New commercial fails to differentiate between Surface 2, Surface Pro 2

Microsoft released one of the first Surface 2 marketing videos on Thursday, and now the company has released a longer commercial that explains the tablet line's unique capabilities, though it doesn't clarify when it's referring to the Surface 2 or Surface Pro 2.

Unlike Microsoft's original Surface commercials, which centered on the optional Touch and Type Covers, the Surface 2 commercial primarily showcases the features of the tablets themselves. At a minute long, the new commercial shows Microsoft's updated tablets being used in a variety of environments, such as taking notes in a classroom with Microsoft Word or drawing on photo with Adobe Photoshop. The tablets' accessories are also touted, however, as the commercial notes the click-in keyboards available.

Despite the focus on capabilities, one thing the commercial doesn't do is differentiate between the ARM-powered Surface 2 and x86-powered Surface Pro 2. Both tablets are clearly featured in the commercial, with the Surface Pro 2 being used in the aforementioned Photoshop scene and the Surface 2 used for the Office scene.

"This is not just a tablet – it has a click-in keyboard and Microsoft Office, so you can do real work," the commercial's narrator says at one point, though he doesn't note that he's referring to Surface 2 coming bundled with the productivity suite, while Surface Pro 2 owners have to purchase the software separately.

Similarly, the end of the commercial shows a Surface 2 logo, though the Surface Pro 2 logo is never displayed. The only time the Windows 8 tablet is mentioned is with disclaimers at certain scenes. 

Source: YouTube

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Steve Ballmer uses Dirty Dancing song to say farewell to Microsoft employees

Next Story

UK government approves BYOD products with Windows 8, Windows Phone 8

89 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I've never been able to figure out exactly what it is MS is advertising anyway, with those stupid commercials!

I mean, WTF does a bunch of people dancing around, flinging their crap all over the place have to do with anything?

Most all of their commercials about anything they offer, seem to have absolutely nothing to do with showing what the product is! Some of the dumbest advertising I've ever seen and nothing that makes me want to even glance at their product. In fact, has the exact opposite effect one me. Makes me NOT want to buy anything of theirs just because of their stupidity on advertising!

Just about nothing I despise more than a commercial that makes me look around and say WTF was that about.

When will this marketing nick picking BullSh!t end. Yesterday it was they aren't tell people what Surface can do, When they show a commercial showing what Surface can do, we're complaining that they didn't differentiate between the two devices. Have we become that damn stupid now as a society that we don't read labels, speak to sales people, or do any type of research before making purchases.

Funny, when Ford does a commercial talking about the towing capacity of it's pick up, does that apply to any Ford pickup I buy? Because they didn't differentiate between models.
Guess what, no one's complaining, you know why, because it's stupid.

I get the point, but we are beating the hell out of this dead horse. Shut the hell up already with all of the whining and complaining about surface confusion, it's really not that damn confusing.

When you look at the Surface Pro 2, last I saw it doesn't say Surface Pro 2, it says Surface as does the surface, because that's what it is. So where are these different Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 Logos? The apple logo on the Mac is the same as on the ipad, but will I buy an ipad will I think I bought a Mac...Of course not.

It's a commercial, not an INFOMERCIAL.

Clicking keyboard? Wasn't one of the big things about the new TypeCover was that it doesn't make any noise? Or is that their way of saying "the keys press down"?

Because it doesn't click if there's no click.

Better than the original, and also better than those silly Surface vs Siri ones. Here, have one of my f***s MS.

+1

I think this is a good commercial as well. It shows the product's capability in real life scenarios beautifully captured within less than a minute time frame --and most importantly, it doesn't compare what other products cannot do. I truly despise those commercials which mocks other products. I hated it when Apple mock other products, now I also hate it when Microsoft degrades themselves to mock competition in some of their ads. I agree that this is one of their better commercials.

I never truly understand the hate and criticism towards every little things Microsoft do. If people realized that Microsoft plays a large contribution to the modern industry, perhaps they'd change their perception. To each of his own.

I recall my very early days when I had to work on a terminal to do my engineering works. It changes dramatically when Windows started to be more popular. Throughout the years, of course it's not all rosy and they had issues as well. However, their products certainly helped me a lot in my career. Looking back, I can only be amazed at how technology moved so fast. And you know what? Microsoft did contribute to those advancements, whether you realize it or not. Of course, not only Microsoft but other tech companies as well.

To me personally, Matlab is the best software any company ever made in this world to date. But I also realized that we may never have today's Matlab in the first place, if Microsoft was never in the picture to make PC accessible for general public.

Wow the amount of criticism and hate MS commercials get are honestly ridiculous. Other companies such as Apple or Google or car companies, etc who release even less detailed commercials don't get this.

This is actually a really well made ad that promotes the 2nd gen SURFACE FAMILY. If the user is interested, they'll go to the website and look at what's the difference between the two. Commercials are meant to be intriguing, quick and grab consumers attention while showcasing features and life uses. That's exactly what this ad did. This is definitely one of their better ads.

runningnak3d said,
At this point I can only guess that Balmer shorted his stock in MS and is trying to sink it before he leaves.

I hope that was sarcasm, otherwise, I have lost all hope for humanity.

uxo22 said,

I hope that was sarcasm, otherwise, I have lost all hope for humanity.


It sure wasn't. Please name me ONE new MS *consumer* product that is doing well.

Three things:

1. Who determines what doing good is, you, me, who? If I say something is good and you say it's not, why should you be the determining factor. (your request is pointless.)
2. What the hell does a MS consumer product doing good have to do with your ridiculous comment about Balmer shorting his stock.
3. Microsoft of more than a consumer product company, and everyone knows they are bigger with enterprise. Trying to give your point more validity by trying to limit a consumer/enterprise company to only judging them on the consumer side is stupid.

Your previous comment was careless and shows that you really have a closed mind when it comes to business.

They never did with the first one either really. They just had a bunch of idiots dancing around on top of tables. I remember making a point to say that the Surface Pro commercial did nearly nothing to differentiate itself from the Surface commercial and show what the Pro could actually do over the RT. Microsoft is just terrible at marketing. They always have been.

AJerman said,
They never did with the first one either really. They just had a bunch of idiots dancing around on top of tables. I remember making a point to say that the Surface Pro commercial did nearly nothing to differentiate itself from the Surface commercial and show what the Pro could actually do over the RT. Microsoft is just terrible at marketing. They always have been.

There were two separate commercials for those tablets, and they included the different names. Neither commercial was particularly good at displaying features, however.

I don't think this commercial is terrible by any means, but it shows there's likely still going to be confusion about the differences, unfortunately.

They show off both of them and talk about both of them in the same commercial. I would hope that if you're buying a Surface you a) do research to figure out what is right for you and b) the sales staff can further educate you to make the right choice.

The commercial is fine. It's better than dancing around and making lots of clicky noises. It shows the usefulness of the product and that's what MS needs to do.

Why is this such a big deal? do all tiny details from MS need to be layed on so thick?

There are many commercials that show multiple versions of a product without stating the differences. I don't blame a Car manufacturer for not including someting in there commercial on the base-model. Or a cheaper coffee-machine for not being able to make me a latte macchiato.. I go to the store (or look it up on the internet) and ask/see what the device/machine is capable off.
But because it's an MS commercial, this is suddenly a problem.

dn_nb said,
Why is this such a big deal? do all tiny details from MS need to be layed on so thick?

There are many commercials that show multiple versions of a product without stating the differences. I don't blame a Car manufacturer for not including someting in there commercial on the base-model. Or a cheaper coffee-machine for not being able to make me a latte macchiato.. I go to the store (or look it up on the internet) and ask/see what the device/machine is capable off.
But because it's an MS commercial, this is suddenly a problem.

the only reason it is an issue is that many consumers are confused about what Windows RT is and this commercial just adds to the confusion. It is a great commercial, but users will come away thinking they can use desktop apps on RT which is not the case.

Microsoft has done a terrible job at explaining Windows RT and as a result it has horrible feedback and many returns. Every company except Microsoft has dropped RT at this point because of this cloudy message. People buy Windows and expect to run Windows Apps.

I agree that Microsoft hasn't done a very good job at selling Windows RT. I don't agree that they didn't explained it. I've known since they presented Windows RT.
On the MS website it says: "Only runs apps from the store".

To my believe a large part of the problem is that resellers are not informed and do not inform there customers.

dn_nb said,
I agree that Microsoft hasn't done a very good job at selling Windows RT. I don't agree that they didn't explained it. I've known since they presented Windows RT.
On the MS website it says: "Only runs apps from the store".

To my believe a large part of the problem is that resellers are not informed and do not inform there customers.

Companies do a bad job and commercials like this mix the message. The fact it is even called Windows is a very confusing message to the average consumer. Windows RT is frankly a confusing product.

Every time I explain what Windows RT is to a user, they come away confused. The final question they always ask is "Are there similarly priced devices that run my Windows Apps I need for work?" and I say yes. Then they ask "and these other devices also run these new apps?" and I say yes again. Then they ask "so what are the benefits of Windows RT devices?" and I tell them, I am not really sure.

IMO this is an AWESOME commercial. I get it that it would be 100% true if the surface 2 was running intel (a decision that is obviously the way to go instead of what they did).

this makes you wonder, if surface 2 was baytrail based, just how awesome would the product be! If MSFT doesn't see it by now, certainly when they made this commercial they are hinting at their eventual plan.

Just wanted to point out that Adobe Photoshop Touch is available on the Windows App Store.

Edit - It seems they were running it in desktop mode so its not the same app.

anyway i don't think it makes a difference to be honest. Its just an ad. We don't need to dissect it. Its not news worthy tbh.

Edited by StandingInAlley, Sep 27 2013, 12:13pm :

The commercial is clearly for the Surface 2, it specifically says it comes with Office, and no where does it mention Pro.

It doesn't mention the Pro, but the photographer (0:15) is using the desktop version of Photoshop, which is not possible on the Surface 2.

xendrome said,
The commercial is clearly for the Surface 2, it specifically says it comes with Office, and no where does it mention Pro.

If this commercial is clearly for the Surface 2, then there's some major problems.

As stated in the article, the Surface 2 can't run Adobe Photoshop and doesn't come with a digitizer (seen at 0:15, as stated by Sszecret). The disclaimer at the bottom of the commercial even states as much -- and it makes similar disclaimers at separate points.

[Edit: Snipped out part corrected by Jonathan below.]

You're a smart and tech savvy guy, and some of these matters escaped you. What will the average consumer get from the commercial regarding the two tablets?

Edited by Anthony Tosie, Sep 27 2013, 1:18pm :

Anthony Tosie said,

If this commercial is clearly for the Surface 2, then there's some major problems.

As stated in the article, the Surface 2 can't run Adobe Photoshop and doesn't come with a digitizer (seen at 0:15, as stated by Sszecret). The disclaimer at the bottom of the commercial even states as much -- and it makes similar disclaimers at separate points.

Additionally, the CGI Surface tablet shown at the end of the video (before the logo) is the Surface Pro 2, as it's all black. Microsoft told us the Surface 2 was made silver to help differentiate between it and the Surface Pro 2, yet showing the Surface Pro 2 before the big "Surface 2" logo is somewhat of an odd message, wouldn't you think?

You're a smart and tech savvy guy, and some of these matters escaped you. What will the average consumer get from the commercial regarding the two tablets?


Who cares that they're not differentiated? When you go to the site, you see there's two versions.

Anthony Tosie said,

Additionally, the CGI Surface tablet shown at the end of the video (before the logo) is the Surface Pro 2, as it's all black.

Either your monitor gamma is off or you need glasses. It's definitely not a Pro at the end. No air vents, very much silver.

JonathanMarston said,

Either your monitor gamma is off or you need glasses. It's definitely not a Pro at the end. No air vents, very much silver.


You're right, my apologies -- the angle made it appear black.

Anthony Tosie said,

If this commercial is clearly for the Surface 2, then there's some major problems.

As stated in the article, the Surface 2 can't run Adobe Photoshop and doesn't come with a digitizer (seen at 0:15, as stated by Sszecret). The disclaimer at the bottom of the commercial even states as much -- and it makes similar disclaimers at separate points.

[Edit: Snipped out part corrected by Jonathan below.]

You're a smart and tech savvy guy, and some of these matters escaped you. What will the average consumer get from the commercial regarding the two tablets?

I don't find it confusing, much better than the dancing adverts. You might say that it doesn't explain the differences, but as others have said it's mainly to gauge interest, you can go online and find out more for yourself after seeing it.

As for showing things that aren't possible... it's slightly different but I remember the first iPhone advert that showed FaceTime. It was in a hospital and they were using FaceTime to show another family member their new born baby. At this point, FaceTime was Wi-Fi only. You're telling me a hospital would have open Wi-Fi!? Absolutely no chance in hell.

Other than the failure to differentiate it's a much better ad than the original ones. Mostly because it actually shows WHY you should buy the tablet (vs just it causing you to dance)

From a pure presentation stand point, I like it more than the dancing ads. Good thing they kept the original (if a little modified) background song.
As far as confusing the consumers is concerned, I think we'll see more targeted ads closer to the launch of the 2 Surfaces. Just like that "Thinner, Ligher, Faster" ad was more of a teaser of what's to come.

Look carefully at the text at the bottom, during the commercial.
I just saw "Surface 2 comes Office 2013 RT. Keyboards sold separately."

What the hell does "Surface 2 comes Office 2013 RT." mean?
Who proofreads this?

Was the goal of the commercials to CAUSE confusion??

So what? Everything they mention applies for both tablets (even if Office isn't included with Pro). I think the distinction is better made at the store or online when someone is buying it, rather than in a commercial where it'll just serve to confuse and deter people from attempting to buy one in the first place.

spenser.d said,
So what? Everything they mention applies for both tablets (even if Office isn't included with Pro). I think the distinction is better made at the store or online when someone is buying it, rather than in a commercial where it'll just serve to confuse and deter people from attempting to buy one in the first place.

Absolutely, imagine a ford commercial which goes into detail about which features certain models lack and how in order to get certain features you would also have to purchase the most expensive model while ending the commercial with a 'starting at only £14,995' but the top model costs £21,995 which is what you would need to pay if you wanted what we just showed you...................ahhhhh info overload!

spenser.d said,
So what? Everything they mention applies for both tablets (even if Office isn't included with Pro). I think the distinction is better made at the store or online when someone is buying it, rather than in a commercial where it'll just serve to confuse and deter people from attempting to buy one in the first place.

It's notable because it adds to the confusion that's already in place. It does a great job of explaining the features of the Surface tablets, the problem is it doesn't state which tablet is being used when, and there are some very important scenes where it's clearly the Surface Pro 2 being used, even though the only time the name Surface Pro 2 is in the commercial is in the small-typed disclaimer at the bottom.

Anthony Tosie said,

It's notable because it adds to the confusion that's already in place. It does a great job of explaining the features of the Surface tablets, the problem is it doesn't state which tablet is being used when, and there are some very important scenes where it's clearly the Surface Pro 2 being used, even though the only time the name Surface Pro 2 is in the commercial is in the small-typed disclaimer at the bottom.

As I said, I disagree that it's important during this commercial to clearly differentiate that. It's to build hype and get people to go online or to a store and ask more questions. That's the point where they should find out the differences. If Microsoft starts getting all nitpicky here, they'll either have to create too many commercials, or have too much information in too few commercials and people just won't go to the store in the first place.

duddit2 said,

Absolutely, imagine a ford commercial which goes into detail about which features certain models lack and how in order to get certain features you would also have to purchase the most expensive model while ending the commercial with a 'starting at only £14,995' but the top model costs £21,995 which is what you would need to pay if you wanted what we just showed you...................ahhhhh info overload!

well - if they state that you can do 1000km with one tank and you can have the power of 500 horses.. you would be a little confused as well

duddit2 said,

Absolutely, imagine a ford commercial which goes into detail about which features certain models lack and how in order to get certain features you would also have to purchase the most expensive model while ending the commercial with a 'starting at only £14,995' but the top model costs £21,995 which is what you would need to pay if you wanted what we just showed you...................ahhhhh info overload!


You can get a basic car and upgrade it yourself by getting newer bits to the top of the range model.
No matter what you do with a surface 2, you can NEVER, EVER get it to a surface 2 pro, there is a HUGE difference.

spenser.d said,

As I said, I disagree that it's important during this commercial to clearly differentiate that. It's to build hype and get people to go online or to a store and ask more questions. That's the point where they should find out the differences. If Microsoft starts getting all nitpicky here, they'll either have to create too many commercials, or have too much information in too few commercials and people just won't go to the store in the first place.


I get what you're saying, but I disagree with the point of a commercial. It's not good if you're potentially confusing consumers about the capabilities of a product -- and I'd wager most people who watch this commercial have no idea of the differences, and they may not even be aware there are two different tablets.

I don't know that they need to create different commercials, but I think there needs to be a few small narration changes to clarify things.

n_K said,

You can get a basic car and upgrade it yourself by getting newer bits to the top of the range model.
No matter what you do with a surface 2, you can NEVER, EVER get it to a surface 2 pro, there is a HUGE difference.

to a certain extent yes, you can add alloy wheels and bodywork, but the guts cant be changed without serious work and money, anyway it was an analogy which by bits very nature isn't meant to be used in an absolute sense.

They do that already. There's small print that states model shown is xxx for £(yyy + 6000) so it can be easily missed by the huge banner saying "AVAILABLE FOR ONLY £yyy"

duddit2 said,

to a certain extent yes, you can add alloy wheels and bodywork, but the guts cant be changed without serious work and money, anyway it was an analogy which by bits very nature isn't meant to be used in an absolute sense.

Oh believe me you can. The bodywork is the same, all the extra cut-outs for the extra panels and whatnot that aren't on a basic model are all there and if you put enough time, effort and money in you can upgrade all the parts to the deluxe model in a car.

n_K said,

Oh believe me you can. The bodywork is the same, all the extra cut-outs for the extra panels and whatnot that aren't on a basic model are all there and if you put enough time, effort and money in you can upgrade all the parts to the deluxe model in a car.

Oh for the love of god, by guts I mean engine etc. and yes I know you can change almost everything but its not feasible. I mean to this ,level you could also get a specialist to modify a surface 2 with different internals, the barrier is money and you'd need lots of it in both situations!

Anthony Tosie said,

I get what you're saying, but I disagree with the point of a commercial. It's not good if you're potentially confusing consumers about the capabilities of a product -- and I'd wager most people who watch this commercial have no idea of the differences, and they may not even be aware there are two different tablets.

I don't know that they need to create different commercials, but I think there needs to be a few small narration changes to clarify things.

Well I just don't think they are confusing anyone with this commercial. Watching this alone won't confuse anyone because you can't tell you're seeing two tablets. They might be a little confused when they go online or to a store, but then they have the information they need to answer their questions in front of them, either by product descriptions, or via a person, which is far better in my opinion than making the distinction in the commercial, which would easily just cause more questions that can't be answered by the commercial. And if there's more questions, there's less likelihood that the average person will even go online or to a store to check the product out.

Basically I think you'd cause more confusion by trying to flesh out the differences, even in a small manner, than you will by doing what they did here.

duddit2 said,

Oh for the love of god, by guts I mean engine etc. and yes I know you can change almost everything but its not feasible. I mean to this ,level you could also get a specialist to modify a surface 2 with different internals, the barrier is money and you'd need lots of it in both situations!


Yeah, so the point stands then.
Basic car = fully upgradable to deluxe model.
Surface 2 = completely incompatible with Surface 2 Pro and the applications that were shown.
It's misleading advertising, plain and simple. They won't get away with that advert in the UK.

n_K said,

Oh believe me you can. The bodywork is the same, all the extra cut-outs for the extra panels and whatnot that aren't on a basic model are all there and if you put enough time, effort and money in you can upgrade all the parts to the deluxe model in a car.

You can do it with surface 2 as well then. You can convert it into a Pro "if you put enough time, effort and money".

BajiRav said,

You can do it with surface 2 as well then. You can convert it into a Pro "if you put enough time, effort and money".

You can buy individual parts of surface pro 2 from MS then and they take the same connectors, etc.?
No, exactly.

n_K said,

You can buy individual parts of surface pro 2 from MS then and they take the same connectors, etc.?
No, exactly.

You could still do it yourself with enough time and money.

This seems off the mark to me as a UK consumer - the virtually seamless melding of 2 devices with non-overlapping capability, combined with the laboured "one device for everything" message would hopefully prevent this being shown in the UK.

Sure there's many product adverts shown that highlight products (e.g. cars) with all the possible bells-&-whistles (and then stating a 'starting-from price'), but I'm not sure I've ever seen such a blatant suggestion that "one" product, named in its basic (Surface 2) form, has capability beyond that model and any possible options or accessories.

Anthony Tosie said,

I get what you're saying, but I disagree with the point of a commercial. It's not good if you're potentially confusing consumers about the capabilities of a product -- and I'd wager most people who watch this commercial have no idea of the differences, and they may not even be aware there are two different tablets.

I don't know that they need to create different commercials, but I think there needs to be a few small narration changes to clarify things.


What about those iPad commercials that showed doctors using some kind of app that you had no idea what it was and probably didn't even exist to simply give the illusion that an iPad can be used productively? I don't think this Surface commercial is off base at all and completely agree with spencer.d.

I've been hearing that Microsoft is too technically oriented in their commercials and don't have clear marketable selling points in their commercials. I've also heard that they're not detailed enough and that's caused confusion. People are so damned quick to say anything about any Microsoft decision it seems. So what though? They are still pushing perfectly realistic capabilities and not purposely misleading anyone. At least it's more accurate than Apple's.

Edited by Bryan R., Sep 27 2013, 2:21pm :

n_K said,

You can buy individual parts of surface pro 2 from MS then and they take the same connectors, etc.?
No, exactly.

You can always salvage broken Surface Pro2s.

Because in a commercial like this you want to generate interest and not spell things out fully, this is designed to get people to look into the product at which point they will look on the web and most likely see Microsofts surface page which does clearly show which one does what.

Think of a car commercial, do you find they often (ever) split the advert into the different capabilities each model has? This applies to everything I can think of in an advertising sense.

I also don't see what's the problem, and there is explanation on the bottom whenever specific feature relates to specific model of Surface. And they made them different in color to tell apart.

pack34 said,
Everything they showed can be done on either...

Adobe Photoshop can't be used on the Surface 2, and Microsoft Office doesn't come with the Surface Pro 2, as stated in the article.

Anthony Tosie said,

Adobe Photoshop can't be used on the Surface 2, and Microsoft Office doesn't come with the Surface Pro 2, as stated in the article.

Yeah but that requires people to actually read the article, silly!

Anthony Tosie said,

Adobe Photoshop can't be used on the Surface 2, and Microsoft Office doesn't come with the Surface Pro 2, as stated in the article.

What consumer is trying to use Photoshop on a tablet?

And why cant they use Adobe Photoshop on it when it the surface pro 2 is running a current gen Haswell CPU core i7 or so and running in the commerican be running windows 8.1 X64 so why cant it

Dot Matrix said,

What consumer is trying to use Photoshop on a tablet?

Because it's one of the nicer places to use it sometimes? If you use a stylus, photoshop can be a nice tool... heck we bought tablets when they first came out for photoshop because they had Wacom digitizers in them... made using photoshop and illustrator pretty nice if you didn't want to be at your desk with a fully blown Wacom pad

Anthony Tosie said,

Adobe Photoshop can't be used on the Surface 2, and Microsoft Office doesn't come with the Surface Pro 2, as stated in the article.

it's just a mixed commercial so I don't think they are lying about anything. But whatever you think, you have to admit it is a really good proposition against big android tablets which have yet to take hold and against the huge app gap of ipad/android OS in the productivity and professional space.

ultimately I think that's the line the PC oems will use to push their baytrail tablets, and MSFT will no doubt release their own tablet with baytrail that is just as thin as surface RT 2.

Dot Matrix said,

What consumer is trying to use Photoshop on a tablet?


I use Visual Studio on my Surface Pro. It's not unusual for people who buy the Pro.

Dot Matrix said,

What consumer is trying to use Photoshop on a tablet?

Jeez, every time I run into a Surface Pro thread in the forum all you fanboys are talking about how it's a PC replacement. Kind of hard to be a PC replacement when you can't run software that basically every PC sold now can run without much issue.

Dot Matrix said,
What consumer is trying to use Photoshop on a tablet?

The professional at work whom probably has external monitors for primary displays yet wants to be able to bring the tablet to a meeting and make tweaks on the fly all while showing colleagues via MiraCast on some giant conference room display, and then goes home in consumer mode playing angry birds on the train.

Consumers shouldn't be thought of as *only* consumers.

"The one device for everything in your life", except for when there are two fundamentally different devices, for completely different purposes. I don't mind the ad, but I totally agree with the article.

AJerman said,

Jeez, every time I run into a Surface Pro thread in the forum all you fanboys are talking about how it's a PC replacement. Kind of hard to be a PC replacement when you can't run software that basically every PC sold now can run without much issue.

What are you smoking? The Pro runs full Win 8.1 so will run literally all x86 desktop software, and is faster than 90% of all Ultrabooks. It's more powerful than most PC's.

NoClipMode said,

What are you smoking? The Pro runs full Win 8.1 so will run literally all x86 desktop software, and is faster than 90% of all Ultrabooks. It's more powerful than most PC's.

Not smoking what you are apparently if you think it's more powerful than most PCs.

vcfan said,
does ford differentiate between the different models of F150 in their commercials? this is the same thing

Exactly. A 1-minute commercial intended for the masses is not the place to dive into technical details such as this. Personally, I think this is one of the better commercials yet for the Surface.

AJerman said,
Not smoking what you are apparently if you think it's more powerful than most PCs.

Ok, I'll bite. In what world are "most PCs" running something better than the Pro's i5? These are the actual Windows Experience Index figures from my Pro:

Processor: 6.9
RAM: 5.9
Graphics: 5.6
Gaming Graphics: 6.4
Primary HD: 8.1

Keeping in mind that there are a couple of billion PCs out there, are you seriously suggesting these figures are well below "most PCs"?

_dandy_ said,

Ok, I'll bite. In what world are "most PCs" running something better than the Pro's i5? These are the actual Windows Experience Index figures from my Pro:

Processor: 6.9
RAM: 5.9
Graphics: 5.6
Gaming Graphics: 6.4
Primary HD: 8.1

Keeping in mind that there are a couple of billion PCs out there, are you seriously suggesting these figures are well below "most PCs"?

My i3 at home is faster than your Pro's i5. The Surface Pro 2 will be a much better competitor though.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cp...l+Core+i5-3317U+%40+1.70GHz

Actually, if the Surface Pro 2 is a i5-4200u, it's not a whole lot faster really, but the updated architecture will probably make it feel a bit more snappy.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cp...00U+%40+1.60GHz&id=1947

Seriously, you guys have got to start looking at real numbers and not just listening to marketing.

Edited by AJerman, Sep 27 2013, 7:25pm :

AJerman said,
My i3 at home is faster than your Pro's i5. The Surface Pro 2 will be a much better competitor though.

<facepalm>

Of course some computers will be faster--way faster. But these don't represent "most PCs". *That* is my point.

_dandy_ said,

<facepalm>

Of course some computers will be faster--way faster. But these don't represent "most PCs". *That* is my point.

Some computers? My computer cost under $500 to build! My computer is slow! As long as you define "most PCs" as ultrabooks and low to low-mid range laptops, then yes, it's as fast as most PCs. I'll admit that the general public usually buys the cheapest computer they can find because they don't need more.

However, It's slower than almost every single desktop and mid to high end laptops though, you know, the computers for people who actually use computers for more than browsing facebook and reading email. It's not powerful enough to be a real work system, a gaming system, etc. It's absolutely good enough for mom or dad who barely need any power at all, but it's not even close to being a general PC replacement.

AJerman said,
Some computers? My computer cost under $500 to build! My computer is slow! As long as you define "most PCs" as ultrabooks and low to low-mid range laptops, then yes, it's as fast as most PCs. It's slower than almost every single desktop and mid to high end laptops though, you know, the computers for people who actually use computers for more than browsing facebook and reading email. It's absolutely good enough for mom or dad who barely need any power at all, but it's not even close to being a general PC replacement.

Get out of your bubble. I'm not talking about the computers that have been selling for the last 6 months or even 2 years. I'm talking about the computers out there that people have been using forever and still see no reason to change. You ever visit any office? Government branches? *That* is "most computers", believe it or not. I rarely see anything much faster than a Core 2 Duo, except for those few people who've *just* bought a new machine, or gamers--translation, they don't represent the majority. Heck, as we all know there's still tons of XP machines out there that were built with something even slower.

If you're still going to argue this point, I suggest you first look up the definition of "most", because clearly you're confused and you think the majority of people are running the latest generation of CPUs from Intel. But keep digging, you're hilarious.

AJerman said,

However, It's slower than almost every single desktop and mid to high end laptops though, you know, the computers for people who actually use computers for more than browsing facebook and reading email. It's not powerful enough to be a real work system, a gaming system, etc. It's absolutely good enough for mom or dad who barely need any power at all, but it's not even close to being a general PC replacement.

I guess matlab,autocad, Cubase, adobe audition, Xilinx ise, visual studio, is not real work? this was a cakewalk on my surface pro. As for gaming, with the 50% gpu and the 20% cpu improvement, it should be able to play current games at 720p for sure. for its mobility, its quite a powerful machine,and for a lot of people,it can be a pc replacement.

_dandy_ said,

Get out of your bubble. I'm not talking about the computers that have been selling for the last 6 months or even 2 years. I'm talking about the computers out there that people have been using forever and still see no reason to change. You ever visit any office? Government branches? *That* is "most computers", believe it or not. I rarely see anything much faster than a Core 2 Duo, except for those few people who've *just* bought a new machine, or gamers--translation, they don't represent the majority. Heck, as we all know there's still tons of XP machines out there that were built with something even slower.

If you're still going to argue this point, I suggest you first look up the definition of "most", because clearly you're confused and you think the majority of people are running the latest generation of CPUs from Intel. But keep digging, you're hilarious.

Oh, I gotcha, we're comparing a brand new computer to 5 year old computers now.

AJerman said,

Not smoking what you are apparently if you think it's more powerful than most PCs.

You do realize that per core it is faster than any AMD desktop CPU, right?

The difference in performance between an i3 and an i5 is not a major jump either, so there will be i3s that are faster because of a higher base clock.

To 'dismiss' the Surface Pro or Pro 2 as some 'tablet' class performing device is missing the point. It IS more powerful than any AMD user's desktop PC and even a MAJORITY of Intel desktop user's PCs.

This is not conjecture, it is factual data YOU can go pull from any benchmark site that tracks CPUs.

Mobius Enigma said,

You do realize that per core it is faster than any AMD desktop CPU, right?

The difference in performance between an i3 and an i5 is not a major jump either, so there will be i3s that are faster because of a higher base clock.

To 'dismiss' the Surface Pro or Pro 2 as some 'tablet' class performing device is missing the point. It IS more powerful than any AMD user's desktop PC and even a MAJORITY of Intel desktop user's PCs.

This is not conjecture, it is factual data YOU can go pull from any benchmark site that tracks CPUs.

to put things in perspective, in single threaded performance, the cpu in the surface pro 2 is 2/3 as fast as a top of the line 4770k.

AJerman said,
Oh, I gotcha, we're comparing a brand new computer to 5 year old computers now.

Be honest here, because you're not fooling anyone. You said "most computers". You did not specify any timeframe. In the context being discussed (the Surface Pro's performance), I think it's fair to say that "most computers" means "most computers that are currently in use".