I saw this article at ArsTechnica basically saying the Surface Pro is a confused device. Based on specs it's more of an Ultrabook than a tablet, but compromised with the small screen and keyboard/trackpad that's not as good as you get on an Ultrabook. Also because the form factor is very similar to the Surface RT many people will think of it as a tablet, but the price, battery life and weight don't really make it a compelling tablet (also IMO the fact it's rarely, if ever shown used in portrait mode). http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012...or-yet-another-tablet-pc/?comments=1&start=80 My question is, why didn't Microsoft plan it so the Surface Pro was released first, and the RT (with a better name) second? People wouldn't be thinking of the Pro as a tablet, but an ultrabook with a touch screen. Also they would have more time to work with developers on tablet apps, and maybe even work more on optimizing Office for touch. Most of the RT reviews I've seen ding it for not having enough good quality apps. Just seems to me Microsoft's rollout was backwards or they needed to differentiate the two products enough so people know one is mostly a tablet play and the other is mostly an Ultrabook play. What's the advantage of purchasing Surface Pro over a good touch screen enabled Ultrabook from Lenovo, Dell, Asus, etc.? Also what's the benefit of purchasing RT over Pro right now?