which surprised me;

• v.2: Atom chips have a significantly lesser performance compared to Core, and due to this gap the Surface 3 might not be able to effectively run a performance demanding applications, such as video editing software. — now with a reflink to benchmark result list of respected Primatelabs Geekbench, but again User:Illegal Operation is not really pleased since "The source you point to is not valid because of no original research" and "Geekbenchmark that you posted as source (not allow for Wikipedia)" (sic);

• v.3: Some early reviewers, Gregg Kaizer of ComputerWorld among them, has stated that benchmark scores show performance gap between Surface 3 and Surface Pro 3, iPad Air 2 not in favour of the former. — now with a reflink to respected and welcomed in the whole Wikipedia, the great and terrible ComputerWorld, but again someone is not really pleased and even made a statements accusing a ComputerWorld author a writer of "mostly clickbait articles". I may agree that Gregg Kaizer is not really a reviewer in this particular case since he's got no Surface 3 to test it by himself, but the info he provided is easily checked (through the Geekbench Browser for example) and it is true.

So, what's the point? You don't like the fact, that Atoms are significantly worser performers, than Cores? This is true, universally accepted and you have to reconcile with this fact. The statements "the Surface 3 has ~2/3 the performance of the Core i3" will not help, because Surface Pro 3 is not only i3 but Surface 3 is only Atom x7-Z8700 and ~2/3 is a really huge gap.

You want to drop the comparison of Surface 3 vs. Surface Pro 3's CPUs? This is not likely going to happen. You want to decrease a degree of "sensationalism"? At least this can be done and feel free to improve the sentence. At the same time, if I'll find better benchmarks of "trusted reviewers", I'll provide a reflink, but quote from such reviewer may be even harsh, than we have now from Gregg. Some sources claim that Surface 3 Atom is undervolted and if this fact will come true that's will be the explanation of its not really impressive performance. TranslucentCloud (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what I want is something that is less sensationalized. Either way, the sentence doesn't belong there. If an actual reviewer note that there is some performance issues with the device, then that belongs under the reception section.

The other problem is that you have tunnel vision. You already have your mind set that the Surface 3 is going to have a performance problem. Under your assumption that the Surface 3 does have a performance issue, you went specifically to look for sources that conform to your viewpoint.

PC World, for example, think the Surface 3 has great performance: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2906498/hands-on-with-microsofts-surface-3-full-windows-and-a-new-cpu-cut-the-compromises.html

TheHoax (talk)

I've simplified the sentence as much as it can be done. Maybe now it is what you want it to be. By the way, a friendly reminder to you: you are on Wikipedia and articles should not be what you want, but what everyone want.

Answering about a tunnel vision, I may say, that you wrong, I was not specifically searched Internet for "Atom are weaker than Core" proofs (that is obvious to everyone in a healthy state of mind), the ComputerWorld's article just popped up in the Google's first page of results by the request surface 3 atom. Check it yourself. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Atom is not slower then the Core. The way the article is written makes it seem like this is problematic. TheHoax (talk)

It might be problematic for those who want to replace their existing laptop or desktop with Surface 3. The experience may be not very pleasant. The original intention was to give a caveat.

However, since there is already a mentioning in the article, that Surface 3 directly competes with iPad, not MacBook (Pro), a further clarification about the performance difference may really not be necessary. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Software

A little blurb should be added about how it runs Windows 8.1 currently. Ians18 (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing input sensors

I'm not sure if the following website is correct, but it says the Surface 3 as well as the Surface Pro 3 have Ambient light, proximity, accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer sensors. The Wikipedia Surface Pro 3 article shows those sensors, but the Surface 3 article does not. http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/surface-pro-vs-surface-3/ 208.127.102.53 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Microsoft-surface-3-wikipedia.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)