Gloves Off: Microsoft builds Windows vs. iPad comparison site

Microsoft has taken the gloves off and is committed to showing that Windows 8 tablets are superior to the iPad. We have already seen one commercial make its way to your television screen and now the company is launching an iPad vs Windows 8 comparison site to keep the momentum going.

Microsoft has constructed a site that lets you put several popular Windows 8 tablets in a side-by-side comparison of the iPad. The idea being, obviously, that the Windows 8 tablets are superior to the iPad in nearly every way. Of course, Microsoft does leave out one metric where the iPad would always win, resolution, but when you build the site, you can slant it however you like.

Besides resolution, Microsoft includes several categories including thinness, battery life, weight, display size and more to help the consumer size up the iPad to their Windows 8 comparable.

It’s a bit refreshing to see Microsoft actually come out and be direct with their advertising and directly calling out other platforms shortcomings. While Windows 8/RT is certainly not perfect, it can hold its own against the market leader, iOS.

You can head on over to the comparison page here to see how many existing tablets compare to that of the latest generation iPad.

Source: Microsoft | Previous Coverage: Neowin

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's latest video slams the no-contract cost of Samsung Galaxy S4

Next Story

Windows Phone Modern app for Windows 8 has been updated

98 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Ipad vs Surface?

I laugh at how MS fans and Apple fans argue who is better.

cue music*

My dog's better then your dog..... HHAHAHAHA!

I have a Surface RT, but since my girlfriend has an iPad, I use both regularly. There are a lot of things the iPad does do better.

Areas where the iPad is better:
- Apps launch much faster on the iPad. Once launched though, apps on my Surface RT run about as fast. For example, launching the default mail app on the Surface (after update) takes a good 5 seconds. On the iPad it takes ~2.
- More apps (I'm thinking Pandora, Spotify, Facebook, etc. And before you're up in arms, using the Facebook website when in tablet mode, with the Surface keyboard folded back, sucks. And MetroRadio on RT is slow and buggy)
- Weight - and yes you can feel the difference, esp given the form factor
- Screen Resolution - For reading Kindle books this does make a difference. It's just much more pleasing on the iPad
- Battery life on standby - While continuous use battery life is pretty similar, I find that the Surface (thanks to "connected standby" feature) lasts for a few days if I were to just leave it on my table and not use it. The iPad, in the order of weeks.

I'm not saying that the Surface does not do anything better (it does, simple web browsing, keyboard for typing, Office, multitasking, etc.), but the iPad definitely has quite a few things nailed.

So Surface is more expensive, providing smaller resolution, smaller battery life, sadly a higher display size. Oh yeah and they don't even bother selling it in my country. Nice comparison.

My god.. I remember all the times news stories were posted when Apple trashed Microsoft or other competitors and people were up in arms. And now Microsoft are doing it, and its OK.

The usual fanboy double standards at work again. For the record I always hated it when Apple did it and always said as much here... I want the company to tell me why their product is great, not why the competitors is bad.

Let's NOT talk about the resolution, since we don't care??

iPad 2048x1536 -VS- Surface RT 1366x768

When reading book and surfing, you CAN see the difference. I'll pay for that.

Interesting the comparison shows the iPad in landscape orientation which almost no one uses it in except when watching a video or playing a game with that orientation.

Brony said,
And it is why MS is considered an evil company.

Yes, comparing one device with another, I don't see how this is still legal. /s

You can do trials of apps? I didn't know that, and that's pretty cool.

Yes, this is the same with Windows Phone. Trials can be anything from a few levels of a game, to an ad supported version. You click the Trial button to test the app out, and if you want to buy it, just hit the Buy button.

Wouldn't simply using the Hulu app be faster than manually going to the website? Or is there a limitation that you were referring to? You can still go to the Hulu website on an iPad.

You can pin the app right to the start screen, so it works just like an app. As far as I know, the Hulu app is just fro Hulu plus. Thus if you want to watch on iPad, you need to pay for a subscription to Hulu plus.

Regarding MLB at Bat, were you referring to MLB Gameday

Yes I was. My Surface can access full gameday. I used to pay for the At Bat app on iPad because I couldn't go to the website. No need to do that anymore.

Of course you don't get nowhere near the 32 GB of storage on the Surface. They price-wise Microsoft should have made the comparison with the 16 GB iPad.

The iPad has better resolution, battery life, and app selection. Unless those 3 things don't matter to people, the RT is pretty far inferior.

Astra.Xtreme said,
The iPad has better resolution, battery life, and app selection. Unless those 3 things don't matter to people, the RT is pretty far inferior.

It depends on how much those things matter. I care a lot about battery life but I find the Surface holds its own compared to the iPad in that comparison. Combined with its strength the RT won out over the iPad so I got it.

Screen resolution isn't that important to me as long as it looks nice anc clear, which Surface RT does. App selection was a bit of an issue for me. I knew I would likely miss out on some stuff (especially early on) but the Windows 8 interface was so much fun to use in the store that I decided to get it anyway. And I havent been disappointed. The app selection is actually very impressive. I'm especially suprised to see how many national companies are supporting Windows 8/RT. Banking apps, sportclub apps, tvshow apps, etc. There really isnt anything Im missing at this moment.

Those things matter, but the question is how much. iPad has better resolution, but put them side by side and at a usable distance and it's hard to tell. Certainly it doesn't make the Surface any less usable.

As far as battery life, this particular Windows tablet has less than iPad. Others like the Samsung Ativ Tab beat the iPad by a good margin [1]. Thus, if battery life is a top concern, iPad is probably not the best choice.

Finally, in terms of app selection, there are 80,000 tablet specific apps on the Windows store. It's growing 20% faster than the iOS tablet ecosystem. Also consider that the Windows store allows trials. On the iOS store, tons of apps have two versions: a free and a "lite", which artificially inflates the app count.

Consider even further that for many instances, there is no need for an app on Surface. Take Hulu for example. I don't need a hulu app because I can just go to Hulu.com and watch videos. Can't do that on iPad. In fact you need to actually pay to do this. MLB At Bat is another example. This app is $15 a year on iPad. It's free on Surface by just going to the website.

Finally, consider that apps are more useful on Surface. Sure there are 300,000 apps, but you can only run one at a time ever. Running two apps side by side, (up to 4 in the 8.1 update) is invaluable.

[1] http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6528/52168.png

ModernMech said,
Those things matter, but the question is how much. iPad has better resolution, but put them side by side and at a usable distance and it's hard to tell. Certainly it doesn't make the Surface any less usable.

As far as battery life, this particular Windows tablet has less than iPad. Others like the Samsung Ativ Tab beat the iPad by a good margin [1]. Thus, if battery life is a top concern, iPad is probably not the best choice.

Finally, in terms of app selection, there are 80,000 tablet specific apps on the Windows store. It's growing 20% faster than the iOS tablet ecosystem. Also consider that the Windows store allows trials. On the iOS store, tons of apps have two versions: a free and a "lite", which artificially inflates the app count.

Consider even further that for many instances, there is no need for an app on Surface. Take Hulu for example. I don't need a hulu app because I can just go to Hulu.com and watch videos. Can't do that on iPad. In fact you need to actually pay to do this. MLB At Bat is another example. This app is $15 a year on iPad. It's free on Surface by just going to the website.

Finally, consider that apps are more useful on Surface. Sure there are 300,000 apps, but you can only run one at a time ever. Running two apps side by side, (up to 4 in the 8.1 update) is invaluable.

[1] http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6528/52168.png

You can do trials of apps? I didn't know that, and that's pretty cool.

There was an article a week or so back that showed that most of the popular apps still aren't available as a Windows app. It's definitely getting better and it will be a matter of time before they catch up, but they have a long ways to go. Once they do get caught up, it will be hard to beat since the interface is really nice.

Wouldn't simply using the Hulu app be faster than manually going to the website? Or is there a limitation that you were referring to? You can still go to the Hulu website on an iPad.

Regarding MLB at Bat, were you referring to MLB Gameday (the live game simulation thing)? You can get to a limited version of it on the iPad, basically because it redirects you to the mobile website. Does the Surface not get redirected to the mobile website? If so, then yeah a pretty sizable limitation is lifted.

Astra.Xtreme said,
The iPad has better resolution, battery life, and app selection. Unless those 3 things don't matter to people, the RT is pretty far inferior.
Well:
- The high resolution of the iPad isn't needed anyway. It'w way to much for that small screen.
- Battery life: well, point for you, but you get a lot in the place of it: support for all hardware that works with Windows, at least 5 years of support, etc.
- But then: what about app selection? Well, I think, that if you chose a tablet because it has more apps available then the other tablets, you don't need a tablet at all. The app-count doesn't say anything about the actual apps. You can have 800.000 fart apps, or 80.000 apps that are awesome. My mind is out of it already.

You can do trials of apps? I didn't know that, and that's pretty cool.

Yes, this is the same with Windows Phone. Trials can be anything from a few levels of a game, to an ad supported version. You click the Trial button to test the app out, and if you want to buy it, just hit the Buy button.

Wouldn't simply using the Hulu app be faster than manually going to the website? Or is there a limitation that you were referring to? You can still go to the Hulu website on an iPad.

You can pin the app right to the start screen, so it works just like an app. As far as I know, the Hulu app is just fro Hulu plus. Thus if you want to watch on iPad, you need to pay for a subscription to Hulu plus.

Regarding MLB at Bat, were you referring to MLB Gameday

Yes I was. My Surface can access full gameday. I used to pay for the At Bat app on iPad because I couldn't go to the website. No need to do that anymore.

I have just created a restore image for the dell XPS 10. This is based on the original one contained within the hidden recovery partition.

Basically I slipstreamed all the windows updates in.

You do a factory reset and it's all bang up to date. If anyone is interest, let me know and I'll upload the image.

They can dress it up however they want but I know from personal experience the iPad is far nicer to use than the Surface. It doesn't have any of the crap you don't need and just does what it sets out to exceptionally well.

J400uk said,
They can dress it up however they want but I know from personal experience the iPad is far nicer to use than the Surface. It doesn't have any of the crap you don't need and just does what it sets out to exceptionally well.
Then I wonder: what kind of crap does the Surface have what you don't need?

Studio384 said,
Then I wonder: what kind of crap does the Surface have what you don't need?

don't worry, hes just trying to defend a primitive product. typical "I don't need to have all those features".

None of it's crap, he shouldn't have said that. But people buying millions of tablets aren't all buying them to BYOD to work. Most are non-technical and just want simplicity. Everything to work, work all the time, somewhat logically, and be generally simple.

For this market, I do think it was a mistake to include the desktop environment and even full blown Office. Simplicity, reliability, no glitches. That's just not Surface RT right now.

Take the iPad v. Surface commercial showing that Surface RT can do Powerpoint? Really, who are you selling to? Anyone needing Powerpoint in a tablet already knows Surface is the way to go. I say the millions buying iPad's aren't buying them to use a presentation app.

The Surface RT suffers from identity crisis IMO. At least target market identity crisis. The way it's being marketed, it's biggest competitor are cheaper, lighter Windows 8 tabs (non ARM), no iPads. MS has no direct iPad competitor IMO. Android tabs are closer to that IMO. It's not really about the price or USB ports.

Studio384 said,
Then I wonder: what kind of crap does the Surface have what you don't need?

Comparing tablets, as devices, is one thing. Trying to compare the two Operating Systems is quite another thing. It is practically admitting that Windows-8 was designed primarily for tablets and not for laptops or desktops.

TsarNikky said,
Comparing tablets, as devices, is one thing. Trying to compare the two Operating Systems is quite another thing. It is practically admitting that Windows-8 was designed primarily for tablets and not for laptops or desktops.
Orly?

TsarNikky said,
Comparing tablets, as devices, is one thing. Trying to compare the two Operating Systems is quite another thing. It is practically admitting that Windows-8 was designed primarily for tablets and not for laptops or desktops.

It was primarily designed for tablets. During the first presentation (even before we knew the tile interface would be the home screen) they said it was build for touch and mobility but also worked with keyboard and mouse. For me that is the definition of 'primarily designed for tablets'.

And now they keep on repeating that they think their strategy for Windows 8 is sound. Their argument is that its build for a future with touch and mobility in mind. They have pretty much admitted it but can't say the actual words or they'll make negative headlines all around the world.

Personally I think its the right approach. Touch and mobility are definately the future of the consumer PC market. The traditional PC market will continue to shrink even if Windows 9 does away with the touch interface and brings back the startmenu. But Microsoft should definatly improve the non-touch experience. Those hidden UI elements just dont do it for non-touch and large displays. They'll **** off a lot of people who buy Windows 8 desktops/tablets. A lot of people who could potentially buy Windows 8 tablets but are currently finding it a mess on non-touch.

Ronnet said,
It was primarily designed for tablets. During the first presentation (even before we knew the tile interface would be the home screen) they said it was build for touch and mobility but also worked with keyboard and mouse. For me that is the definition of 'primarily designed for tablets'.

Well this article is discussing RT, of course it was designed for tablets, that's the point of its existence. As far as Windows 8 goes though, what would you expect from a presentation.. they're not going to focus on showing off the same old stuff that's been there for years. Besides, touch isn't remotely new to Windows, just getting a lot more attention. Granted yea, the implementation needs work, some good ideas, a few WTF ideas.. not bad for a first version, but far from perfect.

Max Norris said,

Well this article is discussing RT, of course it was designed for tablets, that's the point of its existence. As far as Windows 8 goes though, what would you expect from a presentation.. they're not going to focus on showing off the same old stuff that's been there for years. Besides, touch isn't remotely new to Windows, just getting a lot more attention. Granted yea, the implementation needs work, some good ideas, a few WTF ideas.. not bad for a first version, but far from perfect.

I'm not sure what you're commenting on and this article isn't about Windows RT. It's about Windows tablets (running Windows 8 or RT) compared to the iPad.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
Windows tablets would be killer, if they had the amount of apps android and ios has. Windows tablet are exceptional devices for work and education though!

You mean Windows RT?

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
Windows tablets would be killer, if they had the amount of apps android and ios has. Windows tablet are exceptional devices for work and education though!
Amount? How about Quality. I could give a hoot about "amount" I would like to see some quality applications that exist on ios/android ported. And Disney support would be huge.

if they had the amount of apps android and ios has.

How many tablet apps does Android have? I've never seen a measure for that, just total overall Android apps including phone apps. Windows is at 80,000 tablet specific apps, and is growing at an average of 474 per day [1]. That's not trivial. In fact, it's growing faster than the iPad app count.

[1] http://www.metrostorescanner.com/

xendrome said,

You mean Windows RT?


Actually, for education pen support could also be a plus so Atom based Windows 8 tablets are there too in similar price point. Actually, I wish there was a Surface on Atom or latest AMD APU.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
Windows tablets would be killer, if they had the amount of apps android and ios has. Windows tablet are exceptional devices for work and education though!

android doesn't have tablet apps, well maybe 10 tablet apps. most of the apps are stretched phone apps,which is a joke,and makes people comparing an android tablet to a windows tablet look like idiots.

I believe they should have waited until 8.1 comes out or when it does come out (holiday season) that they show commercials showing the benefits.

Zedox said,
I believe they should have waited until 8.1 comes out or when it does come out (holiday season) that they show commercials showing the benefits.
This is hardware not software.

Nah, I'd still buy any of the Windows tablets instead. The app store is rapidly growing and it already comes with all the main apps everyone needs. The rest are often just nice to haves or preferences.

TheDogsBed said,
And then you go to purchase apps and wish you had purchased an iPad.

I think you are confusing Windows with Windows Phone. Windows 8/RT is growing quickly and already has much more marketshare. And not just on the desktop/laptop market. I believe Microsoft already was at 6% marketshare with Windows 8/RT. So clearly they're growing quickly.

And popular developers are noticing. A lot of already said to work on a Windows app. And more importantly there actually are a lot of apps in store. A lot of which are quality apps. I remember Windows Phone back in 2011 when it did feel deserted. I never had that feeling on my Surface.

TheDogsBed said,
And then you go to purchase apps and wish you had purchased an iPad.
While there are more applications, now, on the iPad the Microsoft Store has been filling up.

TheDogsBed said,
And then you go to purchase apps and wish you had purchased an iPad.
Why should you, with billions of apps for Windows 8, there is no reason for that. When you use Windows RT, you have access to over 80.000 apps, and there are added 472 apps a day (avarage) with the last days over 800 new apps. There are even days when there are added over 1500 new apps, choise enough.

TheDogsBed said,
And then you go to purchase apps and wish you had purchased an iPad.

like that Piano Pro and and a souped up version of Tetris.

why does Microsoft have to trash the competition and not promote their products based on what they do /s

shhhhhhhhhhhhh

Because tons of people buy feature inferior products every day. Until the minds of these people are opened to alternatives, they're not even going to be willing to listen to what other products can do.

Spyder said,
Because tons of people buy feature inferior products every day. Until the minds of these people are opened to alternatives, they're not even going to be willing to listen to what other products can do.

I am being sarcastic based on comments from when Microsoft releases ads like the wedding ad,and the rob Schneider casino ad,and now they are promoting features. that's for those people.

vcfan said,
why does Microsoft have to trash the competition and not promote their products based on what they do /s

shhhhhhhhhhhhh


How is this bashing? It's just a comparison chart. You can clearly see where the Surface lacks and where the Surface gains. You can also compare with the other Windows tablets listed there also.

vcfan said,
why does Microsoft have to trash the competition and not promote their products based on what they do /s

shhhhhhhhhhhhh

I'm sorry, trash? A side by side comparison of factoids is trashing?

Spyder said,
Because tons of people buy feature inferior products every day. Until the minds of these people are opened to alternatives, they're not even going to be willing to listen to what other products can do.

When you are the new kid on the block and competing against a giant incumbent such as iPad, you have to compare and say to your customer why your better. Remember Apple and the Mac vs PC adverts much? or Coke vs Pepsi or a thousand other ads.

Edited by zrelativity, May 31 2013, 6:50pm :

j2006 said,

How is this bashing? It's just a comparison chart. You can clearly see where the Surface lacks and where the Surface gains. You can also compare with the other Windows tablets listed there also.

MrHumpty said,
I'm sorry, trash? A side by side comparison of factoids is trashing?

guys, look at the end of my post, the /s means sarcasm. im making fun of those who keep saying this everytime they release an ad or do some type of comparison. I am not actually saying this myself. I think these comparisons are awesome and actual show the true power of windows 8,and why the other competitors are playing a losing battle with their gimped platforms.

and mr humpty,factoid actually means the opposite of fact.

Going with the infos found on this comparison page, if i had to buy a tablet to use as a tablet (not a laptop hybrid) my choice would be the iPad. Longer battery life. Lighter. More portable.

LaP said,
Going with the infos found on this comparison page, if i had to buy a tablet to use as a tablet (not a laptop hybrid) my choice would be the iPad. Longer battery life. Lighter. More portable.

And that's your choice. But to others productivity and multi-tasking and better form factor are more important. That's why I like how they put honest specs instead of trying to make there's look superior in all aspects. Also, the Surface may be lower in battery but there are other tablets they put there that are much higher.

LaP said,
Going with the infos found on this comparison page, if i had to buy a tablet to use as a tablet (not a laptop hybrid) my choice would be the iPad. Longer battery life. Lighter. More portable.

Did you check all the comparisons? Naturally each product is build for a different target audience. The Surface sacrifices some mobility for productivity (although not as much as some other Windows tablets). But some of the other tablets in the comparison are build primarily for mobility. Check the Dell tablet: thinner, lighter and just as much battery life.

LaP said,
Going with the infos found on this comparison page, if i had to buy a tablet to use as a tablet (not a laptop hybrid) my choice would be the iPad. Longer battery life. Lighter. More portable.

I never ever use my work laptop for personal use, whether it be playing music, personal e-mail, personal documents, personal photos. Keep work and personal stuff totally separate. So, a couple of years back I used to have to carry a work Lenovo laptop and my own MBP (15") when I used to travel (often more than a month at a stretch). So, to reduce weight, I thought I could replace my MBP with an iPad. Well was I wrong, except for listening to music and e-mail, it was pretty crap (as I said, I don't use a whole lot of apps). I could not open by spreadsheets properly. Word docs would loose a lot of formatting. It was total frustration. I was back to carrying both the Lenovo and MBP. Now, I am only carrying a newer Lenovo and Surface RT. Will probably replace the RT with a Surface Pro once the next gen Intel CPU is available for it. For a lot of us a light-weight but with good performance hybrid is the ideal solution.

I'm not sure i understand here. You carry a Lenovo laptop but use the tablet to open Office docs ???

BTW i was referring to the people who are looking for a pure tablet and not an hybrid.

if i had to buy a tablet to use as a tablet (not a laptop hybrid)

Despite what people here on Neowin might believe the outside world is not made of people who all work in computer science. My mother could not care less if her tablet can open office docs.

The reason i said if i had to buy a tablet is because i am myself looking for an hybrid. But i'm waiting for next gen hybrid cause right now the battery life is not good enough to be used as a tablet. So in the end the hybrid is not a great laptop and not a great tablet either. I like to have at the minimum between 10 to12 hours of normal use battery life. It covers two 4 hours flight and some time spent at the airport/hotel without a recharge.

Hope intel Haswell will solve the issue.

Edited by LaP, May 31 2013, 6:46pm :

LaP said,
I'm not sure i understand here. You carry a Lenovo laptop but use the tablet to open Office docs ???

I don't know i personally mostly never use office outside of works. The last time i used Office on my personal computer was maybe 6 years ago when i updated my cv.

As I said, I keep all my personal items, including my personal word/excel docs off my work Lenovo PC.

Personally I don't see why it's a big deal considering there's actually really good 3rd party alternatives for the iPad

Umm... they announced a while ago it's coming to iOS around January 2014. It's going to obviously come to all platforms eventually. It makes sense to.

Rudy said,
Personally I don't see why it's a big deal considering there's actually really good 3rd party alternatives for the iPad

No there aren't. There are alternatives but they are far from good. I see people struggling with them everyday. They say they don't care but it's pathetic to watch.

It's also annoying when you're being productive together and someone decides to work on their personal iPad instead of our company (W7) laptops. Always the 'wait a sec, let me add my piece!' comment which is followed by 'give me one more minute' 15 minutes later..

NICE! I like to see USB ports, now I can finally buy a Surface Pro and use it for tuning my cars as well. That's the only reason I haven't bought a tablet yet, been wanting USB and full Windows app support! Course they only compare RT on that page due to price I'm sure.

92GTA said,
NICE! I like to see USB ports, now I can finally buy a Surface Pro and use it for tuning my cars as well. That's the only reason I haven't bought a tablet yet, been wanting USB and full Windows app support! Course they only compare RT on that page due to price I'm sure.

They also compare Windows 8 tablets. Perhaps not the Surface Pro but the other Windows 8 tablets are much cheaper.

Even though I prefer my Surface RT over any iPad I did notice that Microsoft ignored some specs that are unfavorably for the Surface RT such as the screen resolution. I think the resolution is fine but If you're going to compare then do a proper comparison.

They also ignored peripherals. Though BT 4.0 is making the iPad dock irrelevant every 6 months, many peripherals for health and fitness as well as credit card readers, etc. exist. Developers for some reason find this easier to program for than a USB port, that's what several have told me.

Unfortunately neither WP8 or RT fully support BT 4.0 or all of the serial profiles needed. MS should have a team focused on this. I would rather have all these things on a Windows device. If MS really wants to destroy iPad, they have to take an honest look at ALL the reasons so many still choose them.

I swear Surface RT feels a whole lot heavier than .06lbs than the iPad. A lot heavier. Maybe it's the width.

On a desk as a laptop replacement, RT wins, though it lags a lot IMO. Once the app is open it's fine though.

On the move, iPad, not even close. Lifestyle peripherals, iPad, not close.

MorganX said,
I swear Surface RT feels a whole lot heavier than .06lbs than the iPad. A lot heavier. Maybe it's the width.

On a desk as a laptop replacement, RT wins, though it lags a lot IMO. Once the app is open it's fine though.

On the move, iPad, not even close. Lifestyle peripherals, iPad, not close.


What's so great about the iPad on the go vs the Surface? From my experience (I've used both) I can be 10x more productive on my surface than on an iPad. So what makes it better?

Lags? you kidding me? This happen at times on the initial RT setup but after all the updates and firmware RT flies. Now remember Ipad can do one app at a time, RT can do many and still have them running.

Primarily the weight. That's why we can't get everyone to switch. Like I said, I believe it feels a whole lot more than .06lbs heavier and users agree. It's just too heavy.

The second major complaint is the speed of opening and navigating. I agree that it is much slower and often lags. The iPad mail app is faster and easier for people to use and requires less support when people are out of the office. The updates have helped but so few switched initially it doesn't really matter at this point.

Web browsing is also easier and faster for users. I personally think landscape web browsing is a bad idea and Surface just isn't nice to use portrait.

The store is not much of a concern for us, and has nothing to do with on-the-go but I will mention the store is a source of complaints and updates still are hit and miss and get stuck.

I'm sure most of these will be addressed, the problem is many have already decided not to switch based on the poor initial product.

Pro is doing relatively well here, as a laptop replacement. No one walks around with them. Again, too heavy.

siah1214 said,

What's so great about the iPad on the go vs the Surface? From my experience (I've used both) I can be 10x more productive on my surface than on an iPad. So what makes it better?

MorganX said,
Primarily the weight. That's why we can't get everyone to switch. Like I said, I believe it feels a whole lot more than .06lbs heavier and users agree. It's just too heavy.

What users? I find the iPad feels heavier and just the other day I was talking to a colleague who agreed.

I can't say I notice any lag either. Some apps might perform poorly (the Music app sometimes struggles displaying all my music from my server) but the OS is always buttery smooth.

MorganX said,
I swear Surface RT feels a whole lot heavier than .06lbs than the iPad. A lot heavier. Maybe it's the width.

On a desk as a laptop replacement, RT wins, though it lags a lot IMO. Once the app is open it's fine though.

On the move, iPad, not even close. Lifestyle peripherals, iPad, not close.

I have both Surface RT (32GB) and 2nd Gen iPad (64GB - this has 3G which I've never used, paid for lots of productivity software including pages, numbers and keynote, cover & bluetooth keyboard - total cost >$1K, so far I have not anything in addition for the RT beyond the device and touch cover). I can really use the RT for productivity. I can access all my docs, pictures, movies, music either from my networked drives over the wifi (all applications that I am using can access these network drives). Word, Excel, powerpoint (full version, not toy apps) and Onenote are great. I was away on road for a week and pretty much did all my work with the RT, did not need my laptop. There are some decent games for the device and I like Bing apps. I'm not a huge user of apps. My iPad now sits most of the time in a drawer.

MorganX said,
Primarily the weight. That's why we can't get everyone to switch. Like I said, I believe it feels a whole lot more than .06lbs heavier and users agree. It's just too heavy.
Held landscape from the sides the leverage makes it feel heavier. Held portrait a la iPad it feels exactly the same.

Outside of that and screen resolution... MicroSD/Printers/USB/Kickstand. Hardwarewise the SurfaceRT blows the iPad out of the water which is what makes it more productive. Applications are coming along nicely.

The iPad mail app is faster and easier for people
It needs to stay running all the time like the Windows Phone OS. I'll agree it's annoying to launch.

Web browsing is also easier and faster for users. I personally think landscape web browsing is a bad idea and Surface just isn't nice to use portrait.
Preferences are preferences. I prefer landscape because that's how the world operates. But it works just fine on portrait, you just see more of the site than on an ipad.

Yes all the updates helped tremendously, but it still lags, primarily the UI, Start Page. The store definitely lags and updates still freeze. I personally like the design, but users have become use to the consistent and fluid performance of the iPad. Remember, this is an iPad vs. RT article. Not a do I like or not like Surface.

MrHumpty said,
Held landscape from the sides the leverage makes it feel heavier. Held portrait a la iPad it feels exactly the same.

Outside of that and screen resolution... MicroSD/Printers/USB/Kickstand. Hardwarewise the SurfaceRT blows the iPad out of the water which is what makes it more productive. Applications are coming along nicely.

It needs to stay running all the time like the Windows Phone OS. I'll agree it's annoying to launch.

Preferences are preferences. I prefer landscape because that's how the world operates. But it works just fine on portrait, you just see more of the site than on an ipad.

1) No it doesn't. It's heavier all the time. I wish it did. But even if it did, the Surface isn't great portrait.

2) I don't disagree with any of that, unfortunately for this argument, iPad users don't really care about those things except in the enterprise and they still don't want RT. No app as far as they are concerned. We have replaced many iPads with Surface Pros. But not many have that kind of cash. As I said, on a desk it's not contest, even I think in that scenario RT is the clear winner.

3) I wish the world worked in landscape, viewing videos are Netflix is definitely superior, but web sites are not designed for landscape,, nor is SharePoint or virtually any other web apps. This is one of the primary uses you know. The other 3 are Facebook, Twitter, and email.

On an unrelated note, I think with edge swipe nature, the MS design guide should dictate borders no larger than .25"

I have a 64G RT. I still need more speed, though the mail app is much more usable and the games are OK. When I'm at a desk Office is great though I usually have a PC at hand. For productivity, especially if you have a desk to sit it on, I would recommend the RT, now after all the updates, and definitely after 8.1. But that's not what people buy iPads for. They are in the work place because of BYOD, not because IT departments choose them. That's what MS and many here fail to understand. #@#@ the specs. They are in the workplace because regular people choose them. Go after that angle ...

MorganX said,
I wish the world worked in landscape, viewing videos are Netflix is definitely superior, but web sites are not designed for landscape,, nor is SharePoint or virtually any other web apps.
I couldn't disagree more. Websites assume landscape. Always. The argument that they are made for portrait is only due to the length of a long web page. As someone who designs websites and web applications and as someone who has two portrait monitors for coding. I can say, without question, you are just off on this one.

Just out of curiosity, give me 3 links to website that assume landscape. I want to say major, but anything other than a friend's hobby site.

Most sites still fill landscape viewing with padding, doesn't even attempt to scale. ESPN, CNN, even 99% of Microsoft.com including technet. I actually don't think you actually believe websites assume landscape. you just can't let go the point

MrHumpty said,
I couldn't disagree more. Websites assume landscape. Always. The argument that they are made for portrait is only due to the length of a long web page. As someone who designs websites and web applications and as someone who has two portrait monitors for coding. I can say, without question, you are just off on this one.

Edited by MorganX, May 31 2013, 8:15pm :

MorganX said,
Primarily the weight. That's why we can't get everyone to switch. Like I said, I believe it feels a whole lot more than .06lbs heavier and users agree. It's just too heavy.

If you think a computer that weighs 680 gm is too heavy, you have much bigger problems than a computer can solve.

I know geeks are usually supposed to be pencil necks, but this is getting ridiculous. May I suggest a gym membership - and fast! A couple of more years and you people will think your spoon is way too heavy.

MorganX said,
Just out of curiosity, give me 3 links to website that assume landscape. I want to say major, but anything other than a friend's hobby site.

Most sites still fill landscape viewing with padding, doesn't even attempt to scale. ESPN, CNN, even 99% of Microsoft.com including technet. I actually don't think you actually believe websites assume landscape. you just can't let go the point

Scaling width wise is not the same. They assume a certain pixel width for their formal website. That width has been tied to the landscape orientation of screens for as long as I can remember. 640 was the standard than 960 etc. So to be as specific as one can be who has been laying out websites since 1996 the most promenent website landscape screen resolution is the target resolution. It is common design practices these days to not use a layout that expands the full width as it can be tough to get the design to flow properly as you get to seriously wide or high resolution setups which are in the vast minority unless you go to a skewed resource like w3schools: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

I would also point out, as I pull up your examples on my SurfaceRT it fits the screen perfectly in landscape. When rotated the site is rendered smaller to fit the screen making the fonts etc. too small.

Edited by MrHumpty, May 31 2013, 9:11pm :

Adamodeus said,

If you think a computer that weighs 680 gm is too heavy, you have much bigger problems than a computer can solve.

I know geeks are usually supposed to be pencil necks, but this is getting ridiculous. May I suggest a gym membership - and fast! A couple of more years and you people will think your spoon is way too heavy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbcFrEp07Yc

Don't be ridiculous because you don't like the facts. I said it's too heavy for our users and they choose iPads. I never brag about my physical condition even when idiots with nothing intellectual to offer make an imbecilic remark such as you did but feel free to review my profile.

Adamodeus said,

If you think a computer that weighs 680 gm is too heavy, you have much bigger problems than a computer can solve.

I know geeks are usually supposed to be pencil necks, but this is getting ridiculous. May I suggest a gym membership - and fast! A couple of more years and you people will think your spoon is way too heavy.

Edited by Marshall, Jun 1 2013, 8:25am :

Screen resolution and the orientation of the table or column layout and reading orientation of a site are two different things. It doesn't really matter what the resolution. It is the orientation of the site design.

When pages are designed for landscape you will swipe to go to the next page, instead of scrolling, and it's not going to happen any time soon. There are extremely few web sites with screens designed for widescreen layout.

They are designed to maintain portrait readability at all resolutions, I'll give you that. But that just reinforces my point that web sites are NOT designed for landscape. They are designed to scale to higher resolutions and maintain their portrait orientation.

MrHumpty said,
Scaling width wise is not the same. They assume a certain pixel width for their formal website. That width has been tied to the landscape orientation of screens for as long as I can remember. 640 was the standard than 960 etc. So to be as specific as one can be who has been laying out websites since 1996 the most promenent website landscape screen resolution is the target resolution. It is common design practices these days to not use a layout that expands the full width as it can be tough to get the design to flow properly as you get to seriously wide or high resolution setups which are in the vast minority unless you go to a skewed resource like w3schools: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

I would also point out, as I pull up your examples on my SurfaceRT it fits the screen perfectly in landscape. When rotated the site is rendered smaller to fit the screen making the fonts etc. too small.

There was a time when I defended Surface RT against lag complaints but it comes and goes, for me after all the updates, prior there were none.

Opening apps can be slow, graphics can be slow, the store and updates are always slow.

Users - about 250 that won't give up their iPads. Correction 15 did. That has to be the heaviest .06lbs in existence.

One other thing that no on is mentioning and is as important as anything else, is the lack of cellular for Surface. Huge!

jakem1 said,

What users? I find the iPad feels heavier and just the other day I was talking to a colleague who agreed.


I can't say I notice any lag either. Some apps might perform poorly (the Music app sometimes struggles displaying all my music from my server) but the OS is always buttery smooth.

MorganX said,
When pages are designed for landscape you will swipe to go to the next page, instead of scrolling, and it's not going to happen any time soon. There are extremely few web sites with screens designed for widescreen layout.
TIL: Designing for landscape means having the user scroll left to right. Apparently I've been doing it wrong for almost two decades.

When pages are truly designed with a landscape orientation, swiping to navigate from left to right becomes more natural and would work quite well on wide tablets. However, this is not natural as they are designed by default, still to a portrait orientation so it would be a mess to scroll and then swipe. In fact, most sites rarely navigate from pages to page, but section to sections as portrait pages just scroll to the end however long the designer feels is reasonable and then usually link to the next portrait oriented page. As I said, designing to scale landscape, and designing to be read and viewed (and by extension navigated) in landscape are two different things. Pages are and most likely will always be designed to read and navigate portrait, just like books and magazines which is why it won't change any time soon.

Most people "design" a landscape resolution by fixing their column width and padding the edges, i.e. vertical letterbox.

Show me a single major page designed to read, navigate, and display (actually using landscape resolution).

The best way to browse on a surface is to turn it portrait IME. Unfortunately, the rest of Modern UI doesn't do well in portrait.

I would actually prefer landscape designed web pages myself. That's just not the case. Which is why even in Desktop Environment, there's no need whatsoever to waste screen browsing in full screen. Makes multitasking easier as well.

I actually cannot find any good examples of web sites designed for landscape orientation. I really would like some links.

MrHumpty said,
TIL: Designing for landscape means having the user scroll left to right. Apparently I've been doing it wrong for almost two decades.

This is probably one of the best examples of real world responsive design, http://www.anderssonwise.com/. 90% or more of it is designed to respond to widescreen with true landscape design. Not just acceptable portrait scaling. That is a site worth viewing in landscape, or full screen wide on a desktop.

It's not an easy thing to do which and 99.9% of everyone currently views web sites in portrait so there's not a whole lot of investment in designing for landscape. Only scaling portrait designs to fit and display well.

With MS' tablets being the only devices encouraging default landscape viewing, if it ever happens, it will be slow and the slow penetration of these devices in the tablet space, relative to iPad/Android isn't helping. Nor does the fact that we all read physical documents in portrait.

coderchi said,
Lags? you kidding me? This happen at times on the initial RT setup but after all the updates and firmware RT flies. Now remember Ipad can do one app at a time, RT can do many and still have them running.

I am thinking about buying a Windows RT, that was one thing I was worried about. How do I know if the RT or Pro is for me?

MorganX said,
I actually cannot find any good examples of web sites designed for landscape orientation. I really would like some links.

I'm just gonna let you live in your RDF. Your definition is not a true definition so finding an example to fit it is quite useless.

The reason websites are designed the way they are is they were originally made to display text content much like document editors. The concept of scrolling up and down to view more content has been part of computing since the first computer I used in 1984-85. That is why every single system designed, software or otherwise is focused on up and down scrolling. Because of that fact in the late 90's a scroll wheel was created on mice to facilitate scrolling without clicking on the scroll bar. Only recently have you seen quad-direction scroll wheels and even then the left to right scrolling experience plays second fiddle.

So, to sum up. You have no real argument supporting "web pages are built for portrait" other than the fact that vertical scrolling has been the preferred UX for nearly 3 decades. Microsoft on the Surface took one hell of a risk focusing on horizontal scrolling. But, by no means does that mean it's designed for landscape. Hell, windows phone lives on vertical scrolling and that's because it'a natural to quickly scroll with your fingure... yet the phone is meant to be held in portrait.

In other news, I've been designing websites/software for nearly two decades. Whenever I build software to be run on a normal desktop I can always assume a landscape orientation. I never use horizontal scrolling because it does not compute with users, in fact, they feel there's something wrong with the design if they ever see a horizontal scrollbar. You're argument that anything is designed specifically for portrait because it complies with the user's expectation of vertical scrolling is, well, short sighted and due to lack of real experience.

Seriously... you do realize the ipad came out decades after *everything* was vertical scrolling right? Do you think CNN.com, ESPN.com etc. were like "finally a portrait device to really exploit our amazing design ideas?" I'd also point out that the reason you're seeing so many fixed width websites these days is due to the grid design that is a very popular framework to work with in CSS3. Carry on, and continue to sound smart to those not in the know.

You latched on to scrolling. I simply said when pages are designed for landscape consumption, swiping to navigate will become viable, and natural.

You cannot find examples of landscape orientation design because making them in a portrait world, is difficult. But very possible with CSS. Currently, all websites view and navigate more naturally on a Surface if you rotate it in portrait, the orientation 99% of web sites are designed for.

Go to your local Barnes & Noble and review the design of a standard portrait book, and a landscape book, try the children's section. But I know you already know the difference. For some reason you feel the need to defend the landscape orientation of the Surface in all instances and incorrectly state that websites are designed for landscape orientation by default.

You can rant all you want it's just not true. More and more designers and experimenting with responsible website design with widescreen (landscape layout in mind) when it's elements reflow but it is difficult. And with the Surface and Windows 8 tablets being the only devices currently browsing in landscape by default (Modern UI) It's not going to happen.

>> I'd also point out that the reason you're seeing so many fixed width websites these days is due to the grid design that is a very popular framework to work with in CSS3.<<

Saying that with conviction still leaves it untrue. They are fixed because the default for print and web is and always has been portrait orientation. Without fixing the width the site would look like crap.

We can argue forever, so we agree to disagree, but whenever you find a web site designed for landscape orientation by default, feel free to inbox me even a single link.

In the meantime, enjoy the excessive scrolling viewing web pages designed for portrait orientation in landscape.

MrHumpty said,

I'm just gonna let you live in your RDF. Your definition is not a true definition so finding an example to fit it is quite useless.

The reason websites are designed the way they are is they were originally made to display text content much like document editors. The concept of scrolling up and down to view more content has been part of computing since the first computer I used in 1984-85. That is why every single system designed, software or otherwise is focused on up and down scrolling. Because of that fact in the late 90's a scroll wheel was created on mice to facilitate scrolling without clicking on the scroll bar. Only recently have you seen quad-direction scroll wheels and even then the left to right scrolling experience plays second fiddle.

So, to sum up. You have no real argument supporting "web pages are built for portrait" other than the fact that vertical scrolling has been the preferred UX for nearly 3 decades. Microsoft on the Surface took one hell of a risk focusing on horizontal scrolling. But, by no means does that mean it's designed for landscape. Hell, windows phone lives on vertical scrolling and that's because it'a natural to quickly scroll with your fingure... yet the phone is meant to be held in portrait.

In other news, I've been designing websites/software for nearly two decades. Whenever I build software to be run on a normal desktop I can always assume a landscape orientation. I never use horizontal scrolling because it does not compute with users, in fact, they feel there's something wrong with the design if they ever see a horizontal scrollbar. You're argument that anything is designed specifically for portrait because it complies with the user's expectation of vertical scrolling is, well, short sighted and due to lack of real experience.

Seriously... you do realize the ipad came out decades after *everything* was vertical scrolling right? Do you think CNN.com, ESPN.com etc. were like "finally a portrait device to really exploit our amazing design ideas?" I'd also point out that the reason you're seeing so many fixed width websites these days is due to the grid design that is a very popular framework to work with in CSS3. Carry on, and continue to sound smart to those not in the know.

MorganX said,
As is your graphic design knowledge. Ditto.
Lol, I asked my graphic designer how she'd build a website in favor of landscape. She was perplexed. Granted, I'm not a graphic designer, but I've been a GUI designer and have designed websites (it's not my forte so I pay people now). She, as I, think you've created criteria to prove your point. More importantly, as she points out, "has he seen side menus, side bars, etc.? has he used a website before? They all yearn for more width but work within the normal confines" or something like that.

I do love your book analogy. I mean, seriously look at the monitors in front of your face. I'm assuming each is turned portrait to more effectively use all of the websites and software designed that way. Like I said, the first portrait device to show up was the iPad. Obviously every website was broken until then. Responsive web design is a way to deal with scaling the UI back to allow it to work on smaller screens, it has nothing to do with orientation.

MrHumpty said,
Lol, I asked my graphic designer how she'd build a website in favor of landscape.

Instead just ask her to describe the difference between landscape and portrait orientation of a page, and to show you and example of designs specifically designed for each orientation.

Wikipedia: Responsive web design (RWD) is a web design approach aimed at crafting sites to provide an optimal viewing experience Edited by MorganX, Jun 3 2013, 8:28pm :

MrHumpty said,
Lol, I asked my graphic designer how she'd build a website in favor of landscape. She was perplexed. Granted, I'm not a graphic designer, but I've been a GUI designer and have designed websites (it's not my forte so I pay people now). She, as I, think you've created criteria to prove your point. More importantly, as she points out, "has he seen side menus, side bars, etc.? has he used a website before? They all yearn for more width but work within the normal confines" or something like that.

I do love your book analogy. I mean, seriously look at the monitors in front of your face. I'm assuming each is turned portrait to more effectively use all of the websites and software designed that way. Like I said, the first portrait device to show up was the iPad. Obviously every website was broken until then. Responsive web design is a way to deal with scaling the UI back to allow it to work on smaller screens, it has nothing to do with orientation.

Instead just ask her to describe the difference between landscape and portrait orientation of a page, and to show you and example of designs specifically designed for each orientation.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_web_design

iPad, IPhone, and all other smartphones that I know of are portrait orientation and rotate to landscape and scale portrait oriented web sites that people like you try to scale and constrain to be presentable in landscape orientation, which is not landscape design.

And yes, if you have a pivoting monitor the sites will display as the designer truly intended as they are portrait orientated now being viewed on a portrait monitor. That's what they are for, your lack of knowledge of them and who uses them and why is puzzling, then again, given this conversation, it isn't.. This is why most don't maximize their web browser, there's no need, if they do the portrait page simply scales and often not well. Those designing print in portrait orientation also use pivoting monitors to see the entire portrait design as they are designing. As do many web designers, it gives them a view of their full true portrait design and not a scaled version they must scroll or resize their browser to portrait.

You can have the last word as I won't return to this thread but feel free to inbox me sites "designed" for landscape orientation when you find or create one. In the meantime here's a simple explanation of portrait vs. landscape "design". http://www.bloggingbistro.com/...dscape-website-orientation/

Edited by MorganX, Jun 3 2013, 9:12pm :

MorganX said,
Don't be ridiculous because you don't like the facts. I said it's too heavy for our users and they choose iPads. I never brag about my physical condition even when idiots with nothing intellectual to offer make an imbecilic remark such as you did but feel free to review my profile.


I should have been clearer that when I said "you" I didn't mean you specifically, I just meant "you" as in anybody.