Microsoft Surface Pro (2017)

Microsoft
Last Updated: 27th June 2019

Overview
Review
Price
Specs
Comparisons
User Reviews
News

₹ 71,000

View Photo Gallery

Compare Get Price Drop Alert

Key Specs

Display 12.30-inch (2736x1824)
Processor Intel Core i5-7300U
Front Camera 5MP
RAM 8GB
OS Windows 10
Storage 256GB
Rear Camera 8MP

Market StatusReleased
Release DateMay 2017

Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) Review

By Jamshed Avari (May 1, 2018)

Design
Display
Software
Performance
Battery Life
Camera
Value for Money

Good
Extremely portable
High-quality screen
Flexible kickstand

Bad
Type Cover and Surface Pen cost a lot extra
Previous generation CPUs
Weak speakers
Limited connectivity

When the original Microsoft Surface (Review) and Surface Pro were launched over five years ago, the entire world took notice. Both devices drew attention not only for their style, but also because their existence meant that Microsoft was willing to compete with its own partners in the consumer market. At the time, Microsoft said that the Surface tablets were all about showing Windows off to its full potential; reimagining how hardware and software can work together. They were meant to be the gold standard of Windows devices, and it was easy to see that the software giant was trying to take a page out of Apple's book.

Read complete Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) Review

Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) Summary

The fifth-generation Microsoft Surface Pro has been launched in India several months after its international debut, and so it will have a tough time competing with the ultraportable laptops and 2-in-1s that competitors have brought to market recently. It looks great and has a well-engineered kickstand, plus the 12-inch 3:2 screen is excellent, and it runs silently. The Surface Pro weighs under 1kg making it extremely portable. However, performance is constrained by the previous-generation Intel CPU, and connectivity is limited to just one USB 3.0 port. Also, you'll have to pay a lot extra for the Surface Type Cover and Surface Pen which ideally should have been included.