This is the best review I've read so far. I agree with the reviewer in that I've had the same sort of feeling that Microsoft doesn't really 'get' it, but phrasing it as their 'perspective' on the market is exactly right. The first time Microsoft tried to do a 'tablet' aka the 'tablet pc' too much 'pc' and not enough 'tablet'. This seems to have moved in the spectrum closer to 'tablet' but the PC roots are still showing.<p>I want this to be successful because I would love something like it with a bit 'denser' screen and flexibility. I wonder if they tried a keyboard with a fold out mouse like ginormous scroll area.<p>I really like the fit and finish though. That is some awesome tech right there.
AnandTech does a great job with in-depth technical dives, but for general product reviews sites like the Verge seem to do a much better job.<p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface-review" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface...</a><p><i>The promise of the Surface was that it could deliver a best-in-class tablet experience, but then transform into the PC you needed when heavier lifting was required. Instead of putting down my tablet and picking up my laptop, I would just snap on my keyboard and get my work done. But that's not what the Surface offers, at least not in my experience. It does the job of a tablet and the job of a laptop half as well as other devices on the market, and it often makes that job harder, not easier. Instead of being a no-compromise device, it often feels like a more-compromise one.</i>
I am genuinely excited for Microsoft. The surface is rather refreshing. I generally am not a big tablet user. I find them kind of clunky for getting any real work done. But I do think there probably is a tablet out there for me...I just have to be willing to accept some tradeoffs.
From the wired review :<p><pre><code> Half the apps pre-installed on the Surface RT launches in the classic desktop interface, most notably Microsoft Office, where the smaller user elements do not play nicely with the touch interface.
</code></pre>
From AnandTech's review just typing into Office takes 50% CPU.<p>I had totally expected Microsoft will get Office right - touch friendly, not relying on classic Desktop and relatively bloat free. If integrated well with the tablet interface it would become a better productivity machine for Enterprise users than competition's offerings.<p>With what is being said of Office RT, I don't see what the selling point of Surface is - It is Windows but can't run Windows apps, it is a tablet but needs to switch to classic to run a so-so version of touch-unfriendly Office (Do I get Outlook with it?).<p>May be it will be a better story with Surface Pro.
Anand is always interesting, but this is one review that probably merited a lot more discussion of software and value, so I find the consumer site reviews more informative. With the first iteration of a product, the big question in my mind is "will this catch on and will there be a second gen?" and to me the much lauded build quality is just one element of that. Remember, the Zune had great software and hardware.<p>Full Office is indeed a killer app, but $600 (with the necessary cover) is steep when their competition is racing to $200. I'm also interested to see how the size plays in the market. As the first high quality 7" tablets have their first Christmas season, I think the dynamics of the market could shift. Something that fits in a purse is going to be a huge draw for women; something that costs around $300 will put it in kids' price range. Surface might be great on it's own merits, but tech savvy dudes and Excel lovers can't sustain an app ecosystem.
My transformer infinity has a better screen (the review even has an entire page that actually reinforced my happiness in getting my tf700) and it has an unlocked bootloader, so if I wanted a productivity notebook (with the dock... which the infinity also has... and it has a micro hdmi port rather than some proprietary thing, but the power dongle is proprietary so its a wash) I could just put an arm compiled Linux distro on it. It actually isn't even bad for typing with the dock in stock android, since home -> icon clicks and alt-tab works like on a desktop OS it works fine for me.
From the review: "this isn't an iPad competitor"<p>And yet, Microsoft lifts the embargo on reviews about 6hrs after the release of the new ipad. Fun timing.
I can't wait to try one myself. I only wish it was cheaper, mostly because I'm not sure how much value I would get out of it. (I own a laptop and a Nexus 7)
I don't really follow Microsoft news. The last time I heard about a Microsoft Surface product it was the size of a kitchen table.<p>I wonder why they used the same name for this product.
I won't be buying an Surface RT, for the same reason I won't be buying an iPad: it's just too limited, and I don't want two devices that do similar things. I'm extremely interested in the Surface Pro though. If I can dock my Surface Pro to my keyboard, mouse, big screen and speakers, it could replace my current laptop, while being much easier to bring with me.<p>In the end, it will probably be between an Ultrabook like the Lenovo X1 Carbon, or the Surface Pro, with the Surface having a slight upper hand because I can use it as a tablet as well.
Am I the only person who gets really annoyed with vendors' desire to treat their products' names like personal names with no articles in front? Microsoft: "you can see more, do more and share more with Surface." Apple: "The Retina display on iPad makes everything look crisp and lifelike."<p>It's weird and unnatural, and -- here I may just be being eccentric -- it gives me the feeling that the companies are trying to manipulate me, hoping that if I keep seeing "Surface" instead of "the Surface" and "iPad" instead of "an iPad" some bit of my brain will start treating those product names like personal names and feel warm and fuzzy and friendly towards the products.<p>It's weird the way that Anand goes along with this in his article when he's talking about the Microsoft device ("After living with Surface however, I understand the appeal") but not when he happens to mention the Apple one ("I wouldn’t say that it looks better or worse than the iPad, it’s simply different"). So much so that I almost wonder whether Microsoft made it a condition of providing a review device that the review had to avoid ever saying "the Surface" or "a Surface".<p>As a measure of how unnatural the locution Microsoft's marketing people are trying to push on us is, notice that almost everyone here on HN, commenting on Anand's review that consistently uses MS's preferred form, none the less says "a Surface" or "the Surface" when referring to a particular instance rather than to the brand. [EDITED to add: I am not suggesting that he's showing some kind of deliberate favouritism or that MS asked him not to do the article-dropping thing when referring to competitors' products. I think he says "the iPad" instead of just "iPad" because by now everyone's stopped indulging Apple's marketing department's whims.]
>> The chassis is built out of an injection molded Magnesium...<p>Would someone more qualified than I comment on this? I seem to remember from high school that magnesium is highly flammable. Its autoignition temperature is fairly high at 473C/883F, but I could see a li-ion battery malfunction leading to a pretty nasty fire hazard.<p>Is there some special process that can be applied to magnesium to ensure that this product doesn't turn into a flare?
"The biggest issue I have with recommending Surface is that you know the next iteration of the device is likely going to be appreciably better, with faster/more efficient hardware and perhaps even a better chassis. "<p>Why call this out when it is true for every single piece of consumer hardware these days?
So their (real) excuse for using a lower resolution is that they didn't use a more powerful chip? Ok, but the problem remains that they're using a chip that can go in $200 tablets as well, a lower resolution display, and also a much smaller battery than the iPad, and yet it still costs $500.<p>The extra storage is irrelevant, since they need that for cover for the greater size of Windows and Office, and they shouldn't make the user pay for it. Also how do they explain the fact that Google will use a much more powerful chip (Exynos 5 Dual) and a much higher resolution (2560x1600) in their upcoming Nexus 10 tablet, and yet will still cost $500 or less? Not to mention this entire review is not made for the $500 device, but for the $600 device, with they keyboard.<p>It seems Microsoft's fans promote TheVerge's reviews only when it suits them. I think TheVerge's Surface review is a lot more objective:<p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface-review" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface...</a>
* EDIT: Didn't see the article had more pages. Please disregard my silly comment. I feel a bit dumb, but the control to go to the next page is non-standard and confusing if you ask me: <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/5owebbhai6oxazt/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-23%20at%207.46.19%20PM.png" rel="nofollow">https://www.dropbox.com/s/5owebbhai6oxazt/Screen%20Shot%2020...</a><p>This review doesn't say a thing about the device. He doesn't say anything negative, he doesn't say anything positive. He just says it's worth considering, and heavily quotes a random Microsoft exec. He says he "gets it" but doesn't say what that means.<p>I have no idea what the point of the article is, or what information it's supposed to convey. He could have simply said "Microsoft has a tablet."<p>I'd say it was a PR piece if it didn't sound so darn blase on the whole thing, but I guess that echoes the exec he quoted. Is Microsoft's communications strategy simply to convince people not to talk about the features or functions of the Surface?
The surface is a piece of the ecosystem. The integration between Surface, Windows Phone 8, and (what I think is most important) Xbox should be phenomenal.<p>I'm a pretty big Apple fanboy. I have the newest iPhone, iPad and Macbook Pro (until yesterday anyway). The one place Apple hasn't taken over is in my living room. My Xbox still rules there and I don't see Apple overtaking that.<p>If Microsoft can integrate their other products with the excellent living room experience provided by Xbox, I think they can really be successful.
I do not understand this device.<p>As tablet it has big weight. As ultrabook - small screen and worse input. (And I don't like keyboard layout shown in pictures)<p>It's not contender for IPad/Android, it's not contender for ultrabooks.<p>Maybe if I had it in my hands - I had another opinion.
Now I just don't understand this middle "Microsoft way"
I am excited with Desktop Tile is also available in Windows RT. I thought it was only available in Windows Pro.<p>So it means i can recompile my apps and run it on Windows RT?
This is not a very favorable review. While it seems to be trying to spin in a positive direction, the fact that the first several paragraphs are about how Microsoft wanted to control the message, and not about how great a product this is, are not encouraging.<p>Then there's a lot of hemming an hawing over how there's no perfect solution, and it doesn't run Windows applications. This was not enough to convince me to read the rest of the review.