Microsoft Surface 2 Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 21, 2013 12:00 AM ESTThe New Display
Microsoft spent a lot of time defending its decision to use a 1366 x 768 panel in the original Surface RT, all the while knowing its successor would move to the same 1080p panel as its bigger brother. With Surface 2 Microsoft thankfully embraces the importance of relatively high resolution displays in tablets. The 10.6-inch 1920 x 1080 display weighs in at just over 207 pixels per inch, which isn’t too far off rMBP standards although still shy of the iPad with Retina Display. A higher resolution panel isn’t absolutely necessary here, and given the 64-bit memory interface of Tegra 4 (and its associated GPU power) I don’t know that we’d want something substantially higher in Surface 2.
By default Surface 2 ships with 150% DPI scaling enabled, and for the most part it works well in the limited selection of classic desktop apps that ship on the machine. Since you can’t install third party classic desktop apps there’s no real chance for anything to go wrong on the DPI scaling front.
Color accuracy is much improved compared to Surface/Surface Pro. Microsoft openly admitted to not targeting full sRGB coverage at the Surface 2 launch event, which means that you’re not going to see Surface 2’s color accuracy equal that of the Nexus 7 or iPad with Retina Display. Subjectively the display looks very good, a huge improvement over last year’s model.
Grayscale accuracy is actually quite good, as is Surface 2’s performance in our GMB pattern test. Measuring accuracy while we scale color saturation however has the Surface 2’s display falling short of the competition, and our basic gamut test doesn’t come out very strongly either.
Microsoft continues to be proud of the fact that its Surface 2 (and Pro 2) displays are laminated to their cover glass to help reduce reflections. In practice I can say that this helps improve the overall experience while using the devices.
Overall display performance isn’t bad at all, and it’s an improvement over what Microsoft shipped last year, but it could definitely be better. Google set the new bar with the $229 2013 Nexus 7’s display and all competitors really have to meet it at this point.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
139 Comments
View All Comments
Daniel Egger - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
That's actually a big sucker. While some managed to compile desktop applications that can be used after a jailbreak I'd absolutely second the notion that this is something that needs proper Microsoft support, even if just in the form of proper compilation support with a hard signing requirement to prevent abuse.kyuu - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
What exactly are you unable to do versus an Android or iOS tab? Keep in mind WinRT has a fully featured web browser that can actually run flash, and any missing app probably has a fully functional website alternative.IUU - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
"Why we should even care?" We shouldn't actually, if current solutions were better than full windows, but they are not.It may be hard for a lot to swallow, but full windows is in reality orders of magnitude more useful and sophisticated than the pathetic and overestimated apps of these "ecosystems". Even an ugly x86 virus is much more of a program than the overhyped android or peaches and oranges apps, that you may have to pay for as well, while in x86 you are freely and painlessly infected.
Mobile is useful but not the most important in home computing. Trying to give it false significance, you get carried away by vain analyses about the mechanics of the kickstand, the premium feeling and the aesthetics of the user interface; this is a regress because you get excited by things that were difficult to do 10 years ago. Instead of getting excited for the next REALLY BIG APP, that would require 10s of gigabytes and several teraflops to run, you get excited by things so basic they ve been inforporated in oses long ago. So, sorry that I can't share your fascination. Surface is a good tablet, as the ipad and the droids are, very good for basic functions, nothing more nothing less.
I would suggest Microsoft come out of the hypnosis about the post pc era and concentrate on really interesting things, like how we could use more powerful devices than today's desktops.
Gambit2K - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
I missed parts like if miracast is available for surface 2, if it is how does it work, how much battery does it drain etc.And didn't I read that twitter has launched an official app for RT about 1-2 months ago.
Steinegal - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
Surface 2 does support Miracast, but I haven't seen any tests of it yet.And twitter is available in the store :)
UsernameAlreadyExists - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
"Google’s Octane test is obviously best optimized for Chrome, and here we see solid performance although clearly behind the latest from Apple and Intel." Something wrong with the graph / this sentence, or am I reading the graph incorrectly?UsernameAlreadyExists - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
Ah, the new stuff is missing from the graph.kyuu - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
There's something wrong with the conclusion, since the Surface 2 clearly beats the iPad 4 in the Google Octane benchmark.Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
er fixed, thanks!JB_Gator - Monday, October 21, 2013 - link
I agree that the app situation is lacking but this isn't a huge issue for me anymore. Maybe I'm an atypical user, but I prefer light gaming in the phone context, along with to-do lists and other light/quick tasks. Also, most of the apps I'd be looking for are usually necessary due to lack of flash support in the browser.For example: Would a Spotify app look a little cleaner? Sure. But I can listen to playlists through the website but not the app anyway (mobile apps require premium). I can't do this on my Nexus or iPad. A lot of video sites would require apps to if it weren't for this (ESPN, HBO, etc.), but not only can I watch them on the Surface, but if I wanted to, I can stream them to my TV (through xbox) out of the box with a few clicks.
I was with you until you suggested it should be $399 with a type cover. That would be ludicrously cheap. The iPad, which is it's closest competitor (for better or for worse) is $499 with no cover. Also, Apple doesn't offer keyboards on its smart covers (yet?).
At its current price of $50 cheaper than the iPad, with additional benefits (MS Office, USB, microSD, microHDMI-out for extended desktop, split-screen multitasking) and some tradeoffs (apps) it is a great deal already.
I feel like even matching the iPad at $499 with a touch cover would be shockingly cheap, especially for new hardware of this quality. (Also, way more reasonable/likely).