Microsoft Surface Pro 2 Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 21, 2013 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- Tablets
- Microsoft
- Mobile
- Surface
- Surface Pro 2
Final Words
Surface Pro 2 is a good improvement over its predecessor. The platform is quicker, quieter and boasts longer battery life as well. The new kickstand is awesome, as are the new touch/type covers, and the new display is a big step in the right direction. If you were tempted by the original Surface Pro, its successor is a solid evolution and that much more tempting.
I really like using Surface Pro 2 and Windows 8.1 in general as a productivity focused tablet OS. The screenshot below really helps illustrate what I would love to do on most tablets, but what I can only do (well) on a Surface:
Writing an article on the left, touch enabled web browsing on the right. Switching between both applications is seamless, and I’m just as fast (if not faster) from a productivity standpoint on Surface Pro 2 than on a traditional notebook/desktop – at least for this usage model. There’s really something very compelling about having the best of both worlds in one system. I literally can’t do this well on any other tablet, and ultimately that’s what Microsoft was trying to achieve with Surface. You can do it with Surface 2, you can just do it a lot better with Surface Pro 2.
When Surface Pro first launched, it wasn’t just a good device, it was arguably the best Ultrabook on the market. Surface Pro 2 launches into a much more competitive marketplace. I don’t know if I can make the same statement about it vs. Ultrabooks today. That’s not a bad thing as it is still a very different type of device, but it does make for a more difficult buying decision.
Surface Pro 2 isn’t the perfect notebook and it isn’t the perfect tablet. It’s a compromise in between. Each generation, that compromise becomes smaller.
What I was hoping for this round was an even thinner/lighter chassis, but it looks like we’ll have to wait another year for that. Battery life is still not up to snuff with traditional ARM based tablets, and Surface Pro 2 seems to pay more of a penalty there than other Haswell ULT based designs – I’m not entirely sure why. Parts of the rest of the world have moved on to things like 802.11ac and PCIe based SSDs. Microsoft appears to be on a slightly strange update cadence with its Surface lineup, and for the brand’s sake I hope we see that rectified next round. It’s not enough to just put out a good product, you have to take advantage of all technologies available, when they are available. Just like last year, my recommendation comes with a caution – Surface Pro 2 is good, I’m happier using it than I was with last year’s model, but the Broadwell version will be even better. What’s likely coming down the pipe are improvements in the chassis and in battery life. You’ll have to wait around a year for those things, if you can’t, then this year’s model is still pretty good.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
277 Comments
View All Comments
YuLeven - Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - link
Blimey, can't you understand a simple metaphor?bull2760 - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Why are you running a battery comparison with the surface Pro 2 against ARM based tablets. Although the Surface Pro 2 is a tablet it by no means is meant to compete against them. It's designed to compete in the thin and light segment. This comparison is a waste of time. If your going to compare and apple to and apple than run battery tests against other x86 computers not ARM.Da W - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
204 commentSeems like Microsoft finally got interest in its products.
ikkaiteku - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
"Since there's no connected standby 64-bit version of Windows 8/8.1 yet"I can't find this referenced or documented anywhere. In fact, several pieces of documentation like this one explicitly state the client versions of the OS *do* support it on x64: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/ha...
Are you sure it's not just a limitation from their choice of TPM 1.2 on the Surface 2 Pro?
burntham77 - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
The CPU on the first gen Surface Pro was pretty fast. They could have gotten away with something similarly fast from the 4th gen Intel chips, which could have allowed for lower power draw, which might have let them use a thinner case. Honestly, the thickness and heaviness of the Pro is what ultimately has me looking elsewhere. I'd be willing to pay near 2000 dollars for the 512 gig model if it was thinner. They are so very close to giving me something that can replace my tablet and desktop.mkozakewich - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
It seems utterly impossible for people to compare this properly to anything else. I'd say the weird space in inhabits is its number-one strength, and anyone who's looking for a device right there will be wonderfully happy with it. Everyone else will look at it weird.Frankly, I can't think of a better device for me. (This is what any device choice boils down to: personal fit.)
Imaginer - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Anand saying it needs to be thinner and lighter? Does everyone but me have girl hands, wrists, and arms? Does one not cradle their clipboards, books, etc in their forearms like people have done in the past?If anything, it feels like a good thin hardback book in my hands. any thinner and it feels weird.
Imaginer - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Would appreciate it, but if it keeps the same size, a slight increase in battery would be nice. But the real estate seems full on the circuit board to me - considering this crams the equivalent of a laptop in one tablet chassis.ptman - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Reading Surface Pro 2 reviews from different sites I'm seeing quite the range of battery life reports - often reported without brightness figures and often compared with the iPad 4.Here I'm assuming the iPad4 9:48 figure coms from:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6472/ipad-4-late-201...
and states "displays are calibrated to 200 nits"
Was the Surface Pro 2 calibrated to 200 nits for this battery test?
Reading this:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/microsoft-surface-pr...
The brightness was set at 40% (assuming a linear scale w/max 470 this would be ~188 nits) and the measured life was nearly 8 hours (although clearly running a different test).
I'm also confused by the inconsistency with
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7180/apple-macbook-a...
which also states the iPad 4 achieved 9.48 but states that the Surface Pro got 6.00, not 4.72.
I understand the discrepancy may be a distinction between the "Tablet Web Browsing Battery Life" test and the "Web Browsing Battery Life" test, but in this case the iPad 4 result would be 9.37, or am I missing something perhaps?
ptman - Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - link
Just realized ananduser already brought this up - my bad