facebook rss twitter

Review: Microsoft Surface with Windows RT

by Parm Mann on 8 November 2012, 09:15 3.5

Tags: Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Surface

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qabosj

Add to My Vault: x

Final Thoughts and Rating

...the Redmond outfit has given consumers two choices; a Surface with Windows RT that offers a compromised experience, or a Surface with Windows 8 Pro that offers a complete experience.

Microsoft's Surface comes to market with a healthy list of positives. The hardware looks and feels fantastic, the kickstand is unique, the USB port is more useful than you'd think, performance is good, and the software has a lot of promise.

But these positives don't make Surface fundamentally better than the competition. The latest iPad, which remember starts at the same £399 price point, is more mature, with a higher-res display, better battery life and a gargantuan app ecosystem that can't be ignored. And, if you're on a budget, smaller 7in options such as the Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7 offer plenty that's good and are readily available at just £159.

Microsoft's facing stiff competition, but all of the aforementioned arguably don't provide the biggest threat. That comes from Microsoft itself, as the Redmond outfit has given consumers two choices; a Surface with Windows RT that offers a compromised experience, or a Surface with Windows 8 Pro that offers a complete experience. The latter is slightly chunkier in size, and it's certain to cost extra when it arrives at retail, but it's also going to be Microsoft's best 10.6in solution.

We like what we've seen of Surface, and we do hope that Microsoft continues down the path of self-built hardware, but we feel as though the product range should have been better segmented.

A 7in 'Surface Mini', with all of the Modern UI and none of the desktop, priced at around £200 would have been so sorely tempting.

A 7in 'Surface Mini', with all of the Modern UI and none of the desktop, priced at around £200 would have been so sorely tempting. We understand Microsoft's decision to go big - the large, widescreen display makes optimum use of the interface and allows for a comfortable Touch Cover - but if getting a foothold in the tablet market is the ultimate goal, a smaller, more affordable Surface will be needed.

In the 10in arena, Surface with Windows 8 Pro has a lot to offer (it's practically a complete PC experience) but the Surface RT feels like a gamble - for consumers and Microsoft alike. The former will be betting on an app store that's yet to fully develop, and the latter is hoping that shoppers will look past the iPad and spend the same amount on a relatively-unknown entity.

We wouldn't yet be willing to put money on either, but in Microsoft's defence, Surface is one of the best first-generation tablets to hit the market. At the very least, Microsoft is knocking on the door, and with future revisions, software updates and an increase in app availability, Surface could become a force to be reckoned with. Trouble is, is anyone willing to wait?

The Good

Attractive, robust design
Beautiful Live Tile interface
Bundled Office suite
Touch Cover actually works
USB port can be very useful
Support for multiple user accounts
Expandable storage

The Bad

App ecosystem is lacking
Limited 1,366x768 display resolution
Touch Cover is a £100 optional extra
Will soon be up against the Surface Pro
No GPS or 3G connectivity
Has first-generation bugs

HEXUS Rating


Microsoft Surface with Windows RT

HEXUS Where2Buy

The Surface with Windows RT tablet is available to purchase direct from Microsoft.

HEXUS Right2Reply

At HEXUS, we invite the companies whose products we test to comment on our articles. If any company representatives for the products reviewed choose to respond, we'll publish their commentary here verbatim.



HEXUS Forums :: 27 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
“16:9 aspect ratio that makes it ideal for Windows 8's horizontal layouts as well as high-def movie playback”

Typical MS spin. To be fair much the same from Apple originally.

That would be high-def playback as long as you are using 720p. Sorry total failure by MS. I think most people would now count HD playback as 1080p which requires 1920x1080 pixels - certainly that is the definition for Blu ray movies and HD TV channels.
cjs150
“16:9 aspect ratio that makes it ideal for Windows 8's horizontal layouts as well as high-def movie playback”

Typical MS spin. To be fair much the same from Apple originally.

That would be high-def playback as long as you are using 720p. Sorry total failure by MS. I think most people would now count HD playback as 1080p which requires 1920x1080 pixels - certainly that is the definition for Blu ray movies and HD TV channels.

The ratio is the important bit - my 4:3 ipad ends up letterboxed. Personally I down-convert to 720p for mobile viewing as I can't really tell the difference on such a physically small screen and space is at a premium. On a 40" screen things are somewhat different.
In any case, it's interesting to note that everyone other than Apple went 16:9 and yet you think MS are spinning it?
cjs150
“16:9 aspect ratio that makes it ideal for Windows 8's horizontal layouts as well as high-def movie playback”

Typical MS spin. To be fair much the same from Apple originally.

That would be high-def playback as long as you are using 720p. Sorry total failure by MS. I think most people would now count HD playback as 1080p which requires 1920x1080 pixels - certainly that is the definition for Blu ray movies and HD TV channels.
Whilst I agree with the comment about high def, they are right in as much as the ratio is perfect for 16:9 content such as most TV shows.

However, I wouldn't hate on the screen much, apple have created a brand around Retina, which actually hides the issues of their programing markup. All apps are for fixed ratios. This means they need to simply multiply by pixels. You think the perfect pixel density the human eye wants just happens to be a ratio of their original resolutions, hell no.

Which brings what do you want from a screen, just high resolution? The main thing is sharp whites with black edges, in otherwords text. Now MS on the other hand have spent a lot of money over the years on ClearType. This means the text doesn't need such high density to look good, and even dare I say looks better.

For me a screen is a balance of colour reproduction, resolution and viewing angles. Whilst any poke screen these days is going to be glass and sadly shiny, the viewing angles are generally easier to achive the lower the resolution, the same is often true for colour fidelity. This was one of the things that disapointed me about the iPad3, its high resolution screen wasn't very good for photographs compared to the iPad 2, due to the colours been frankly awful at most angles and not very good dead on.

So a screen is really about a balance of all these things, when you compared a web page on a surface RT next to an iPad 3, the surface fairs very well thanks to increased viewing angles, the fact most web content isn't high DPI aware, and the better clear type text rendering.

Now on to the review from Hexus, I'm saddened you guys didn't try the plug everything thats USB we have in the office in to it game. That for me is one of the most handy features.
Nice review. Here is a handy tip for anyone who is considering a windows RT. Expand the built in storage with a micro sd card.

engadget.com/2012/11/01/junction-points-and-windows-8/
It is not the aspect ratio which bothers me (I like 16:9 both for movies and excel spreadsheets!).

The fact is that at best it can do is 720p not 1080p. Dangel is right you can downscale but most people will not bother to do that - even though most people (including me) will not be able to tell the difference.

As far as I am concerned that it is not True HD, but MS marketing spin.