| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Microsoft: Surface has better 'perceived resolution' than iPad |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-16 23:20:15 |
| Microsoft's applied sciences department manager Stevie Bathich explains why the 1366x768 Surface RT screen is actually better than the iPad's Retina display - fancy display technology talk. Conclusion? "Doing a side by side with the new iPad in a consistently lit room, we have had many people see more detail on Surface RT than on the iPad with more resolution." I'm sure there's some truth behind the sciency talk, but I highly doubt that the Surface's display bests the iPad's. Seeing is believing, but since The Netherlands is not important, I won't get the opportunity to compare for a long time to come. |
|
| Comment by stabbyjones |
| By stabbyjones on 2012-10-17 04:04:52 |
|
Amazingly, person from company1 says product1 is better in arbitrary way when compared to product2; made by company2... This style of marketing works on people way too often because it introduces the magic factor. You don't have to state anything true, just repeat until the crowd assumes it must be right and they just can't see it correctly. |
 - Score: 8 |
| Comment by ilovebeer |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-10-17 05:07:23 |
| Some people will agree, some won't, and the remainder will be indifferent. "Better" is something that's perceived. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Marketing Bullshit |
| By Ford Prefect on 2012-10-17 06:01:27 |
|
Increasing resolution does not decrease contrast. That's just a downright lie. The hardware construction of the display and how you try minimize reflections on the display also does not have anything to do with the resolution. You could still use a higher-DPI display within Microsofts design. A display of that low resolution is just cheap and a significant lack of screen real estate. It's funny that they now call their marketing people "applied science". But it doesn't change the facts. And they tell that one of the weaknesses of Surface is a low, somewhat outdated screen resolution. I love the fanboy who wrote the article btw.: "Personally I am somewhat glad Microsoft chose not to pursue Apple’s helter-skelter specs race, which they pursued for resolution and now for processor speed" hahaha. Because actually providing some value for the money you spend is a bad thing! |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: Marketing Bullshit |
| By galvanash on 2012-10-17 07:26:42 |
|
> Increasing resolution does not decrease contrast. That's just a downright lie. The hardware construction of the display and how you try minimize reflections on the display also does not have anything to do with the resolution. You could still use a higher-DPI display within Microsofts design. Your right of course, and I was with you all the way to here... > A display of that low resolution is just cheap and a significant lack of screen real estate. Screen Realestate?? The effective resolution of an ipad is 1024x768. That is what is was before the retina screen, and that is what it still is... If you double the resolution and double the DPI (which are inversely proportional) you get an effective change of... zero. Microsoft is using exactly the same effective resolution, they just have a bit more area due to the AR being different. How is screen real estate an argument when compared to an iPad? It's basically identical... The real question is how good the screen looks, not the technical specs. > It's funny that they now call their marketing people "applied science". But it doesn't change the facts. And they tell that one of the weaknesses of Surface is a low, somewhat outdated screen resolution. Its a 10" tablet. Outside of the iPad every single tablet of that size on the market has approximately the same screen resolution (mostly tiny differences due to aspect ratio). Its not outdated, its an intentional choice to not waste power pushing 4X as many pixels. I totally get why Apple did it - because they could. They have an edge on manufacturing and supply chain management, and doing a retina screen gives them an advantage that is very hard for a competitor to duplicate economically. But that doesn't in and of itself make it a "killer feature". In my opinion, while it is certainly nice and all, it is of little utility after the initial "OMG I can't see the pixels!" wears off. Its a tradeoff... more pixels = more power use. Yes, Microsofts spin on this is mostly bullshit, but whose isn't? Have you seen a Steve Jobs product launch??? > I love the fanboy who wrote the article btw.: "Personally I am somewhat glad Microsoft chose not to pursue Apple’s helter-skelter specs race, which they pursued for resolution and now for processor speed" hahaha. Because actually providing some value for the money you spend is a bad thing! And how is having 4x as many pixels of value when you in fact cannot see them (and hardly could before)? Seriously, I'm just saying there are other factors besides the damn screen. It has 2x the internal storage, actual usable USB ports, it comes with Office, it has a keyboard cover that appears at least to be phenomenally cool, it looks incredibly well made, and it runs the same OS many people use at home and work. If you don't care about any of those things then you won't want one, but I think there are many people that would. I think most of the gripes about the price are people that want a $200 tablet... We already have a few of those - this isn't one of them and wasn't meant to be. If you don't routinely buy a new iPad at least every other generation when they come out, then this tablet isn't being targeting at you. In other words if you have an iPad 2 you bought after the price drop... Or a Nexus 7 or a Kindle... I'm sorry, but you simply are not the target audience. It really is that simple. Microsoft is after the early adopter/price is secondary market, something that up to now Apple has totally locked up in a straight jacket. That is why it is $499... I'm not saying anyone has to like it, but at least understand it for what it is. They have to go after this market, because if they don't they will end up competing with Apple's previous generation products, which is not a good way to make money since Apple can afford to basically give them away if need be. Edited 2012-10-17 07:38 UTC |
| - Score: 9 |
| Comment by ssokolow |
| By ssokolow on 2012-10-17 08:32:59 |
|
Summary of Microsoft's claim for those who don't want to dissect the babble: 1. Readability of a screen is determined by several factors including but not limited to DPI. 2. We made a more readable screen without going "retinal" by focusing on the other factors such as susceptibility to glare. |
| - Score: 3 |
| Screen Resolution Matter but NOT from distance. |
| By przemo_li on 2012-10-17 08:45:27 |
|
Everybody have different Eyeballs. They differ in how much detail we can see at given distance. So when Apple say "retina" they mean, "retina" but for 70% or so of population. Yes there will be people who will see pixels at advertised distance. (That is part of the story why, in Apple stores iPads lay so LOW). But you can use math here as well. 1) First you want to decide what portion of population you want to guarantee the effects. 100% is daunting task. 70% is easier. (eg. my father have near perfect sight, Eagle from 2km and he still can see details, while other need to use binocs to decide what bird it is). 2) Next you need to decide NORMAL usage for the device. It can be done scientifically. (what you want to do is to make sure that people will rarely use device at closer distances to their eyes) 3) You calculate needed Screen Resolution. Done. Of course you can give more SR. That is what Apple did. NO APPLE DID NOT GIVE YOU MINIMAL SCREEN RESOLUTION NEEDED FOR THEIR "RETINA" DEF. THEY DOUBLED SPECS, SO APPS CAN SCALE WELL, SINCE IOS SUCK AT SCALING APPS. But there are more thing to perceived QUALITY than those. Contrast, Lumination, Consistency of both over whole screen. Lots of things. But to test those you need LAB. Not some people, when you do not know how good eyes they had.... |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Comment by ssokolow |
| By przemo_li on 2012-10-17 08:53:39 |
|
Their screen is "retinal". By Apple definition. This is when you reverse engineer Apple declarations about "RETINA" for first iPhones that got them, you get numbers of DPI at USAGE DISTANCE. Surface have similar ratio of DPI at USAGE DISTANCE. So you benefit from higher iPad resolution only in 2 cases: 1) For some strange reason you use your tablet closer than usual. 2) You are those lucky 30% or so of population that have better eyes than those used for defining "RETINA", but there are high chances that iPad is still over kill for you. So for 70% of population, for the most usage scenarios Surface HEAVE RETINA DISPLAY. PS Why Apple gave bigger res? So apps scale well, cause iOS can't do it well. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Marketing Bullshit |
| By progormre on 2012-10-17 09:17:23 |
|
> I totally get why Apple did it - because they could. They have an edge on manufacturing and supply chain management, and doing a retina screen gives them an advantage that is very hard for a competitor to duplicate economically. But that doesn't in and of itself make it a "killer feature". In my opinion, while it is certainly nice and all, it is of little utility after the initial "OMG I can't see the pixels!" wears off. Reading chinese it definitively is a killer feature, it's like this: Option A) Have retina display: Can read. Option B) Does not have retina display: Can not read. It can not be any clearer than that. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Comment by Victor.Drake |
| By Victor.Drake on 2012-10-17 09:53:34 |
| Just laugh at MS and don't ever believe what they say. :-) |
| - Score: 0 |
| It's obvious.... |
| By Tony Swash on 2012-10-17 10:08:54 |
| ....people aren't looking at Surface the right way |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |