The reason I think the Microsoft Surface makes more sense than the Pro

You can now pre-order a Surface 2 from Microsoft. The Surface (formerly known as RT) starts at £359 (UK) but you don't want the 32 GB version unless you're happy with only 15 GB of storage for user content. Instead you'll probably want the 64 GB version with about 44 GB of storage for user content, which will cost £439.

If you go with the Surface Pro then the 64 GB model has about 27 GB of storage for user content and you'll want to jump to the 128 GB version to benefit from a more comfortable 85 GB for user content. After all you're spending over £700 on this, so the extra £80 for the £799 model is most likely worth it for the majority of users.

But wait. Why are you buying the pro-model at all? For the security blanket of the traditional Windows desktop? OK, the vision of one device is great but is it really the most productive or price conscious solution? I can pick up a Windows 8 laptop with a 1 TB drive on Amazon for £300 (or £450 for an i5 Lenovo) without even trying to search for the best deal. This means that a laptop + Surface 2 is equivalent to the price of a Pro. Now this might sound like a worse solution, after all a pro is a go everywhere device. But is it really? How many times will you want to work on an Office doc (in desktop mode) on a small screen with a less than ideal keyboard?

The question then becomes: why buy a Surface at all? I see most people buying the Surface for the official MS Office RT apps to keep them in line with their other software. I also see them buying the devices because they like Microsoft's vision and goals, or simply don't want to use Apple or Android. People might also buy them for SD card slots and video out options. But most likely they want portability and long battery life most of all, which is exactly where the Surface 2 wins (it has 10 hrs, and the Pro doesn't specify it's battery life, which leads us to suspect it is lower).

In the end for a Windows tablet to be a success, RT or Metro, or whatever we now call the non-desktop side, has to be a success and for this to become a reality its range of (touch-friendly) apps has to grow. To conclude, desktop mode on mobile devices strikes me not as a solution but a very expensive security blanket that costs the same as a whole new bed.

It also strikes me, while writing this article, that the touch side of Windows needs a name that is going to stick, so as not to confuse users and so that articles like this one can call it by its name. Without a name it becomes near invisible and risks becoming in people's minds a large start menu rather than an app platform, something to get past, rather than something to utilise.

Endorse  on Coderwall

Comments