OSNews

Your right of course, and I was with you all the way to here...



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.



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 Its not outdated, its an intentional choice to not waste power pushing 4X as many pixels.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???



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

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.

I wouldn't even claim that I disagree with you on most of the things you wrote. But I still don't like how you answer my posting.


1. I never talked about the iPad or said that the iPad's resolution is the way to go. As an example, you could go for full HD, which is a very practical resolution and has only twice the amount of pixels. But all I'm saying in my posting is that Microsoft's spin on the issue is disinformation. A higher resolution is not academic, it *can* help in certain areas.

2. I don't care how Surface compares to the iPad. I just hate when people invent "perceived resolution" or terms alike to play down the lack of *real* resolution. And I find it amusing when other people call a lack a feature out of pure fanboyishm.

3. I also don't care about the pricing of Surface. Why are you telling me all this stuff?

Certainly if you compare a "New" Ipad to an older one you can see the difference in resolution. I think MS's marketing is just a bit too aggressive in its promotion of surface.

As much as I don't really care for apple products, I do have to give them credit for making decent screens. Those things aren't junk. I'd like to see engadget test this theory of theirs. I'm highly skeptical of their claims.

However, It might not really matter. Surface/windows RT/metro seems to be designed for maximum view-ability. Certainly giant live tiles with little graphic detail are going to look pretty much the same regardless of pixel count. Most people won't notice. A retnia like screen is astounding the first time you see it, but after a while you get used to it being so good. But looking at a different screen that doesn't have such a high resolution doesn't immediately cause your eyes to bleed.