retina display vs ugly surface low resolution display

C

cariocadude

n00b
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
36
I bought an ipad 4 once. and the thing about the ipad's is their retina displays. the thing I like about the ms surface tablet is ie (internet explorer) I really like the ie browser. but the thing I hate about the surface is the lower screen resolution. so my question for today is there a gigantic huge difference in using a surface for internet browsing instead of a beautiful pretty ipad retina display? is it possible to love a surface with its crap low resolution screen? (because that's the only reason I like ipad's so much honestly)
 
1366x768 isn't too bad on a 10.6" screen. It's definitely not as nice looking as the iPad's 2048x1536 screen, but at least the Surface RT's screen is as bright as Apple's retina iPad displays, which is usually a problem with some cheaper products having washed out/dim displays.
 
Pretty sure the web looks worse on high-dpi displays.
 
The web looks amazing on the surface pro and it is blazingly fast. Web looks good on the surface rt but its not the reason you buy the tablet.
 
OP sounds like a troll. Who complains about a 1080p display on a 10.6" screen?
MBP Retina 13.3": 227 PPI
MBP Retina 15.4": 220 PPI
MS Surface Pro 10.6": 207 PPI

Oh my, the "crap low resolution screen", it has 6% lower pixel density than a beautiful pretty Apple retina display, how will you ever survive staring at it under your bridge all day? Here's an idea, don't hold it so close to your face, 207PPI qualifies as a retina display at 17" viewing distance.
 
Kueller said:
OP sounds like a troll. Who complains about a 1080p display on a 10.6" screen?
MBP Retina 13.3": 227 PPI
MBP Retina 15.4": 220 PPI
MS Surface Pro 10.6": 207 PPI

Oh my, the "crap low resolution screen", it has 6% lower pixel density than a beautiful pretty Apple retina display, how will you ever survive staring at it under your bridge all day? Here's an idea, don't hold it so close to your face, 207PPI qualifies as a retina display at 17" viewing distance.
Click to expand...

OP stated Surface, which I am assuming to mean RT as they didn't specify pro...
 
The RT res is far from ugly. 1366x768 is the norm these days on even 14" laptops (which I hate), so 1366x768 on a 10.6" screen is really not bad at all.

Plus you have to contend with sizing, which windows is not that great at (it likes running at native res, which makes those expanded resolutions interesting...)
 
Maybe its the color gamut you're noticing...

People don't seem to care enough about color gamut... tell you what, if TVs were like built laptop screens, I'd still be using an old tube TV.
 
OP: Why even ask a question when you already know how you feel about it?
 
Kueller said:
OP sounds like a troll. Who complains about a 1080p display on a 10.6" screen?
MBP Retina 13.3": 227 PPI
MBP Retina 15.4": 220 PPI
MS Surface Pro 10.6": 207 PPI
Click to expand...

He is almost certainly comparing a $500 264 dpi iPad to a $500 148 dpi Surface RT.

In which case it is a Massive difference night and day type difference.
 
Snowdog said:
He is almost certainly comparing a $500 264 dpi iPad to a $500 148 dpi Surface RT.

In which case it is a Massive difference night and day type difference.
Click to expand...

Look now, I picked my (lies, damn lies and) statistics very carefully, don't go muddying the waters with these other facts.

Besides, who in their right mind would want to use a Surface RT at all? It's worse than a V6 Mustang. I'm on the Surface side here and I don't recommend the Surface RT, to anyone.
 
A V6 Mustang, is pretty damn good, so don't sully it's name by comparing it to Surface RT.
;)
 
No way, V6 Mustang is mega wack lol. Even though the new ones make like 305 HP, I'd still never have one lol.
 
I do like the iPad 4's resolution, which is why I still can't believe the same company came out with the low resolution iPad mini. It's PPI were not even as good as the much less expensive Nexus 7. How could anyone buy an iPad mini when you could get the Nexus 7 for less.

I agree Microsoft is a dinosaur, and Balmer's out of touch. What's Apple's excuse for the Mini?
 
BladeVenom said:
I agree Microsoft is a dinosaur, and Balmer's out of touch. What's Apple's excuse for the Mini?
Click to expand...

It still has better DPI than Surface and costs about $200 less.

The "why" is obvious. Apple doesn't do a wide range of resolutions and try to scale to them, so there were really only two options. The same resolution as iPad 1,2, or the same resolution as iPad 3,4. It was simply too soon for Retina Mini to be affordable with decent battery life. The Retina mini will likely come this fall.
 
BladeVenom said:
I do like the iPad 4's resolution, which is why I still can't believe the same company came out with the low resolution iPad mini. It's PPI were not even as good as the much less expensive Nexus 7. How could anyone buy an iPad mini when you could get the Nexus 7 for less.

I agree Microsoft is a dinosaur, and Balmer's out of touch. What's Apple's excuse for the Mini?
Click to expand...

App compatibility versus viable technology at hand.

Apple doesn't yet have a perfectly dynamic approach to app resizing; 1024x768 lets the mini run all typical iPad apps without significant tweaking by developers. The next step up would have been 2048x1536, which wasn't really going to happen in a 7.9-inch display with 2012 technology.

Besides, it's fairly clear why you'd buy the iPad mini: more tablet-native apps, better tablet-native apps, a rear camera, better build quality, more than 16GB of storage and the option for LTE. The goal of a tablet is not to see how little you can pay -- it's to have fun, and maybe even get things done.
 
Initially I thought it was purely a business choice to make people double-dip for the Mini 2, but based on the supposed manufacturing issues they're having on fitting a Retina display into the Mini form factor, perhaps it is truly something they couldn't do at the time.
 
Megalith said:
Initially I thought it was purely a business choice to make people double-dip for the Mini 2, but based on the supposed manufacturing issues they're having on fitting a Retina display into the Mini form factor, perhaps it is truly something they couldn't do at the time.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

A lot of people invent conspiracies where a company 'holds back' on technology to have an upgrade in store for the next generation, but that's rarely how it works. Most often, it's because the current-generation tech either costs too much, chews too much battery or can't be made in large volumes.

Besides, the notion that Apple would intentionally hobble a product in the face of advancing competition is silly. If Apple could have sold a 2048x1536 iPad mini for $329 in late 2012, it would have done that... and would have killed off most 7-inch Android tablets in one shot.
 
Aurelius said:
If Apple could have sold a 2048x1536 iPad mini for $329 in late 2012, it would have done that... and would have killed off most 7-inch Android tablets in one shot.
Click to expand...

With most 7" Android tablets selling well below $329 I don't think that adding a retina display to the mini would have had much effect on the small Android tablets. Android tablets are establishing themselves at the low end of the market. iPads are in the middle and the bulk of tablets over $500 going forward will be Windows x86 based. But that's a much smaller piece of the tablet market than the low end and middle.
 
Snowdog said:
$500 seems like wishful thinking. The bulk of tablets over $950 will be Windows x86 based. :)
Click to expand...

$500 tablets are already becoming a tougher sell, probably the main reason why Android tablets have picked up some much headway and the iPad Mini was definitely in response to the flood of much cheaper 7" Android tablets. If Windows 8.1 Bay Trail tablets can hit the $500 price point with 2GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage with screen resolutions of 1080P at 10" and the performance and battery life is their like Intel is promising, $500+ iPads would have for the first time some really serious competition.
 
heatlesssun said:
$500 tablets are already becoming a tougher sell, probably the main reason why Android tablets have picked up some much headway and the iPad Mini was definitely in response to the flood of much cheaper 7" Android tablets. If Windows 8.1 Bay Trail tablets can hit the $500 price point with 2GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage with screen resolutions of 1080P at 10" and the performance and battery life is their like Intel is promising, $500+ iPads would have for the first time some really serious competition.
Click to expand...

I still wouldn't expect them to make that much of a dent in iPad sales.

Or, at least that is what I was going to say until I saw the disastrous, iOS 7 upgrade.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039953067&postcount=29

I was certain my first tablet with be a Retina Mini, until I saw that. I may pass on Apple because of terrible UI choices that I just couldn't believe they would make. As much as I dislike the flat design from Microsoft, I think Apple's looks much worse. Embarrassing from a company once known for it's design sensibility.

Apple is really showing the loss of Steve Jobs here. He was a fan of Skeuomorphism, and never would have agreed to this change in iOS Visuals.
 
Does look like flat design is the new thing. Yeah, Jobs was into skeuomorphism but designers far and wide are rejecting it these days. But my point about $500 tablets really wasn't so much about Windows 8 supplanting iPads, simply that the demand for $500 is dropping and selling a tablet only device at the price point of a tablet and a full function PC I think just makes the $500+ market harder for iOS and Android.
 
Snowdog said:
I still wouldn't expect them to make that much of a dent in iPad sales.

Or, at least that is what I was going to say until I saw the disastrous, iOS 7 upgrade.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039953067&postcount=29

I was certain my first tablet with be a Retina Mini, until I saw that. I may pass on Apple because of terrible UI choices that I just couldn't believe they would make. As much as I dislike the flat design from Microsoft, I think Apple's looks much worse. Embarrassing from a company once known for it's design sensibility.

Apple is really showing the loss of Steve Jobs here. He was a fan of Skeuomorphism, and never would have agreed to this change in iOS Visuals.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be fair to use iOS 7 (especially a finished version) before you pronounce it over and done?
 
Aurelius said:
Wouldn't it be fair to use iOS 7 (especially a finished version) before you pronounce it over and done?
Click to expand...

Since I am talking about how awful it looks, pictures and video are good enough to judge the visuals.
 
Let me just open up LR5 or Photoshop CS6 on my iPad with Retina... wait I cant.. nevermind....
 
Snowdog said:
Neither can you on a Surface RT that the OP was comparing to.
Click to expand...

You're assuming he meant the Surface RT, with no real indication from his one post which he menat.
I OTOH assume that since he never came back, he was just hit 'n run trolling and didn't really know or care what he was referring to, other than that it was a non-apple product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top