Microsoft Surface RT 9HR-00001 32GB reviews reevaluated

By Updated on

When Microsoft first introduced the Surface RT a year ago it was met with a lukewarm reception, this was because it had some fundamental flaws, with the price being the biggest issue. However, over the following months there were numerous price drops, but not enough to help increase sales.

However, the second generation of the Surface RT, the Surface 2 has helped to resolve some of these issues and in return has helped sales of its successor. The reason for this is because Microsoft was able to drop the price of the RT even further and as such has seen a resurgence in sales.

One of the more popular models is the Microsoft Surface RT 9HR-00001 32GB because it might not be the best storage option, but it is when it comes to value for money, and some of the latest reviews seem to agree.

The Microsoft Surface RT is still a popular choice

The Microsoft Surface RT is still a popular choice

One of the best resources for Microsoft Surface RT 9HR-00001 reviews is Best Buy, because 398 owners have written a review on the RT and some of you will be shocked to see an average review score of 4.3 out of 5 stars.

Most people seem to love the bright display, easy navigation, an ideal compact size, which is perfect for portability and the inclusion of a USB port.

Microsoft's Surface RT might be old, but its price drop since the newer model has helps with sales

Microsoft’s Surface RT might be old, but its price drop since the newer model has helps with sales

However, it is not all good because other owners are unhappy with the resolution of the screen, angle of the kickstand could be better and so could the sound quality.

We’d ask for you to head to Best Buy to read over all of the reviews

The price of the Microsoft Surface 10.6″ Windows RT tablet & keyboard is usually around $400, but we have already started to see this price fall yet again.

Also See: Surface Pro 4 precedence over ARM based 3

Microsoft Surface RT 9HR-00001 32GB reviews reevaluated

  • Guest7

    I think you meant to say “predecessor” instead of “successor” in paragraph 2