Talk:Microsoft Surface/Archive 1

What version of Windows will it run?
Hey guys, just curious if it is clear whether this tablet will be running the full Windows operating system or a limited app oriented version "ala iPad"? . Thanks -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 03:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It will depend on which version you purchase. The Surface Windows RT model runs the same stripped down version of Windows 8 that mobile phones will when Windows 8 is released. Surface Windows 8 Pro however, will run the full retail version of Windows 8 Professional Edition. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 09:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is inaccurate. Windows RT is not the same as Windows Phone 8.  They share some common underlying technologies, but from the user's perspective, they are not "the same".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.194.12 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct, sort of. I say sort of because Windows 8 and the version of RT seen at the surface announcement have not been released yet. For all we know, when they are released, ARM based devices, wether tablet or cell might run the same version of Windows RT. We just don't know yet. But it is accurate to say that Windows RT (version seen at announcement) will only run programs designed for Metro and ARM processors. The Surface running Windows 8 Pro will, theoretically be able to run all Windows programs. With that being said, the next revision of the mobile ARM Windows version has not been released yet, so we don't know whether the cells and tablets running on ARM will be the same OS. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 23:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The version of Windows the RT version is a tablet version that only allows apps from the app store, similar to the iPad. The Surface Pro model however runs the same operating systems as Windows 8 desktops and laptops, allowing users to run apps from any source just like a full PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.94.72 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Microsoft
This should be in Template:Microsoft. 203.99.208.6 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface (tablet) → Microsoft Surface – There is currently only one article named "Microsoft Surface", so the disambiguating term is not needed. The current Microsoft Surface page is not an appropriate dab page, as it has only two entries. The most reader-friendly end state should be that this page be named "Microsoft Surface," with a hatnote referring to the PixelSense page (and that hatnote's already there). NapoliRoma (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - This should not be controversial. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are we !voting on this? Why not just be bold and move it ourselves?  It doesn't look like we need an admin to do this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, we do need an admin. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * :-) Yep; woulda if I coulda... --NapoliRoma (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, common-sense move. Alexthe5th (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - makes sense, easily the more common name - Epson291 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Since the old microsoft surface was renamed when this one was announced, I think it's best to do to prevent confusion. --LarsFrietman (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Themeparkgc   Talk  01:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are still physical products called Microsoft Surface. Microsoft renamed future tables, but the old tables are still called Microsoft Surface. This will be very confusing.-- JOJ Hutton  01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. I think you've been misinformed. The old product is no longer called "Surface" and Microsoft no longer use that name to refer to it. --Josh (Mephiles602) 10:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the Microsoft Surface was sold for five years by that name. Microsoft can only rename future products that it sells. The previously sold products are still called Microsoft Surface. Thats what the name says on the box, thats what the name says on the software, thats what the name says in the paperwork, and thats what the name says on the physical product.-- JOJ Hutton  18:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very true. But I believe a hatnote is sufficient for clarifying this. The minority interested in PixelSense will notice it at the top of the article. A disambiguation page is an unnecessary page to maintain just for linking to two articles. However, it's worth mentioning that the "Samsung SUR40" branding was and still is used to refer to the second generation of the Surface tabletop product. --Josh (Mephiles602) 21:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wikipedia shouldn't be driven by the market. Specifically, the strong advertising campaign made by Microsoft shouldn't affect encyclopedic information. --Mapep (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has nothing (directly) to do with Microsoft. It has to do with the fact that there is currently only one WP article named "Microsoft Surface."
 * The PixelSense article is appropriately (re-)named, because that's the name of the product line. There are older products in that line named "Microsoft Surface", but they are not in a separate article of that name -- nor should they be.
 * Thus, the appropriate navigation in the encyclopedia is for there to be one article named Microsoft Surface, with no disambiguating term, and a hatnote in that article referring those looking for the older Microsoft Surface products to the PixelSense article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that priorizes product line names for article names. In fact, renaming the article will do nothing but reflect Microsoft policies on trademarks and product lines, instead of meeting encyclopedic criteria. --Mapep (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is to use the names that are used in the real world. Generally speaking, then, yes: articles get renamed when products get renamed.
 * We of course provide as efficient navigation as possible for people looking for something by its older name, which is the intent of what I have proposed.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Names that are used in the real world" doesn't automatically translate in names that are advertised by the companies. See Generic trademark, for instance. In this case, however, there are two different products created by the same company sharing the same brand name. This could be interpreted as an unfair business practice, as it's misleading about the nature of the product. --Mapep (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to clarify this right now: Microsoft is not using the "Surface" brand to refer to the tabletop product any more. It is called PixelSense as of now. In all publications Microsoft have made after the announcement of the Surface tablet, Microsoft do not use "Surface" to refer to the tabletop product; except when clarifying that the name has changed. --Josh (Mephiles602) 10:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Microsoft is not using the "Surface" brand to refer to future products, but previously sold products are still referred to as the "Surface".-- JOJ Hutton  18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mapep: Huh? Unfair business practice? Who cares?  This is about a Wikipedia article, not Microsoft's business practices.  Wikipedia's policies say we should use the common name.  Everyone is calling this table 'Surface".  Most people don't even know that there used to be another product with the same name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just about what the Wikipedia article is called, its about what else in the world uses the name. Microsoft sold the table for 5 years under the "Surface" name. The fact that it "was" called Surface for so long, is enough to confuse readers if not given context. There are also most likely thousands of these tables in home and businesses, which are still being called Surface. Only future products have been renamed. Even Microsoft support website still call the table the Surface. Therefore, its not the only product in the world called "Microsoft Surface"-- JOJ Hutton  13:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So create a link between the new Surface page to the Pixelsense page (old surface), that way no one will be confused by the name change. Anyway looking for the old surface would be able to get to it, with the same number of clicks they would have to make now. Primary Antagonist (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the image and the logo would further reduce the confusion. I'm really doubtful that this will cause confusion. There's enough information on the page to clarify that it's not the same Surface product.--Josh (Mephiles602) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Surface tables were never sold to consumers, so most consumers aren't familiar with the device. Most people searching for "Microsoft Surface" are looking for the new tablet devices.  It makes much more sense to get rid of the disambiguous page and link to the table through the tablet page. heat_fan1 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - The disambiguation page is redundant, and the old Surface product is no longer called "Surface". The Surface tablet is far more likely to be the product that readers will be searching for. We have everything in place to clarify to readers about the new name of the old product, so there will be absolutely no issue or confusion for most people who are unaware of the name change. --Josh (Mephiles602) 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - follow the official name. Asiaworldcity (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I oppose this for a new reason. It should be just "Surface", or "Surface (tablet)", similar to how Xbox doesn't include Microsoft and iPad doesn't include Apple. heat_fan1 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it would make sense to use just Surface as that is an English word, unlike Xbox and iPad. Since it is an English word, someone else could have a "Surface" product and MS could not challenge it unless it is much like their tablet. I would still prefer Microsoft Surface at this point. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. It does appear that Microsoft just want to brand it as "Surface". But at the moment, they've been a bit inconsistent. The website title says "Surface by Microsoft", but the introductory paragraph calls it "Microsoft Surface". The logo just says "Surface". Then again, one could argue the opposite. The Windows article is entitled Microsoft Windows, even though Microsoft don't put the word "Microsoft" in front of "Windows" any more. --Josh (Mephiles602) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I just searched for Surface, which some may do looking for this device.  That was a bad idea on my part.  Stick with Microsoft Surface. heat_fan1 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - and I'd prefer "Microsoft Surface" to "Surface (tablet)" when it comes to disambiguating "Surface". We should be careful of pigeonholing products - "tablet" isn't in the product name, and this is just as much a PC, or notebook, as it is a tablet. Mdwh (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It's the logical decision. Just create a link between the Surface to the Pixelsense page to deal with anyone looking for the old surface but not being aware of the change.Primary Antagonist (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Demo
Is it worth including in the article that the Surface crashed and had to be replaced at the 14:10 mark of Microsoft's demonstration video? This is mentioned in many press reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.220.183.57 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is noteworthy, simply due to the fact that the OS it is running on still is not in final release, so crashes are to be expected. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not notable. (Insert applicable demo/MS joke here) :-) &#x0298;  alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the fact that the OS it is running on still is not in final release? So what, it's absolutely important that it crashed in the first demonstration. 78.187.73.140 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we put anything about goofs, gaffs, or problems when one occurs during Apple product announcement or demonstrations? No. And Apple has had some. The main problem with adding it to the article though is not that it is not relevant, which it is not. The main problem with it is it cannot confirm that it actually crashed. That is just what bloggers and other sources are assuming. For all we know, the screen was wet due to someones hands, and that is why it was glitching. Apple devices do the same thing when the screens get wet, as do Android devices. That is what this "crash" looked like, and that is an issue that is not unique to Surface. Therefore, it is not notable specifically to this tablet. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 22:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That cannot be correct: The "Home button" (which the presenter nervously pressed at least 4238923489 times) did not do anything, either. So, it definitely wasn't just a touchscreen-related problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing something but every review I've seen as well as looking at the photos or video tells me the Surface doesn't have a physical home button but simply a capacitive 'button' in which case I fail to see how the non responsiveness of it tells us whether the device was it responding because of a device problem or the screen/hands being wet. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is correct. As near as I can tell, it does not have a physical home button, so 82.139.196.68's comment is inaccurate. In any case, even if the device had malfunctioned due to a bug or crash during the demo, it still would not be noteworthy. We don't throw up competitors goofs, gaffs, bugs or crashes during demos in the articles.Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 22:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.20 (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Screen Resolution
In the article, specific screen resolutions for both the Surface and Surface Pro are listed. However, as far as I know, there is no official announcement or confirmation of the screen resolutions, but simply "HD" and "Full HD" listed on the spec sheet (as well as minimum resolution requirements for WinRT that are previously known). All other specific screen resolution information is speculation, I believe. On the other hand, I'm not an expert on displays -- do the terms "HD" and "Full HD" specifically indicate these exact resolutions besides an educated guess? If not, these should be removed and replaced with the terms in the spec sheet as they are simply speculation. Arathald (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Full HD" typically does mean 1920×1080 (see 1080p). "HD" is a little less clear. [windows8consumer.in/blog/index.php/2012/06/19/everything-microsoft-surface-tablets-specifications-estimated-prices/ This source] (cited in the article) does state the screen resolutions but I wouldn't be certain it is reliable. Some other (possibly more reliable) sources such as this concur that the ARM-model will have a resolution of 1366×768. I can't find anything definitive from Microsoft though. Themeparkgc   Talk  05:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Microsoft has not disclosed much of details of the hardware spec on purpose, so we should not put those details as per speculations and rumors (WP:CRYSTAL). If any spec detail is not mentioned in the official site or the annoucement video, it does not belong in this article. -Abhishikt (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface (tablet) → Surface (tablet) Should be non-controversial, is more commonly known as just Surface. extra 999 ( talk ) 13:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment 1. This discussion is going on further up this page. 2. How can something only in existence for a week be shown to be 'more commonly known' as? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that the product is not in existence yet, either. It is still -planned-. So other than the splash for a few days, the product has already begun to recede in public focus. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Asiaworldcity (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Existing name is less ambiguous than proposed name. --→gab  24 dot  grab← 21:27, 3 July 2012 (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.

What is "ClearType HD Display"?
Is it in any way related to Microsoft's subpixel text rendering technology? But doesn't Windows 8 already suppress subpixel rendering in the Metro interface? Kxx (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is likely a marketing term, similar to Apple's "Retina Display". Or perhaps it does use a unique technology, the same as or different than subpixel text rendering (though this doesn't necessarily make sense, as that would be a software, not a hardware feature -- maybe the hardware facilitates better subpixel rendering in a specific way?). Either way, no additional information has been released to this point, so we just don't know yet. ClearType doesn't offer any additional insight, besides ways that a screen might be designed to better facilitate subpixel rendering. Arathald (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sold out"
In case anyone cares enough to properly integrate the passage that I removed, here is a much more balanced, reliable source that mentions the selling out but also reveals that Microsoft declined to state how many units were available. As a result, though, I don't believe this carries any significance (just as easily a marketing ploy that MS has used before, with Kinect) and I personally choose not to add it to the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It definitely makes "sold out" meaningless. You can say "all of the $499 units (smallest memory capacity and without the cover) that Microsoft made available online for the pre-sale were sold in the first day of the pre-sale." Is there any value in adding a sentence like that? It's only one of the models and the only things that could be pointed out are that it was the cheapest unit, and without a cover. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

RT versus Pro
Although there's a separate info section on the right-hand side, is it worth making the differences between the RT and the Pro version of the Surface clearer? For example - RT has no pen input, and different ports to the Pro version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.25.22 (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Surface Pro is very different from the Surface RT. I am going to split them in different articles if nobody disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.112.233 (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Saylor's Comments?
Is it really relevant what Michael Saylor’s thoughts on the Surface are? He is a CEO, but of a software company outside this particular industry. It also should be noted, that Microstrategy has based its entire future on support for apples products so he has a vested interest in seeing the Surface not be successful. Not sure if his comments should be removed, or if just more context and his less than NPOV status should be worked in to the article. Thoughts?96.49.237.199 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Comments about the Surface being a "mistake" or that Microsoft should "think twice" (without any clarification on what they actually claim to be the mistake, or why they need to think twice) are not interesting enough to be mentioned (it might be ok to reference them as examples of industry response (in the sentence about OEMs being sidelined), but not quote them), especially not coming from unrelated people or people with a financial interest in berating the product. Could you make the change? LarsHolmberg (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Oprah controversy"
Someone at Microsoft's PR team(?) had added a special section about Oprah's endorsement of the tablet. I altered it to say "Oprah Winfrey added the Surface to her 2012 "Favorite Things" list.  However, it was noted that her tweets concerning the matter were sent from an iPad, leading to controversy about whether it had been a paid endorsement.   " However, I then removed the section entirely because it seemed to give undue weight to something pointless. John Anderton (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Article seems biased
The article seems to only cite negative sources. 216.53.141.3 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Could you please be more specific? There are 58 sources in this article after all. And do you know any positive ones? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't start this thread, but here are some examples of how this article is often biased in tone and content:

1. In the introduction to the article, it is mentioned that the Surface Pro has been discontinued. The word "discontinued" has clear negative connotations, especially since the Surface Pro was only discontinued since a newer generation was released. For comparison, there is nothing in other Wikipedia articles on technology products (like the Apple iPad) that highlights how earlier generations were "discontinued" when the new one comes out.

2. The article has lots of random details that all paint the product and company in a negative light, and that seem out of place(especially when compared to other technology articles on Wikipedia). For instance, under the "Availability" section, it is mentioned how Microsoft outsourced some shipping, leading to customer confusion. One could argue that this detail might be relevant in a thorough wikipedia article, such details are omitted from other tech articles on Wikipedia. For instance, all hardware/software issues with each new iPhone (including Jobs' famous "you're holding it wrong" defense) are omitted from the iPhone article. Perhaps some consistency from article to article in terms of what is included would be nice.

2. As the original poster in this thread mentioned, there are many biased articles (or at least articles that use heavily loaded terms) cited in this article. Two easy examples are references number 19 and 20, which call Microsoft "desperate". It's quite easy to find articles which discuss Microsoft's decision to discount the Surface RT without using such loaded terms.

4. "Reported Problems section" -> along with what is mentioned in number 3, why is it that there is a "reported problems" section for the Microsoft Surface, but no such section for Apple products (see: the iPhone article, iPad article, so on).

5. Very Poor (or no) distinction between the Surface Pro and the Surface RT -> Clearly the Surface RT was not particularly successful, and of course this information should be included. However, the Pro was both better reviewed and sold better, but this distinction is not included in the "sales" and "reception" sections. In other words, the article focuses on the negative reports on the Surface RT with little (if any) consideration or mention of the more popular Surface Pro. Instead, the reader is given the impression that the unpopularity of the RT applies to the Pro as well.

There are other examples, but most of them can be catagorized under the subjectes ennumerated above. If Wikipedia's articles are to have any authority, they can't be so inconsistent from article to article in terms of style, emphasis, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.82.83 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Split into two articles: Microsoft Surface RT and Microsoft Surface Pro
This articles treats two very different devices with each very different strengths and weaknesses, and reception. I propose to split this article into Microsoft Surface RT and Microsoft Surface Pro. Andries (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Opppose. Hello, Andries. Although I respect your years of experience of contributing to Wikipedia, I am afraid I find myself not able to agree with you in the least. The devices are – or at least the way I see it, are – very similar. Furthermore, the article lack sufficient contents. Splitting them wouldn't do any good. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your polite reply. Only the form factor is similar. And I do not think there is lack of content anymore, because both the Surface RT and the Surface Pro have already been reviewed. Time will tell who is right about (not) splitting this article. Andries (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with that. The devices are superficially similar, despite being entirely separate devices. Not to split hairs, but the iPad (4th generation) has a fairly substantial article dedicated to it, despite being a minor revision of the iPad (3rd generation) that Apple themselves did not see fit to advertise. The 4th generation adds the new Lightning port and an updated SoC, but shares all other hardware with the 3rd generation. In contrast, the Surface RT and Pro have very little in common, other than screen size, a magnesium alloy body, the kickstand and aesthetics. Both have entirely different processors, storage systems, screens, ports, batteries, weight, touch sensors and software capabilities. I wouldn't mind if they were kept within the same article, but if that's the decision, the iPad articles must also be merged. AthlonBoy (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - The only difference is the supported chips and the ability to install from outside the Windows Store. It would amount to having a separate article for Android OS with Amazon store and Android OS with Google Play Store. The entire articles would duplicate 99% of their content from the other article in this instance. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support - These are two completely different products. RT doesn't run anything but RT "apps" whereas Surface runs Win8. This article has two Infoboxes for Christ's sake. If they really are the same, try combining the two Infoboxes into one - impossible. Robogun (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The criteria for splitting articles isn't based on difficulty of merging infoboxes though. It would be quite possible for these to share the same article but separate infoboxes, preferable even, there's very little difference between the two. Practically every vehicle is in this situation and that doesn't cause issues or warrant a split. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 11:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support: The reception and specifications of both devices have as many notable differences as they do similarities. Why people think they need to share a single article just seems stupid to me. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Other than a vaguely similar form factor, these are very different physical devices which run different hardware and different software and were released at different times. The resemblance is purely superficial. If I was a user looking for specs/information on the Surface Pro, I wouldn't care less about the RT (and vice versa). Hell... the Surface 2/Surface Pro 2 articles are divided! Even the different versions of the iPad have their own articles, and their hardware is VERY similar. Booksacool1 (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support: The Surface/Surface 2, like other tablets, is an overgrown PDA. The Surface Pro/Pro 2 is a category killer - a fully functioning, high powered laptop you could credibly hand to a road warrior that, oh by the way, has a tablet built into it. MS should kill off the RT, or at least separate it into a different product family. Someone should take the initiative and start the Surface Pro page. Ronnotel (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ians18 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support: The Surface and Surface 2 are completely different tablets on completely different architectures than the pro/pro2/pro3.

"Many of these units have been returned by frustrated consumers."
I removed this before for three reasons: 1: The word "many" (how many?) 2: The word "frustrated" (what exactly is "frustrated", and how was this measured?) 3: The fact that it linked to an article that quotes one analyst who is taking guesses as to how many returns there were and why.

I will remove it again, because it is lacking both clarity and sufficient evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.99.84 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite rightly so. That analyst could be anyone and as you said he's "taking guesses as to how many returns there were and why" this doesn't even seem notable. Nice work ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8 Reception
The top of "Reception" only talks about Microsoft Surface RT and lacks reception of Surface Pro. I think the reception of Surface with Windows 8 has to be updated or added when speaking of software. also, "Availability" section uses wrong tense. -" Simon OrJ "(U/T/C) 04:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article
Here is an interesting article that might be interesting to take information from: http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000878988&fid=1724

—Ynhockey (Talk) 13:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial OS support
I was browsing through this article and I bumped onto this info 'Unofficial support for Android-IA and Ubuntu'

This isn't right cos, if there is unofficial support for these two systems, you should stuff virtually every single OS into that section. I think it's right to leave it only with Windows 8 Pro. Grigrass (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015
This phrase "There are two versions of Surface, Surface and Surface Pro" should read "There are two versions of Surface, Surface RT and Surface Pro. The Surface Pro runs full Windows 8 whereas the RT version runs a slimmed down 'RT' version of Windows 8.2"

Tkeats (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The non-Pro version of the device is called simply "Surface", not "Surface RT". Also, the differences in OS versions are explained in sufficient detail further into the article (not to mention newer generations of the Surface Pro come with Windows 8.1, not Windows 8). Indrek (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2015


The new logo of the Microsoft Surface as used by Microsoft on their social media and promotions, at present this page doesn't have an icon. If this page's moderators want to insert it feel free to, if not I'd understand, but I'd like to point out to the Microsoft Lumia and Microsoft Band articles where this new generation of logo's has been inserted. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Namlong618 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The iPad article uses a picture of the iPad as the infobox picture, not a logo. Although on the other hand, an iPad logo doesn't really exist. So I'm not sure whether a logo or a picture of the Surface (as we currently have) would be better. Stickee (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh excuse me, I come from a very different but closely related region of Wikipedia, I don't know how Tablet-P.C. infoboxes work, I took my example from the Samsung Galaxy line of products, though our sectors sometimes overlap so I thought that we could treat the infoboxes in a similar manner, but my image is up for deletion so I wouldn't insert it unless the request is denied, anyhow I just laid the option open you could decide either way. --Namlong618 (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Good point, official logos should be used in the series' articles and the photographs of the actual devices in according articles about appropriate devices. I will add the logo to this article and vote "Keep" against the logo deletion from Commons. TranslucentCloud (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Bundled/Pre-installed services.
I know that I can freely edit this article whenever I want to now, but I want to ask first if this is a good idea or not, the introduction reads "Surface is preloaded with basic apps such as music, video, mail, contacts, calendar, browser, health, sports, weather, and news" which I wish to replace with "Surface is preloaded with basic apps such as music, video, mail, contacts, calendar, browser, health, sports, weather, and news" (side-note: factually the mail application is called Windows Mail which is factually a ported version of the Windows Vista Windows Mail and Windows Live's Windows Live Mail but neither articles qualify for redirection so I omitted it in my proposition), as for the latter 4 applications they are all part of the M.S.N. suite of services so they could link to M.S.N. Mobile but that article itself is too underdeveloped at the moment. So my final draft looks like this:
 * "Surface is preloaded with basic apps such as music, video, mail, contacts, calendar, browser, health, sports, weather, and news"

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Done --Namlong618 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Major Changes Feb 2015
I've done some major changes to the intro, (and I should have consulted first to get some more opinions), but I removed a lot of info including the details about bundled apps. I feel that this info is not really necessary to include in the article about Surface hardware - those details cross over into Windows 8.1 realm of information. I also cut down on a lot of other information to try and make the info more concise - please let me know if you have any issues with the some of the changes I've done. NeoGeneric (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The side section looks a lot more clear to me, and it sounds logically that in the series' article one should not include all the specifications for all of the family members (which constantly grows). Just like there are no specifications of all Lumia devices in the Microsoft Lumia article's side infobox. The new appearance is definitely a more convenient to read. Hope someone will make similar major contributions (maybe me if I'll feel like it), because even now the article looks a bit crippled. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do this with the iPhone, and iPad articles, this article was bad, but these 2 are unreadable. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot see why the i* articles looks unreadable to you. There is a plenty of information in both articles and overall feeling is that these were written thoroughly and a lot of editors' work was invested in both. I think it will be great if eventually the Microsoft Surface will be written in similar fashion. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox goes all the way down to 2.6 on the iPad, NeoGeneric removed literally everything from the Surface's infobox while the iPad has a long infobox that could be easier read as a wikitable than an infobox, the iPad still has online services, NeoGeneric removed all of those from the Microsoft Surface as they were deemed irrelevant, that article is quite bloated, and first you liked the fact that the Surface's infobox was smaller, so I think that most readers would like the same about the other 2 pages, in fact both are against the rules so they should also remove most information from their infoboxes and all online services. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've got you, you're talking about infobox. The truth to be told, the i* articles' infoboxes still look better than this previous of Surface article. The latter was inconsistent and poorly formatted, so this is good, that it got moved to the article's body. TranslucentCloud (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, the reaction was more emotional than rational because literally every edit I've done on this page was effectively reverted (adding links to bundled applications, and adding a link to list of Xbox games for Windows, and I've literally added information about the "health, sports, weather, and news" applications just to link them here L.O.L. in the MSN Mobile page which was heavily outdated before I added the relevant applications to the page yesterday as there was no information about the aforementioned M.S.N. Suite of apps which were formerly branded Bing and have as much notability as Microsoft Cortana for example) but I think that I'll just stray from this page for a week and then I's back to normal, excuse me for bringing up this petty issue. m(_ _)m --Namlong618 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, you're welcome. Thank you for your contributions. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Naming Convention
All articles for the devices should not have "Microsoft" in the title, that is not how device articles are named here on wikipedia. For examples see iPad 2 and iPad AirIans18 (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Although I was the person, which requested moves of some Surface articles, which subsequently added a Microsoft to their titles, now when the Surface brand is a way more recognizable, the proposition to drop the vendor's name from the articles' titles is legit. As far as I can see, someone has already moved some articles and for the rest I created move requests here. Feel free to agree or oppose. TranslucentCloud (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorize series by processors/Windows rather than by the Surface and Surface Pro branding
The article is currently categorized by the Surface series and Surface Pro branding which was fine when all in the Surface series use ARM processors and run Windows RT while all in the Surface Pro series use x86 (Intel) processors and run Windows 8/Windows 8.1. Things became murkier when Microsoft announced the Surface 3 which runs Windows 8.1 and has x86 (Intel) processor. The Surface 3 is much more closely related to the Surface Pro 3 than does the previous Surface devices. As a result, I am proposing the series be categorized base on processor types (x86 or ARM) and operating system (Windows 8.1 or Windows RT) rather by the branding. Illegal Operation (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

x86-based / Windows 8.1: Surface Pro, Surface Pro 2, Surface Pro 3, Surface 3

ARM-based / Windows RT: Surface RT, Surface 2

Illegal Operation (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree, but I would suggest categorizing by generation. E.g.:


 * Models
 * 1st gen
 * 2nd gen
 * Etc


 * NeoGeneric  💬  21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ I disagree with that idea because Microsoft is not going to release the Surface and the Surface Pro at the same time. As a result, the generation is not really meaningful. Illegal ::Operation (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ Oppose The newly announced Surface 3 is not by any means like any of Surface Pro-series devices. It runs a very modestly performing Atom processor and featuring a similar not really impressive resolution, as in the earlier ARM-based Surfaces. That is, a categorizing by family is good. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ Oppose The current Pro vs. non-Pro categorisation makes the most sense, as that's how MS themselves divide the model lineup. The Surface 3 is closer to the Surface and Surface 2 in terms of target market than it is to the Surface Pro 3. Indrek (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That gives WP:UNDUE to Microsoft's branding scheme. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE applies to article content. We are debating the article's structure, which is a style issue and therefore governed by the Manual of Style (specifically, MOS:LAYOUT).
 * And even if WP:UNDUE were applicable, what more significant viewpoints would you suggest exist, compared to Microsoft's own branding scheme? Indrek (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Eliminating "Surface series" and "Surface Pro series" sections and introducing "Hardware" and "Software" sections.
We should get rid of the "Surface series" and "Surface Pro series" sections and merge the content of the sections with the articles of those devices. If someone want to look up a lot of information, she can just look at the article on that specific model. If we look at the iPad article, we can see that it doesn't have sections to talk about each and every one of the iPad and iPad Mini models. A lot of information is just repetitious anyway.

Instead, the article will contain "Hardware" and "Software" sections (and subsections in them).

Excerpt from proposed new section: "Surface models released prior to the Surface Pro 3 have 10.6 inches display with 16:9 aspect ratio. The Surface Pro 3 has 12.0 inches display while the Surface 3 has 10.8 inches. With the release of the Surface Pro 3 and the Surface 3, Microsoft has opt for display with 3:2 aspect ratio." TheHoax (talk)


 * ✅. Let's do this. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion targeting redirect Surface (tablet)
FYI. There is a move discussion at Talk:Surface (first generation) that targets the Surface (tablet) redirect to this page. PaleAqua (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Surface Hub ??
The Surface Hub doesn't belong in this article. It has very little in common with Microsoft Surface, the tablet, besides having "Surface" in it's name.

After all, a dragonfly is not a dragon nor is a seahorse a horse.

If the Microsoft Surface Hub is instead named "Microsoft Conference System", I doubt that anyone would talk about it in this article.

The Surface 3 has more in common with the Lenovo ThinkPad 10 than the Surface Hub.TheHoax (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Surface Hub is a part of the Microsoft Surface series and therefore is a legitimate member of the family. If Microsoft will release a toaster under a Surface name, it will get to the article too. TranslucentCloud (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's part of the same product family. Also, it's not very different from the other Surface devices - the main difference is the size. Beyond that, it's still a touch-enabled computer that runs Windows. Third-party sources have called it "an 84-inch Surface Pro on steroids". To me, that's enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Indrek (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep Readability in mind.
Folks, before you start doing editing, please keep readability in mind. Someone who read this article should be able to read this article from beginning to the end. Don't add information if it interrupts the flow of the article. More information doesn't necessary means better!

For example, "All Surface models other than the Surface RT and Surface 2 are upgradeable to Windows 10." was changed to "It was confirmed by Microsoft that an update will be made available to Windows RT devices, but that it would not be a complete version of Windows 10." This change was poorly made because now the article doesn't say if the Surface 3 and the Surface Pro(s) are upgradable to Windows 10 or not. Because the Surface 3 and the Surface Pro 3 are both the current product while both Surface RT and Surface 2 have been discontinued, the "All Surface models..." is much more relevant than "It was confirmed..."

The other thing I want to note is that most people who read this article probably aren't computers engineers, so please limit the use of very technical terms. TheHoax (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's another example: "All generations of Surface Pro and the third generation of the Surface runs Windows 8.1 and are upgradeable to Windows 10, while ARM devices runs Windows RT. However, these devices will receive an update, which will add some Windows 10 features to them upon its release on July 29, 2015."


 * 1). The first sentence doesn't make any sense. ARM devices run Windows RT. So what? 2). Surface RT and Surface 2 are NOT getting update on July 29, 2015.


 * I know that most tech enthusiasts probably aren't English majors (I am not either), but please read the edits over and make sure that they actually make sense. TheHoax (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence makes sense. 2) Surface RT and Surface 2 ARE getting update on July 29, 2015. TranslucentCloud (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first sentence doesn't express a complete thought. I just read the article you've linked: it doesn't say July 29, 2015 anywhere. 19:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No the update may not come out on July 29th, but there will be an update for all RT devices including Surface and Surface 2. It will come with some features in Windows 10.Neowin BTW, just because it is your wording, doesn't make it better or the only way it should be written. Also the Surface Hub will already be running Windows 10. Ians18 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I already know that there will be an update for RT devices and that update isn't Windows 10. The way it is written is wrong. Also, I don't just write whatever way I am pleased, I write in such as way that I hope to be the most grammatical correct. TheHoax (talk)


 * The first generation Surface runs a quad-core Nvidia Tegra 3 SoC (System of a Chip), while the Surface 2 runs a quad-core Nvidia Tegra 4 SoC.The Surface Pro runs on an Intel i5 "Ivy Bridge" processor. The Surface Pro 2 initially launched with the Intel i5 4200U "Haswell" processor, but later Microsoft silently starting shipping them with a more powerful i5 4300U Haswell processor.[17] The Surface Pro 3 launched with 3 processor models all Haswell, the i3, i5, and i7 versions. The Surface 3 has an Intel Atom x7 processor. I highly doubt that someone who wants to read about the Surface wants to read about every processors on every Surface ever released and this information is already on the tables in the models comparison section. I've simplified the information by mentioning that the Surface Pro line uses Intel Core processors while the Surface line uses Intel Atom processors. Listing all the processors is too verbose (as I have previously said, that information is already on the table) TheHoax (talk)
 * Agreed, technical details belongs to the respective devices' articles. TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I get Ians18 to comment on this? I totally disagree with turning this paragraph into a list of all the processors. The same information can be found (in a much more organized fashion) in Microsoft Surface. Mentioning that the Surface uses Intel Core/Intel Atom is already enough. TheHoax (talk)
 * The iPad does not have a processor section, but explains the name of each processor with each generation in the intro. Since it has been rated as a quality article, I suggest we have comparable information in the Surface page. Ians18 (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason we look to the iPad is to get some good ideas to add to this articles. That said, the Microsoft Surface is unique and it's not necessary to imitate everything (including bad ideas) from the iPad article into this article. TheHoax (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Surface article needs to be unique, which is the reason the processor info should not be placed in the heading. I agree, the info may be too technical, but it should be noted that there are distinctions between the different Pro models' processors. We could refine it, and also keep note that the Pro 2 was silently updated with a better processor. Ians18 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you insist on adding the list of different processors in the paragraph when the information is already in the Microsoft Surface. A list is not the best way to convey the information. TheHoax (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the information is: "Jennifer won three prices in the first round, no price in the second round, and one prices in the third round. Megan won two prices in the first round, four prices in the second round, and two prices in the third round. Alice won two prices in the first round, four prices in the second round, and two prices in the third round. Noelle won no price in the first round, two prices in the second round, and one price in the third round. Bella won two prices in the first round, on price in the second round, and two prices in the third round. Noelle won no price in the first round, two prices in the second round, and six price in the third round. Katie win one price in the first round, no price in the second round, and two prices in the third round." Clearly, this information is more appropriate for a table than a paragraph. TheHoax (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the current wording is not working. I suggest a rewrite of it, but I would definitely keep most of the information said in that section, previously there was too little. I will rewrite it when I have more time to plan how I'm going to incorporate the tricky syntax of processor talk. Ians18 (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that the Surface line uses Intel Atom processors and the Surface Pro line uses Intel Core processors is sufficient. That said, I do want to see what you are going write. TheHoax (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ians18, please rewrite the Keyboard Covers section. There's literally too much information in that section making it hard to read. I also suggest you move some of more extensive details to other articles (for example, move in-depth information about Type Cover 2 and Touch Cover 2 to the Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 articles). BTW, I do appreciate your work in rewriting the processor section.TheHoax (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline ???
So, I have been looking at the iPad article and I am particularly intrigue in the Template:Timeline of iPad models and think that the Surface article should have one.

After looking at the source, it looks like this timeline is quite complex. I am wondering if someone know how this timeline is being made. TheHoax (talk)
 * Upon further investigation, it looks like that this timeline was made using EasyTimeline. TheHoax (talk)
 * I have started the timeline here, but haven't had time to complete it. Ians18 (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Timeline revised. TheHoax (talk)

Software
Don't we need a software section like iPad ? Ians18 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ians18, I think that it is best that we wait until the release of Windows 10. Windows 10 has a lot of specific features specifically for 2-in-1 devices: Tablet Mode, improved handwriting input, Inking (in Microsoft Edge), etc.
 * http://www.gizmag.com/windows-10-surface-pro-3-review/38189/ TheHoax (talk)
 * Earlier you said" One second thought, we can talk about the use of the Pen. (OneNote, Fresh Paint, Photoshop, etc.) Not many other Windows tablets have active pens, after all."
 * I ✅ that Surface is a unique device and that since Windows 10 is around the corner we can talk about that when it comes out. It should still include the stuff from Windows 8.1 including handwriting mode on the keyboard and all the Bing/MSN apps. Also about how some MSN apps are removed in Windows 10 and how when detaching the keyboards, Surface can auto-switch to tablet mode. Ians18 (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We should talk about the most current version of the software (Windows 10, etc.). It's needless to talk about old version of the software. TheHoax (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Surface ≠ Surface RT
Surface is defined in the very first sentence as "a series of tablet computers, laplets and interactive whiteboards designed and manufactured by Microsoft under its hardware division". Surface RT may be the very first Surface, but it is not "the Surface". I don't know why Ians18 keep changing the Surface RT to "the Surface". TheHoax (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Microsoft Surface ≠ Surface. Please look at Surface, which is what the tablet is called. The family is called Microsoft Surface as when you go to Surface.com it redirects to Microsoft.com/Surface which states at the top "Microsoft Surface" just like [Microsoft Windows]. The table is called Surface and Surface RT is the old name. The tablet's page Surface has a "first generation" to make it clear. If you would like to add first generation to the table, go ahead. It is no longer called the Surface RT and if you wanted to call it that, it should be called the Surface with Windows RT (which is the original name). Ians18 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I go to the online Microsoft Store and the first link on the left is "Suface". When I click on that  I get the "Look who's joined the Surface family. Meet Surface 3" and below that "Compare Surface Models" which shows the Surface 3 and the Surface Pro 3. TheHoax (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ians18, use Google Trends to compare "Surface RT" to "Surface with Windows RT" and "Surface (first generation) and the search trend for the Surface RT is much higher than those of the other two. TheHoax (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the Microsoft page for the Surface with Windows RT actually list it as "Surface RT" see this link, even though URL still uses the old full name. PaleAqua (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By the time they renamed the Surface RT to Surface, it was already fading out because of Surface 2. Put simply, Surface RT is no longer it's name. Please see Microsoft Drops RT Name, Microsoft Drops RT moniker, Hides Desktop Mode, and Microsoft Drops Surface RT Name, Removes Desktop Tile Ians18 (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if name was change when the product is being phased-out, then name used during most of its shelf life is the common name and that's the Surface RT. It's the same reason we have an article named Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton even though the latter is his legal name. TheHoax (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bill is just another name for Will, and is commonly accepted as one. As for Surface, well it's the new name for the Surface RT and Clinton's name did not change to William later on in life. In fact, a product's name shouldn't be compared to a person's name because unlike a product a person makes the decision to change his or her name themselves. Think of Bruce Jenner who decided to change names to Caitlyn Jenner (even if it was for an identity change), the article was changed to match even though Bruce was the more common name. People gets to choose their names and Microsoft gets to choose the Surface's name, in this case from Surface with Windows RT to Surface RT to now (the correct one) Surface. Ians18 (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look on Google Trends, you can see that at the later dates "Caitlyn Jenner" has a slightly higher search rate than "Bruce Jenner", but even then, they are close. "Surface with Windows RT" and "Surface (first generation)" doesn't even have close to the same search rate as "Surface RT"  TheHoax (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Use commonly recognizable names: Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. TheHoax (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Look up iPad first generation and then iPad, which one is more common? iPad, obviously. However, the first generation is used to differentiate the tablet from the family. In addition, I did not say write Surface (first generation) out every time you need to differentiate, but just simply "Surface". Please look on Google Trends for Surface and notice how high the ratings are after 2013 and how they show up first in Google's search results, much more than Surface RT. (Aside from it being used in other ways). In order to differentiate we used Microsoft Surface as the product family and Surface as the tablet, however ever since the Surface 2 came out, we had to differentiate between that as the Surface 2 is also a tablet. To follow the iPad article's way of naming devices, we settled on Surface (first generation). Surface (tablet) would be viable going off of your evidence using Google Trends, but it isn't when it comes to Wikipedia because the Surface 2 and Surface 3 both exist. Therefore, you are sadly mistaken in your beliefs (and the given proof that Surface RT is used more than Surface). Ians18 (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that people who are search for the "Surface" are really looking for the "Surface RT". I have no reason at all to believe that this is at all true. Microsoft considers "Surface" a family of Windows tablets. Based on intuition, people who search for "Surface" are much more likely to be looking for either the "Surface family" or one of the current Surface products, "Surface Pro 3" and "Surface 3", rather then a product from two and a half years ago. In fact, "Surface" is ambiguous: someone could be looking for a "surface countertop" or something else that's not a Windows tablets. "Surface RT" is unambiguous and is just a better name all around. TheHoax (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

To a user reading and not knowing about Microsoft Surface, Surface RT can be ambiguous. Surface and Surface 2 are BOTH Surface with Windows RT devices. I beg to differ on the Google Trends. Notice how it spikes after the Surface was released. Probably, people were looking for the Surface OR the Surface 2. Most people may not have known a Surface 2 existed and just knew the name Surface. Besides, we use "(first generation)" to make the tablet less ambiguous (see [iPad (first generation)]. Notice also on [iPad 3] redirects to [iPad (third generation)], even though it was clearly originally marketed as the "new ipad" and iPad 3 and the name iPad 4 are FAR more common names. Compared to iPad third generation and iPad fourth generation. See here: Google Trends. For the sake of uniformity, I say use the term Surface (first generation) when referring to the device. Same as on the table of models here IPad Ians18 (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not care emulating the iPad articles: what the editors do is their own choices. Surface RT is by far the best name because it is the most common and most unambiguous name. Earlier, you said that "Surface with Windows RT" would be an acceptable name, yet this is far more ambiguous than "Surface RT". There are two Surface devices with Windows RT, Surface RT and Surface 2, but there is only one device named Surface RT. Surface 2 has never used the name Surface RT 2 and therefore "Surface RT" is unambiguous. TheHoax (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The name "Surface RT" was used for the Surface RT until the release of the Surface 2. Following your logic, had someone known about the Surface RT, but not known about the Surface 2, they would have likely believed that the successor to Surface RT is the Surface RT 2, but according to Google Trends, it is clear that people are aware that the successor to the Surface RT is the Surface 2. TheHoax (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you are reading what I am writing. I also don't think you are taking time to understand what I am writing. You are right when you say Surface with Windows RT is ambiguous because of the launch of the Surface 2. Naturally, the people would just try Surface when looking for the first generation. However, that is too ambiguous and therefore we went with Surface (first generation). Have you seen the discussion on the Surface (first generation) talk page? Someone already moved it to include "(first generation)" as a way to make it unambiguous. That solves ambiguity, uniformity, and WP:COMMONNAME right there, end of that discussion. Ians18 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to insist on going against the name that is chosen by coming up with "proof" with Google Trends. As I have already told you, people most commonly search for Surface by using just that, "Surface" not Surface RT, not Surface with Windows RT. HOWEVER: Since we cannot name it just Surface for the sake of ambiguity, we must add something to the end of the title, in this case "(first generation)" just like the iPad (first generation). As it turns out, that is the correct name for the tablet that Microsoft uses anyways. It also conforms to the uniformity of Surface in which the successor is the Surface 2. If you would like to see discussion, check the talk page on Surface (first generation). Ians18 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is do not go around changing the name of the devices just because you believe it is the more common name, when the article uses the correct, uniform, unambiguous name. Surface RT ≠ Surface, you're right, but Surface RT is a more ambiguous, outdated, less uniform name. Ians18 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I have clearly read what you wrote. I keep telling you this: I want to know how you are able to determine when somebody is looking for "Surface", they are really look for the "Surface RT". How do you know that they are not looking for "Surface family", "Surface Pro 3", "Surface 3", or even "surface countertop"? After all, isn't that what your whole argument is based upon? TheHoax (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How are you able to determine that "people most commonly search for Surface by using just that, 'Surface' not Surface RT"? TheHoax (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is difficult to prove, but not impossible. Look at Surface, around year 2012 there is a sudden increase in the search usage (time Surface came out) simply subtract off the average for the use of surface as a general term. Next compare Surface tablet and Surface RT, notice how Surface RT spiked then dropped in relative usage while Surface tablet is on the rise. This may in fact be pointing to the Surface first gen tablet and the popularity of the Pro 3. There is no way to tell for sure, but Surface is a much better name that RT because it is not the only RT Surface there is (the Surface 2 is an RT device FYI). Surface RT is actually ambiguous in that sense and the first generation is extremely clear in terms of which device we are referring to. I have updated the article to change instances of Surface (tablet), a name to ambiguous for an article title, to "Surface (first generation)". Is that less ambiguous, yet retaining uniformity? Ians18 (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You can do all the speculation you want. I can do some speculation too: the people searching for "Surface" are probably looking for the current products, "Surface Pro 3", "Surface 3" or the "Surface family" than "Surface RT", a two and a half years old product than has long been discontinued. How do I know that? I don't: it's just speculation. The guy at HomeDepot may think that the "Surface" means "surface countertop". This is what it means to be ambiguous. TheHoax (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The name "Surface RT" was used for the Surface RT until the release of the Surface 2. If someone had know about the Surface RT then got stranded on a remote island with no way to communicate, she would think that the successor to the Surface RT is likely the "Surface RT 2", but there is no device named "Surface RT 2" hence the name "Surface RT" is unambiguous. TheHoax (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

An attempt at a step back / overview
Hmm, let me see if I can try a step back a look at our options etc. Seems like we have a number of different names etc. Going through the options etc. this is what I see as the terms and possible meanings,.
 * Names without parenthetical disambiguation.
 * 1) surface
 * 2) In math topological term—As Wikipedia ignores the case of the first character, and article titles surface and Surface are the same page, this is likely the primary term when it comes to the page name and only the page name.
 * 3) Surface and/or Microsoft Surface
 * 4) The original name of the Microsoft PixelSense
 * 5) The name of Microsoft family of the tablets.
 * 6) The name of the lower end versions of Microsoft tablets.
 * 7) The Windows RT versions of Microsoft tablets.
 * 8) The original RT version of the Microsoft tablet.
 * 9) Surface Pro and/or Microsoft Surface Pro
 * 10) The higher end version of Microsoft tablets
 * 11) The x86 versions of Microsoft tablets with exception of Surface 3
 * 12) The first x86 version of the Microsoft tablets.
 * 13) Surface with Windows RT and/or Microsoft Surface with Windows RT
 * 14) The Windows RT versions of Microsoft tablets.
 * 15) The original RT version of the Microsoft tablet.
 * 16) Surface RT and/or Microsoft Surface RT
 * 17) The Windows RT versions of Microsoft tablets.
 * 18) The original RT version of the Microsoft tablet.
 * 19) Surface 2
 * 20) The second versions of the Microsoft tablets.
 * 21) The second Windows RT version of the Microsoft tablet.
 * Names using parenthetical disambiguation
 * 7. Surface (tablet)
 * The name of Microsoft family of the tablets.
 * The name of the lower end versions of Microsoft tablets.
 * The original RT version of the Microsoft tablet.
 * 8. Surface (first generation) and/or Surface (1st generation)
 * The original versions of the Microsoft tablets including both the RT and x86 versions.
 * Just the RT version of the tablet.

Did I miss any? The issues I see is that there are disagreements on if which of these meanings are actually used in common practice and which have precedence in the case of conflicting meanings. In particular the question is what should be used as article title ( possibly with disambiguation ) and what should be used in prose. PaleAqua (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Edit: Added parenthetical disambiguations. PaleAqua (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the matter is that the math term is the primary topic for just "surface" so for article titles that is out of the running. The family line over individual models should have the next precedence, and while if the math term didn't exist would just be called "Surface" for article title, needs to be disambiguated to "Microsoft Surface".
 * But within the articles themselves still can be conflated between the family (2.2 above), and the other meanings (2.3,2.4,2.5). This seems to be true even if the name is used as "Microsoft Surface" or just "Surface". Though in most cases the differences in meaning can easily be figured out in context. For example a table comparing the different models of tablets could easily have headings "Surface", "Surface 2", "Surface 3", "Surface Pro", "Surface Pro 2", "Surface Pro 3" and everyone would understand what was meant.
 * The next question is how to refer to the first RT tablet. Again if no other conflicts exists "Surface" would be a reasonable name for the article title. But in this case it and "Microsoft Surface" are not available, so the name needs to be disambiguated somehow. The two possibilities are to go with a natural disambiguation such as "Surface RT" or "Surface with Windows RT"; or with a parenthetical disambiguation such as "Surface (first generation)". Wikipedia's policy call for natural disambiguation to be used when possible, the shorter names over longer ones and when names have conflicting meanings to give them to the primary topic. In this case "Surface RT" is shorter than "Surface with Windows RT", is a natural disambiguation compared to "Surface (first generation)" and is more likely to refer to the original RT tablet than the Surface 2 which would more commonly be called the "Surface 2". So to me "Surface RT" is the best name for the article title; that said within the article themselves shortening the name to just "Surface" where it makes sense in context also seems very reasonable. PaleAqua (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ with what PaleAqua said, except that the same name should be use consistently throughout the article including the tables. TheHoax (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why Surface RT is still ambiguous and Surface (first generation) is Not
I disagree with TheHoax. Let me try and explain something to you, since you seem blinded by the fact that Surface RT seems to you to be the better name. But, you are going off of guessing and what you "feel" is the natural name. Not a great way to name an article, agreed?

We need to keep consistency as TheHoax said, but not with Surface RT.

Surface/surface Microsoft Surface Microsoft Surface (tablet) / Surface (tablet) Surface with Windows RT Surface RT Surface (1st generation) Surface (first generation) Ians18 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The name of the tablet now
 * 2) Too ambiguous because:
 * 3) Can mean the generic term like surface of a tabletop
 * 4) Name of the family of products
 * 5) Can mean Surface or Surface Pro line
 * 1) Less ambiguous
 * 2) Unfortunately, it is the name of the family
 * 3) Was the original name for the Microsoft Pixel Sense
 * 4) Used to refer to the device family as a whole
 * 1) Next logical choice
 * 2) Ruled out for being too ambiguous as there are more than one Surface devices
 * 1) Original name of the tablet
 * 2) Too long
 * 3) Went together with Surface with Windows 8 Pro
 * 4) Notice it is marketed as Surface (with Windows RT)
 * 1) Based on colloquial language
 * 2) Was never marketed as so on the box
 * 3) Based off of Google Trends, but shows same amount of usage as Surface tablet
 * 4) Former name of the tablet
 * 5) Does not fit with the Surface line (RT?? where does that come in?)
 * 6) Someone can be confused that the Surface 2 is a non-RT devices because it does not have RT in the name
 * 7) Surface RT is ambiguous:
 * 8) does it mean all the RT tablets in the line?
 * 9) Is it it's own line?
 * 10) Is there a second generation?
 * 1) Original way to disambiguate Surface
 * 2) Original article name
 * WP:ORDINALS used to rename to first generation
 * 1) It is obvious enough to follow the logical order of Surface, Surface 2, and Surface 3 when listed or in a table (stated by PaleAqua)
 * 2) Next best way to name the device
 * 3) The box (I have one sitting right here) says it includes Surface then on the next line Windows RT + Touch Cover
 * 4) On the front the box it says Surface (no RT, no with Windows RT)
 * 5) The name has always been and always will be just Surface, just as technically the name of the Surface Pro is just Surface as well (only the OS differentiates)
 * 6) Just naming it Surface without the first generation is to ambiguous so with this it disambiguates the name
 * 7) Same naming scheme as the iPad Articles
 * 8) Is easily to understand and completely non-ambiguous
 * 9) We can add (first generation) to the Surface Pro article too
 * 10) The article of iPad mini 1 is denoted as "(first generation)" as well.
 * 11) Based on information taken from Google Trends notice how for Surface it spikes up after late 2012, when the device was shipped.
 * 12) Now subtract off the average amount for the term surface when used generally
 * 13) Most people refer to it as the Surface as seen from the ad "Surface Movement"
 * 14) To us who are knowledgeable about the difference between Surface and Surface Pro, we think Surface RT is the better choice
 * 15) Most people associate Surface with the first generation non-pro device
 * 16) Surface tablet is on the rise, look at Google Trends, but they have each fallen since Surface 2nd gen and 3rd gen devices have been launched, indicating that the term refers to the Surface (first generation). However, since that is too ambiguous we must simply add "(first generation)" in place of "(tablet)"
 * 17) Surface (first generation) is the least ambiguous, we instantly know there are more generations of the device and this is the first one. It looses all ambiguity as seen with Surface RT AND conforms to the iPad and iPad mini articles.
 * Want to clarify one thing about the meaning of "natural name". Natural disambiguation for a name is a name that is used when talking about a product vs a parenthetical name which is a name with a disambiguation added to it to clarify what of possible meanings is being used. For example "Surface" and "Microsoft Surface" would both be natural disambiguations for the family of tablets, while "Surface (tablet)" would be a parenthetical disambiguation. See the Wikipedia policy on article titles for more details. WP:NATURAL. It is not about a feeling that one is a natural definition vs. the other. BTW I have a Surface sitting in front of me as well as well as the box, and quite familiar what it says as well as what was on my receipt. Note that wikipedia does not necessary use official names, but uses what is called the common name, which is how the device is commonly referred to. BTW Surface (first generation) is still ambiguous, as it call be an overall term that includes both the Windows RT and Windows 8 version of the first generation. PaleAqua (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why then are iPad (third generation) and iPad (fourth generation) not called iPad 3 and iPad 4? Those are more common colloquial names. Check Google Trends on that. If you would like to rename the article and replace the text in this article, I suggest you open a request move on the iPad articles first and see what they have to say about WP:NATURAL and why the natural name is not being used. Ians18 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even iMore tags their articles as iPad 3 Ians18 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact I recommend we move Surface (first generation) back to Surface (1st generation) as per this discussion Talk:IPad_(1st_generation). As for the Surface (first generation) being ambiguous, no it isn't. At least the iPad (1st generation) stays that way even though there is an iPad mini (1st generation) and that could be referring to the mini or the large to someone not familiar with Apple products. Ians18 (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Microsoft Surface not Apple iPad: stop sidetracking. The editors from the iPad article probably knows as much about the Microsoft Surface tablets as I know about professional basketball. TheHoax (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First note WP:OTHERSTUFF. Second the Apple devices tend to use parenthetical names commonly which sort of changes the issues. For example MacBooks are often called stuff like "MacBook (Retina, 12-Inch, Early 2015)", and these parenthesis are commonly used as well as being used as the official "real" names of products. See for example. Likewise for iPad see this page. Which gives the name of "iPad (3rd generation)" etc. So the different between natural names and parenthetical disambiguation names doesn't really exist in that case. Also note that that naming changed around the iPad Air time. So second iPad Air official name is the "iPad Air 2" etc. PaleAqua (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of you has addressed my points made in the list, yet insist on agreeing that Surface RT is a better name. I am not getting sidetracked, I am simply pointing out viable examples here on Wikipedia. How can you randomly assume that you know more about Microsoft Surface then the editors over there know about Apple iPad? I'm sure, since the iPad is more popular, that their articles are more refined and have more editors. PaleAqua, I know Apple gives the official name as iPad (3rd generation) just as Microsoft gives the official name as Surface. What I am trying to say is why doesn't iPad 3 take precedent, it CLEARLY has a more frequent usage as per WP:COMMONNAME. Another thing, WP:OTHERSTUFF refers to deleting articles.Ians18 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Former name of tablet" doesn't matter except for names of living people when stuff like MOS:IDENTITY comes into play. What matters is common usage. "Does not fit with the Surface line" is a subjective judgement and not how we name articles. At the risk of otherstuff consider the iPad example again consider "iPad Air 2" vs "iPad (3rd generation)". "Someone can be confused that the Surface 2 is a non-RT devices because it does not have RT in the name", that is an issue for the Surface 2 article and for explaining in the article, we shouldn't pick names to avoid having to explain the details. Again going back to otherstuff iPad. We don't worry that the iPad Air 2 is newer than the iPad (4th generation) even though the names might be confusing in that regard. Surface RT is less likely used to refer to the Surface 2 and we decide ambiguous cases by deciding what is the primary target of the name or if their isn't one. If we had an article that focused on the Windows RT versions of Surface I could see that article having primary claim to the name but other than that no. "Was never marketed as so on the box": again we use commonly recognizable names not official names. PaleAqua (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW the global search and replace on the article you ended up changing quotes and titles of publications etc. which should not have been changed. The grep also changed stuff like "Surfaces" to "Surface (first generation)s" etc. Please revert or fix. Normally these types of changes shouldn't be made when a discussion is open. Also see WP:FIXDABLINKS. PaleAqua (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The discussion was opened after TheHoax changed the table to Surface RT while leaving everything else fragmented over Surface RT and Surface (first generation), in which I renamed them back to the way they were all along. He then started the discussion afterwards. Ians18 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PaleAqua (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ians18, you keep asking why the editors on the iPad articles do things the way they do. Well, I have no freaking idea. All the editors writing the iPad articles could be Apple employees that were compelled to write during their coffee breaks by the vindictive ghost of Steve Jobs. How do I know that? I don't.

{{hat
 * Why aren't all FedEx trucks orange?
 * Why does Donald Trump have that stupid looking haircut?
 * Why wasn't Tim Cook born straight? TheHoax (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? TheHoax, one more question: why have you not answered any of my questions? You have not addressed any of my proof. Ians18 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is your proof? Were you able to determine this using calculus and three pages of algebra? Also, as I have previously said, I cannot answer your questions because I have no ideas what the editors on the iPad articles do. Why don't you go to an Art class and ask why someone in Chemistry class thinks that the bond angle of water is 104.5 degrees.
 * I have a better idea: let's get back on topic. TheHoax (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the only one going off topic. Have you even read your posts again. Do they make any sense to you whatsoever? Have you even read the points I made in my list. WHICH ARE NOT ABOUT IPAD ARTICLES!!!!!! It doesn't matter how you can justify your reasoning when clearly those editing the iPad articles are much more knowledgeable then you are. Otherwise it would have been changed to iPad 3 or iPad 4. It matters. Do you get it? Or is that logical deduction a little to hard for you to process? Stay on topic instead of addressing what you feel. Ians18 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again this is other stuff, though see my reply above where I explain some of the differences between the iPad articles and this one. Was there any points I missed in my break down and counter arguments above? PaleAqua (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The current topic being discuss concerns the Microsoft Surface(s) not the Apple iPad(s). A lot of those editors composing the iPad articles are probably more knowledgable than I am about the iPad(s), and I am more knowledgable than a lot of them about the Microsoft Surface(s). If you want to have discussions about iPads, go do that somewhere else. I am concerned with following the Wikipedia guidelines rather than discussing what some editors on some other articles do. TheHoax (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, not addressing the points made about Microsoft Surface. Oh well... Ians18 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}} {{Talk archive}}