I wish I could pre-order this. Unfortunately we in Sweden can't. There's no information regarding availability here. Too bad. And now that I've seen the Book a Surface Pro 4 is out of the question.
Perhpas I'll pick up a used Surface Pro 3 and buy the new pen and cover for it.

I thought the same thing. Can't find it here in Germany either.

Guessing all of Europe will have to wait for now.

Thats where the OEMs will play the part

Andrew White, you write so well. Thank you for an insightful article.

I'm loving Windows 10. It's absolutely the best OS out there at the moment. I know mac fanboys will kneejerk-disagree, but Windows 10 is better IMO.

Of course they will. Microsoft Privacy Statement (on ads):

**Advertising. Many of our services are supported by advertising. We use the data we collect to help select the ads Microsoft delivers - whether on our own services or on services offered by third parties. The ads we select may be based on your current location, search query, or the content you are viewing. Other ads are targeted based on your likely interests or other information that we learn about you over time using demographic data, search queries, interests and favourites, usage data, and location data - which we refer to as "interest-based advertising" in this statement. Microsoft does not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you. You may opt out of receiving interest-based advertising from Microsoft by visiting our opt-out page. More information about advertising controls is available in the Access and Controls section of this privacy statement. Further details regarding our advertising-related uses of data include:

Advertising Industry Best Practices and Commitments. Microsoft is a member of the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) and adheres to the NAI Code of Conduct. We also adhere to the following self-regulatory programs:

In the US: Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA)

In Europe: European Interactive Digital Advertising Alliance (EDAA)

In Canada: Ad Choices: Digital Advertising Alliance of Canada (DAAC) / Choix de Pub: l'Alliance de la publicité numérique du Canada (DAAC)

Children and Advertising. We do not deliver interest-based advertising to children whose birthdate in their Microsoft account identifies them as under 13 years of age.

Data Retention. For interest-based advertising, we retain data for no more than 13 months, unless we obtain your consent to retain the data longer.

Data Sharing. In some cases, we share with advertisers reports about the data we have collected on their sites or ads. We may also share data directly with service providers to permit them to provide services on our behalf or to partner with us in selecting and serving ads for our advertising partners. For instance, Microsoft uses a service provider to match your Microsoft cookie ID and account data with data an advertiser may have about you (such as your recent purchases from them). This is done so the advertiser can reach you with an ad it thinks may be relevant to you. However, the service provider we use acts as a trusted third party and does not share any personal data that Microsoft or the advertiser has about you.

Data Collected by Other Advertising Companies. Advertisers sometimes include their own web beacons (or those of their other advertising partners) within their advertisements that we display, enabling them to set and read their own cookies. Additionally, Microsoft partners with third-party ad companies to help provide some of our advertising services, and we also allow other third-party ad companies to display advertisements on our sites. These third parties may place cookies on your computer and collect data about your online activities across websites or online services. These companies currently include, but are not limited to: A9, Advertising.com, AppNexus, Criteo, MediaMath, nugg.adAG, Rocket Fuel, and Yahoo!. You may find more information on each company's practices, including the choices it offers, by clicking on the company names above. Many of them are also members of the NAI or DAA, which each provide a simple way to opt out of ad targeting from participating companies..** ......

"Do you seriously think they would risk that reputation on spying for ads revenues?"

Say again?

I agree, I really LOVE windows 10, if not for Window's 10 and the possibilities I would not have bough my Surface 3 (which I love as well) and not for all that, I wouldn't be considering spending a couple grand next year on a Band 2, SP4, and a Lumia 950 XL. I'm am completely taken by the idea of 1 OS for EVERYTHING, Work, play, desktop, mobile. Why use Android, Apple OS's when you can do it all with W10.

Windows Phone doesn't use the same operating system as desktop and laptop devices, it uses Windows Mobile. The current name (Windows 10) is just for marketing purposes, to emphasize the link between the devices. Software is very similar on both platforms in terms of UI and functionality, but there are differences (albeit minor) within the code. Software has to be written for a certain architecure and ARM is not the same as x86. So your statement it's the same operating system is simply not true.

I do agree though that they need to improve Windows Store and have more apps available there, so also build closer links with mobile apps developers in order to compete with other mobile platforms.

I agree, that APP's matter for Phones, they are much less relevant for tablets. Windows 10 is growing at a significant pace (infact in 10 weeks there are now more devices using Windows 10 than OS X -pretty amazing). Developers would be wise to take note, and the revenue is also speaking volumes. If Terry Meyerson (Spelling?) is to be believed revenues have increased drastically for developers in the Windows Store. Infact, the Windows Store has improved and grown since the launch of Window's 10. Microsoft definiately has a big hill to climb to convince people to give Window's phone a shot. There are alot of good App's for Windows 10. There are only a few APP's that I'm interested in that aren't available. I think the lack of APP's issue is overstated to some degree.

no. Windows 7 is the best. Windows 10 is still not a stable version.
And, for productivity, While windows 7 wins hands down, the UX trophy goes to Apple.

However, reliability and tweakability goes to Linux.

Wouldn't know.... haven't been able to upgrade yet.

Linux! This piece is dismissive of Linux. (had to do it)

Rabble rabble rabble M$ rabble rabble rabble!

rabble rabble rabble apple is bad rabble rabble

The secret to Apple's success is that there is no "s" in the name that can be made into an $ by pundits.

Appl€?

Touche

App£e.

The euro ain't what it used to be.

lol!

The attempt at a Linux jab is just badly thought out. Linux is not an OS like Windows. Android and ChromeOS are both based on the Linux kernel, and Microsoft is as afraid of them and the irrelevance of Windows as it is of Apple. The strong roots of unix continues to be an excellent basis for software development. Not sure how the author missed this.

ALL are Unix based, like OS-X

Mickey S is still behind in the game.

Linux is Unix-like, not Unix-based.

Linux is really a reimplementation of Unix.

...which really restates what I just said.

Linux is really a implementation of POSIX, not Unix. And initially it was not that.

And POSIX is a formal standardization of Unix. These are really more legal issues than reality.

Do not forget that the Posix specs were developed to unify the various variants of Unix.

...of such "small" matters, lawsuits are and have been made.

I hope you're not including Windows in that. It hasn't been Unix-based since the REALLY early days.

Windows was never UNIX based, though DOS did borrow some ideas. Well, the only idea I can think of that was borrowed was the concept of devices as files, like CON and AUX, and only very loosely, since these 'files' had no physical path. At no point was DOS even slightly POSIX compliant, though Microsoft did later provide some quasi-POSIX compatible libraries (and CYGWIN, a third party open source effort, today provides a more fully UNIX environment).

Hmm, okay then. I just knew that they've been using the NT kernel since Windows became mainstream with 3.1.

Sort of. At that time, there was Windows NT 3.1 (for business use because it was properly secured) and Windows 3.1 (for consumers), very different code bases. They switched the consumer line to the NT kernel in Windows XP, though lots of consumers used Windows 2000, which used the NT kernel but was officially a business offering. :)

Question, are Win 2000 and ME one in the same? True I could just Google it but you seem pretty knowledgeable. My Nanny had ME for over a decade before it finally crapped out on her and she had to upgrade to a Windows 7 computer.

Nope. ME was the successor to Windows 98 Second Edition, the last of the consumer line, if I recall correctly. After that, XP used the NT kernel and the consumer/business lines were effectively merged. I can't imagine using ME for that long, what a piece of garbage. The non-NT kernel and OS was truly wide open security wise. It had user profiles, but there was absolutely no system to keep anyone from accessing any files they wanted.

I appreciate all your informative replies!

Shirley. :)

Chris is right. Here are the different lineages:
DOS 6.x --> Windows 3.x --> Windows 95 --> Windows 98/SE --> Windows ME (all based on DOS underneath)
Windows NT 3.x --> Windows NT 4.0 --> Windows 2000 (5.0) --> Windows XP (5.1) --> Windows Vista (6.0) --> Windows 7 --> ..... --> Windows 10 (all with new NT kernel)

DOS was always designed for X86 processor, Windows 3.1's success made the Win32 sub-system made it major focus for Microsoft.
NT was designed from day one (sometime '86/'87) to be hardware and sub-system agnostic - X86/PowerPC/MIPS/Alpha processors underneath, Win32/POSIX/OS2 sub-systems on top. Nice de-coupling of business and technology issues to enable Windows to be relevant for several decades - allowed Windows NT (and thereby Microsoft) to grow even as PowerPC, MIPS and Alpha processor families died out over time (there's more to it, but let's defer to another day).

Success of Windows 3.1 with it's Win32 sub-system made Microsoft de-prioritize OS/2 over Win32 in NT - they had sufficient consumer/enterprise penetration with healthy ecosystem of 3rd party applications. Broad support for hardware (devices) and software (applications) fairly comparable to Windows 98SE made Windows XP successful. In fact, on the desktop/laptop (consumer or enterprise) Windows XP was bigger competitor to Vista/7 than Linux and helped Microsoft close down the DOS lineage. There's a different story on the server side, some other day/post.

Linux is excellent for many things. And completely useless for others, like image editing or video editing, because of the lack of suitable software. Yes, I know, there is GIMP, there are other tools in Linux for that, but the problem is these are not programs that would set the standards in relevant industries. No matter how nice these programs may be, for many people learning them is not terribly useful. Some people simply can't leave Windows or OS ecosystems and switch to Linux, even if they like the system. It seems the only area where MS can be concerned about competition from Linux are server operating systems and networking software. Not even office productivity as Linux alternatives for that didn't become really popular.
I don't think Windows Phones are really competing with Android phones. They are trying, for sure, but to be honest, they don't seem to be quite there yet. Here Android has way more to offer for an everyday user. However, especially with that new Display Dock, Windows Phone may have a good chance of taking over the corporate niche Blackberry was occupying a few years ago. I think that's what they are aiming at.

I agree generally, except that most people don't need to use image or video editing. And if they do, a basic program in those categories may be adequate. And we can expect that apps for Android, Chrome or hosted on the web including remote environments will increasingly cover these needs, as well as games for all but some % of enthusiasts or professionals (though top end rendering is often done on Linux, linked to open source culture). Which is why Microsoft is concerned about Windows being irrelevant.

I agree with other comments that to a large degree OEMs mostly come out with poorly thought out me-too designs and try to add branded software that just gets in the way. We are nearly at computing being a global commodity where in a proper market there can only be a thin margin over top of the hardware cost, aside from true value adds like service (where Apple excels, though others are getting better with virtual offerings) as well as brand recognition. So it could very well come down to Microsoft and Apple vs an array of companies using Linux based operating systems. It's interesting to think what will happen with a company like Lenovo, with their Thinkpads in particular that (mostly) have solid no nonsense designs and even intentional Linux support and have innovated with their Book-preceding Yoga. Good design like the "Book" will basically become expected sooner or later.

I'm not sure a universal device and OS are that important. Google's approach of an account loading on any device, or the general Web browser based world may make it niche as well. With ubiquitous Internet, I'd expect corporations to move away from devices being very important.

In all this, I see openness being crucial. There's a lot to thank now and in the future in choice and competition for Linux's broad hardware support, and interoperability of data and applications. While Microsoft doesn't anymore go out of their way to prevent it, they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that better world, and publications like Wired often take a derisive tone to this base requirement.

"While Microsoft doesn't anymore go out of their way to prevent it, they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that better world,"

It has taken the combined effects of a successful open source movement undermining their licensing model, Apple undermining their claim of ease of use and Google undermining their PC centricity to actually break the Microsoft monopoly and get them to change their tune. In the process, we lost at least a decade in IT development.

It is key for us to have diversity, and never again be trapped into a single concept or single platform. The Ring to Rule Them All is pure evil, as all LOTR fans know. We really need the diversity of Apple, Google, Microsoft and a healthy open source movement in order to have progress. Interoperability, which you rightly favour, will be achieved if we insist on heterogeneity.