Slashdot Mirror
Surface RT vs. iPad: a Comparison
First time accepted submitter thetechblock writes "On Tuesday, with the release of pricing and pre-orders for the new Surface RT tablets, Twitter exploded with comparisons to the iPad. So, I decided to put together a little comparison chart to contrast two equivalent models." The comparison is interesting, but note the source; you can discount the conclusions of writer Jeff Blankenburg by as much as you want for his role as "developer evangelist" for Microsoft.
Mistake #1:
He compares it to 32 GB iPad, yet fails to mention that Windows and Office alone eat up about 12GB. So in reality, Surface is 20 GB and not 32.
Obvious shill is obvious.
The other day, MS's engineering team did an AMA on reddit where they answered the question of screen resolution:
Hey this is Stevie. Screen resolution is one component of perceived detail. The true measure of resolvability of a screen called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), not Pixels. MTF is a combination of both contrast and resolution. There are over a dozen subsystems that effect this MTF number.. Most folks just focus on one number out of dozens that effect perceived detail. Without good contrast resolution decreases. Check out contrast sensitivity of the human eye graph (http://www.telescope-optics.net/images/eye_contrast.PNG) and if you want more see the links below. Basically, as resolution/DPI increases the eye has becomes less sensitive. So as a result, the amount of light in a room and the reflections off the screen have a huge effect on the contrast of the display. In fact, a small amount of reflection can greatly reduce contrast and thus the perceived resolution of the display. With the ClearType Display technology we took a 3 pronged approach to maximize that perceived resolution and optimize for battery life, weight, and thickness. First prong, Microsoft has the best pixel rendering technology in the industry (cleartype 1.0 and 2.0) .. these are exclusive and unique to Windows, it smooths text regardless of pixel count. Second, we designed a custom 10.6” high-contrast wide-angle screen LCD screen. Lastly we optically bonded the screen with the thinnest optical stack anywhere on the market.. something which is more commonly done on phones we are doing on Surface. While this is not official, our current Cleartype measurements on the amount of light reflected off the screen is around 5.5%-6.2%, the new IPad has a measurement of 9.9% mirror reflections (see the displaymate link: http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm). 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.
Some more links to share if you want to know more (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html)... Also This is a great book to read if you really want to get into it: http://www.amazon.com/Contrast-Sensitivity-Effects-Quality-Monograph/dp/0819434965 or more here http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/9901043.pdf
So it seems that Microsoft has data that suggests that, despite the lower resolution, the Surface has greater precieved detail than the iPad. (although I find it annoying that they've muddied the waters by re-using trademarks - they've repurposed "Cleartype Display" as the MS equivalent of Apple's "Retina Display")
Try neowin? It is the anti slashdot of the internet.
Of course since it is a polar opposite of slashdot, you see those who criticize METRO as flamebait and corrected as it is modern which is strange after being here. As well as posts saying Wahoo I can't wait for this Windows 8 tablet!
I read this as well as neowin because I figured the truth is somewhere in between.
http://saveie6.com/
All I got from this article is that once you add in the cost of the Surface's most notable feature, it costs $20 - $30 more than an equivalent iPad.
Except that it's no longer equivalent unless you add the same feature to the iPad which will cost at least $20-$30 for comparable quality?
But I thought the most notable feature of the tablet was that it runs MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint (it will cost your $30 to get equivalent software on the iPad) -- I don't know why you'd get the MS tablet if you weren't interested in running MS software.
One thing I don't see getting a lot of play is that there are two different versions of the Surface. On the face of it they both pretty decent and with the keyboard people should actually be able to use on to produce content. The resolution is disappointing, but as has been pointed out elsewhere Microsoft has figured out three different ways to address that issue.
The RT model is the one that just went on sale. That is your toy that is really just a windows version of an Ipad except that it can produce content. However this model has serious drawbacks if you want to use one in a professional setting. You can't load or distribute apps for the Metro interface without using a process called side loading. Side loading can't be used unless your on a domain. The RT model can't join a domain, effectively making this a burden at best to try manage (third party agents etc). You also can't use any traditional application on it as it uses the ARM processor and Microsoft has been very adamant about not allowing any backwards compatibility with x86 or x64 apps.
The Pro version can join a domain and use all the apps that a normal Windows 8 computer can use. This is the model that is meant for use on networks and for use in a professional setting. The best way to keep them straight in your head is to think back to the day when XP came in two versions. The Pro version was the one that was meant to be used for production work, the regular version was the one meant for home users. For all intents and purposes you have two very different products with the almost identical name and size.
If you have to work with them professionally you should seriously considering putting out a memo to only allow purchase of the Pro model. This of course is why the pro model is built this way, because that is where the money is.
They've come up with several:
Office built in for free
Side by side application multitasking
Multi-user operating system
Expandable storage
More peripheral device support
More manufacturers at a variety of price points and options
More form factors (foldable hybrid, detachable screen, pure tablet, etc.)
Open file system for managing and organizing files
Networking for connecting to other PCs, transferring files, serving media, etc.
Does the higher resolution of the iPad make any difference in real-life use?
Yes. Text is much more pleasant to read, and it's easier to surf the web because you can zoom out more, with small text remaining perfectly legible. It also lets you read PDFs in fit-page-to-screen mode.
Is the larger screen of the MS tablet better or worse than the slightly smaller iPad screen with higher dpi?
This is going to be very subjective. First of all it's not really larger by a notable amount. The bigger difference is that iPad is 4:3, while Surface is 16:9. Again, which one you prefer is subjective and depends on what you use it for.
Can it run multiple applications and switch smoothly among them?
It can, but there are limits on what an app can do in the background. Less strict than iOS, but still much stricter than Android. Of course, there are also desktop apps, which do run in background as usual... but you only get those that come with the device and can't install your own, so it's not as useful as it might sound.
Can I play a video in the corner of the screen while I'm browsing the web?
Yes, but with limitations. You can dock one app on the side of the screen, while another app takes most of the screen, and both apps can show whatever they want. However, you can only do it with two apps max, and screen layout is mostly fixed - snapped app is always of the same width, either on the left or on the right side of the screen. You can flip between the two apps, snapping one and unsnapping the other, but you can't resize arbitrarily.
Long involved biochemical reason why. Basically, the easiest way to kick in the apotosis chain is to heat the internal cell temp by approx 1 F. Heating to 1 F kills circa 98 pct cancer cells and impacts 2 pct non-cancer cells. Heating to 4 F kills 100 pct but kills 20 pct non-cancer cells, which causes organ failure and terminal death for person.
Methods for doing this vary. Trials underway right now.
Science never sleeps, it just doesn't always get attention when it says stuff, cause people get distracted by useless things like football and celebrity weddings.
Good point re fevers. Note risk factors in medical science for very old or very young in running fevers. Much higher than for 20-60 yo. Sadly, cancers crop up later in life.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --