ILNews

Foos: Microsoft Surface Pro for the mobile attorney

May 7, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

By Robert Foos Jr.

If you’re like me you eagerly anticipate the next big thing in mobile computers. The market is flooded with laptops, tablets and hybrids all claiming to offer something new or different than other versions. One such device that caught my eye was the Microsoft Surface Pro. I had an iPad that I had been attempting to make work as a viable laptop alternative for my mobile computing needs and had found it lacking. I don’t mean to disparage Apple or the iPad, but despite some good attributes it just did not fit my needs, mostly because it was incapable of running Microsoft Office.

foos-rob.jpg Foos

I purchased the Surface Pro in September and have been using it as both my primary office computer and my mobile computer. Don’t let the size of the device fool you, it is a fully capable laptop computer with a footprint slightly smaller than a manila envelope. It has a USB input that allows you to connect to a docking station and power a full-size monitor, speakers, wireless keyboard and mouse. There is also an input for a micro card for additional storage.

The Surface Pro also allows users to choose between the Windows 8 “live tile” interface (the tiles are constantly updating content) and the more recognizable Windows 7 “desktop” interface. The Surface Pro also has touchscreen capability making the transition from iPad less daunting. I’ve found the touchscreen to be very similar to the iPad in the ability to resize the screen by pinching and pulling.

Users are able to download software directly to the device, including our firm’s practice management software (Practice Master). You can also download Windows 8 versions of various applications from the Microsoft Store. A couple that I find particularly useful are Evernote (a note taking program) and ShareFile, which allows me to access files on our server remotely.

Surface Pro also may be used as a tablet by disengaging the keyboard from the computer itself, or by simply folding the keyboard behind the computer. It is a bit larger and heavier than an iPad but the functionality remains relatively the same.

Overall, I believe the Surface Pro is superior to the iPad as a work computer and a permanent replacement to a more traditional laptop. However, it does have its flaws, and I am not fully convinced it will prove a viable long-term solution to my mobile computing needs.

The most glaring issue is the lack of a cellular data option. My work takes me to places where WiFi connections do not exist and it is imperative that I be able to send notes, photographs and email to clients immediately after an investigation. The iPad with a data plan was ideal for these situations and is far superior to tethering the Surface Pro to my cell phone and dealing with lengthy delays in sending and receiving information. Document scanning is another area where the iPad is superior to the Surface Pro. I can never seem to get a good photograph from the scanning applications on the Surface Pro, whereas I never had an issue with the iPad.

Another weakness which I believe has been addressed in the second generation is the inflexibility of the support stand on the Surface Pro. It is fine to use on a flat desk or tabletop, but with only one locked position it can be ergonomically challenging when trying to type with the Surface Pro on your lap. It also makes it more difficult to use on those tiny airplane tray tables (which is where I am typing this).

Those are the main issues I found with the Surface Pro as a work computer. However, others may find the lack of options in the applications store and the relatively small amount of available memory to be issues as well. Be assured the Surface Pro can access music, play videos, connect via Skype and a whole host of other things that today’s mobile attorney requires, but if you want to play some of the more popular online games or download your bank’s mobile application, you may be left wanting.

My complaint with all currently available mobile solutions is the inability to provide an easy-to-use solution for accessing data remotely.

The iPad offers several applications that work like Windows’ terminal server, but using the applications and maneuvering inside the application is tedious.

I believe the Surface Pro is a functional replacement for the traditional laptop, and I will continue to use it until a suitable replacement comes along. But it falls just a bit short of also adequately replacing the iPad. Perhaps the Surface Pro 2, which offers a data plan and multiple locking positions, could be an adequate replacement, or perhaps something even more versatile may come along.•

__________

Robert R. Foos Jr. is a partner at Lewis Wagner LLP where he concentrates his practice in transportation litigation. His practice often involves being called to accident scenes where the use of technology to collect and transmit witness statements, accident scene photos and document scans is required. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT