For what conceivable purpose would you want to compare average thickness? I own an SP; it does not get 3.75 hours of battery life no matter what I do with it, and I could pull out a dozen review links to say that as well. Why are you trying so hard to make it look worse than it is?
“For what conceivable purpose would you want to compare average thickness?”
Along with length, width and depth, that’s what determines the volume of the object (=portability). The Surface Pro has 60% more volume as a MacBook Air 11". And yet, it gets hot, has loud fans, and has less battery life. That’s just bad engineering. As a replacement for a notebook and a tablet, it really should have at least as much battery life as an iPad. Given its volume, that would’ve been possible.
Surface Pro: 10.81 x 6.81 x 0.76" = 55.95 cubic inches
MacBook Air 11": 11.8 x 7.56 x 0.39" = 34.79 cubic inches
EDIT: in an earlier version I mistakenly wrote 'mass' where I meant 'volume'.
Weight and size are what determine portability for everyone else, not how much water it could hold if it were doubling as a canteen. That's not mass, it's volume, by the way. The MBA is longer, wider, taller and heavier -- yet you've contrived a way to label that as "more portable"... ridiculous on its face.
I'm not going to make this valueless discussion thread any longer, so to your reply: those numbers are made up. Larger screens make things less portable, not more.
The MBA is less than an inch longer and wider (because of the larger screen). It’s not as thick (‘tall’?) as the Surface Pro and it weighs less (2.38lbs) than a Surface Pro with TypeCover (2.55lbs).
When they performed the same test on a 13" MacBook Air, it held on for 6.5 hours. That jibes with Apple’s stated battery life of ‘Up to 7 hours wireless web’. Apple states the MBA 11" has battery life of ‘Up to 5 hours wireless web’, so it’s definitely more than 3.75 hours.