It's a attracting suggestion: all the power
and application compatibility of a laptop running a proper desktop OS, all the mobility
and convenience of a tablet, all combined together in one package.
That's the core idea behind Microsoft's Surface
tablet line but, as we saw with Surface for Windows RT a few months ago, its
ARM-based nature leaded to some substantial shortcomings. Viz.: app selection.
Microsoft
Surface Pro
Running Windows is all fine, but when
you're running RT version, which takes compatibility away with the whole huge
catalog of Windows apps, you're left with a desktop-class OS completely lost of
desktop apps. Then, welcome to Surface for Windows 8 Pro, which promises all
the nice things of Surface RT - attracting design, build quality, performance -
with full support of x86 Windows applications. (Of which means all Windows apps
released before the end of last year.) Adding a 1080p screen doesn't hurt. So,
is this perfection in a 10-inch, 899-USD device? Let's find out.
Hardware
You'll be forgiven for having a cold glance
at Surface Pro and thinking that Microsoft designers basically work for form’s
shake here; that they take the dark, angular, visually striking look of the
Surface RT, make it 1-inch thicker to make room for a 1.7GHz Intel Core
i5-3317U microprocessor (plus needed active cooling) and that’s a wrap. Take a
closer look - or, better, hold them - and you'll see this is more than a
processor transplant.
Yes, it started with the same basic design,
there’s free of any branding rather than a Windows logo on the back, which is only
visible by being slightly more matte than its surroundings. A little Windows
logo is on the front, too, sitting down below the screen, but that's practical:
it's the capacitive Start button.
Indeed, the biggest change is in the sizes:
10.81x6.81x0.53 inches (27.45x17.3x1.35cm) vs. 10.81x6.77x0.37 (22.45x17.2x0.94cm).
(With just under two pounds of weight, it's about 25% heavier). But other than
being just a thicker version, Surface Pro looks as if it had an additional
plate grafted on the back. The flat stand mounted on the back has returned, but
here it's set a few millimeters away from the edges of the chassis. This forms
a line that is continued around the entire device, a small and curious gap
between the back and the sides.
Indeed,
the biggest change is in the sizes: 10.81x6.81x0.53 inches (27.45x17.3x1.35cm)
vs. 10.81x6.77x0.37 (22.45x17.2x0.94cm).
Where the bottom flips out to form the
stand, the top is fixed in place and that gap has a part as the air vent for
the device's internal cooling fans. Speakers also exhaust sound through here, instead
of the discrete outputs they have on 2 sides of RT chassis. Those speakers provide
good quality with a predictable lack of low-frequency response. Max volume
level is fairly loud, but you'll want some powerful speakers if you really want
to hear anything from across the room.
Port selection is mainly the same across
the RT and Pro Surface models, but arrangement is different. The only
full-sized USB 3.0 port (compared to the 2.0 port on the RT) is found on the
left side of the device, opposite with that on the RT and sit beside the volume
rocker and 3.5mm headphone jack. Move to the right side and you'll find
microSDXC slot, which is no more cramped behind the stand as it was on RT.
While this make it easier for you to get to, we think most people who use the
expandable storage will insert a card once and leave the other alone, so we
prefer the more safety position on RT. Also on that side is the magnetic power
plug, which is the same as on RT, and a Mini DisplayPort connector, which
replaces micro-HDMI on RT.
On the top is the power button, lean toward
the right edge, and a single microphone near the center. That's a step back
from the stereo mics on RT, a change that we're told to reduce the sound record
from the internal cooling fans. (Sadly, we don't think it is totally
successful, as we'll discuss in the camera section below.) On the bottom is the
magnetic connector used by Type Cover, Touch Cover and maybe, future
accessories. We're glad to announce all covers work well with RT or Pro, although
on a few times we have to clap Type Cover two or three times for the system to
detect it.
Now, while there’s much physical
connectivity for a tablet, many customers will be put Surface Pro in the list
when looking for a super lightweight Windows laptop. When compared to that
company, this guy naturally seems to be lag behind, among them the biggest
problems are the single USB port and, to us, the lack of a large-sized SD card
reader to read photos.
Wireless connectivity is quite comprehensive,
offering 802.11a/b/g/n along with Bluetooth 4.0. No mobile models are provided
at this point, and Microsoft won’t let us know about whether there will be that
model in the future.
Screen
Surface RT has a quite nice screen, but we
can't stop the quite-disappointed feeling by the natural resolution of 1,366x768.
Before this tablet's release, Microsoft show that resolution isn't everything,
and indeed it’s true, but higher resolution means more workspace, and if you're
trying to exploit maximum productivity from your tablet, you'll find as many
pixels as possible.
But with Surface Pro, the resolution added
by increasing up to 1,920x1,080 which makes things a little more complicated.
Here we have a great 10.6-inch screen, offering very nice contrast and
brightness, with viewing angles that maintain the contrast from any angle.
(That is helpful because the non-adjustable stand means you'll quite often look
at this screen from a non-optimal eye-shot) It's optically united, like on RT,
which reduces glare when compared to a traditional glassy screen.
Surface
RT has a quite nice screen, but we can't stop the quite-disappointed feeling by
the natural resolution of 1,366 x 768.
It's that higher resolution that makes us
sometime struggle with when running desktop apps. By default, the tablet is set
up to scale text to 150% of its original size, making most (but not all) menus
and buttons huge and friendly to your fingers. That's great when you're
actually using your fingers, but it leads to a lot of wasted space on the
screen when you're using a mouse. More complicatedly, it makes the text and
icons in many apps seem to be rather blurry.
So, we reduce the rate down to 100% and the
result is the 1:1 pixel interpretation that you'll normally expect from
Windows. Everything now looks perfect and the fact that you can even turn
on/off this option feels like a luxury compared to Retina MacBook Pros, where
OS X trust some degree of scaling. When running apps at 100%, visuals are much
clearer, and those who want max screen space will be the happiest here - but in
this overview, scrollbars and other controls on the screen are difficult to hit
accurately with 1 finger. Interacting with the desktop without a mouse suddenly
becomes tired.
Therefore, one scaling is good for fingers,
the other for productivity with a keyboard and mouse. If you can jump quickly
between the two, that may not be too bad, but from the desktop it's takes you 5
taps and swipes into Control Panel just to get to this setting and when you
change it, Windows forces you to log out of the computer – as a result, closing
all your currently running apps. It's not a quick change, so we have to choose
the scale text of 125%.
At this time, this is only a concern if
you'll work in the traditional Windows screen frequently, which is a problem as
compatibility with legacy Windows apps is a huge plus here. The OS desperately
needs a way to quickly switch between natural and finger-friendly scaling of
apps.
