Microsoft Surface RT tablet appears to have 1366x768 display

The Surface tablet by Microsoft is one of the most incredible devices Microsoft has created, and they were quick to tout the new innovations onboard. However, the company was incredibly coy about specifics on some specifications such as battery life and screen resolution.

A PDF posted by Microsoft notes that the resolution is "HD" for the Windows RT (ARM) model, and "Full HD" for the Windows 8 Pro model. Unfortunately, "HD" doesn't actually translate well, and actually means the device is likely to end up with a 1366x768 display at 10 inches for the Windows RT edition. On the other side of the fence, Apple's "new iPad" features a 2048-by-1536 display at just 9 inches. The notable comparison here is price wise, the new iPad and the Windows Surface RT are in the same ballpark. 

There's a huge difference there, but it's clear Microsoft doesn't think that will matter to potential buyers, and many probably don't even know what the number means. But Microsoft does hit all the right buzzwords with HD in the tagline, the real question is, will the consumer care?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia 808 PureView to go on sale in US for $699

Next Story

Microsoft Surface for Windows RT features a NVIDIA Tegra processor

44 Comments

View more comments

Darth Tigris said,
So this will be the 'negative' people rally around, right? It's always gotta be something ...


Next news will be about complaining with the fact that it will ship with an unfinished version of office (Surface for Windows RT includes Office Home & Student 2013 RT Preview).

"how dare MS ship a beta product!!"

link8506 said,


Next news will be about complaining with the fact that it will ship with an unfinished version of office (Surface for Windows RT includes Office Home & Student 2013 RT Preview).

"how dare MS ship a beta product!!"

I love how all these "other" tablet users always complain about not having a decent keyboard or this and that, MS has made a very good design here and they still complain. On Thursday they will be back complaining about windows phone.

The iPad has had a crappy 1024x768 for two years, and that has not prevented it from being successful.

And suddenly, tech journalists are complaining that 1366x768 is not enough?

Come on, even the newest 13" MacBook pro are running at this resolution, and we're talking about a 10" tablet here. Resolution is definitely not a problem.

link8506 said,
The iPad has had a crappy 1024x768 for two years, and that has not prevented it from being successful.

Come on, even the newest 13" MacBook pro are running at this resolution, and we're talking about a 10" tablet here. Resolution is definitely not a problem.


Most Business Grade laptops use this resolution.

IMHO using 1080p on smaller screens is only good for sites etc as any bigger most ppl just up the zoom which in turn looses the resolution benefits until you open a website or image...

It matters if you're using a magnifying glass to count pixels!

Seriously, I agree with you. The "rectum displays" are nice, but hardly a requirement. It's just marketing telling you that you have to have the highest resolution screen available or you aren't cool enough to be a barista.

Enron said,
Seriously, I agree with you. The "rectum displays" are nice, but hardly a requirement. It's just marketing telling you that you have to have the highest resolution screen available or you aren't cool enough to be a barista.

It's already a scientific fact that your eye can't even handle all the DPI apple has in the retina display, thus making the extra DPI unnecessary. Around 300 is the sweet spot.

link8506 said,
The iPad has had a crappy 1024x768 for two years, and that has not prevented it from being successful.

And suddenly, tech journalists are complaining that 1366x768 is not enough?

Come on, even the newest 13" MacBook pro are running at this resolution, and we're talking about a 10" tablet here. Resolution is definitely not a problem.

The extra 'pixels' on the iPad and Macbooks are just too little too late.

If you are a PC User, 1024x786 became a very common and standard resolution around 1992/1993 with the low cost of the first generation of accelerated video cards from ATI and others that picked up from the IBM 8514.

So back in 1993, 1024x768 was impressive, when the iPad was released, it was, meh.

Apple also doesn't seem to get the benefit of a HD aspect ratio, for productivity and for displaying movies/videos properly (Maybe because of the lack of HD iTune content at the time.)

In 2005, the COMMON resolution on 17" notebooks in the PC world was 1920x1200. Apple called this 'overkill' and 'silly' as they will shoving out Macbooks with 1440x900 and later 1680x1050. (Let alone in 2002, a majority of 15" PC notebooks shipped with 1600x1200 displays.)

Toshiba has been trying to get the world to jump to 2K 4K and 8K displays for several years, being one of the companies that make a flat panel technology that is 'better' than the Apple Retina display.

However the adoption of HD and BluRay has held back the desire, and 1920x1080 became a common display.

There are 2048 and 4095 monitors out there, and if consumers ask for them, and aren't scared of 'things being too tiny' because of the old non-scalable OS UIs, production will increase and become more common outside of the graphic designers, gamer and hobbyist.

Apple has NO place to talk about resolution, especially when their Macbooks with 2048 displays are being shipped with Video Card (GPU) technology that is 3 times slower than the equivalent GPUs in PC notebooks (Which isn't even the 'high end PC notebook GPUs.)

So good luck shoving those pixels around playing games, unless they are still counting on the 2005 generation of games like WoW (which they are btw).


Ironically, Apple gets praise for a freaking DISPLAY... In contrast, Microsoft created the GPU architecture used in all PC and Macs, created the GPU technologies from DirectX used in Macs, PCs and even the iPads, created the I/O technologies that allow OpenCL to even work on a GPU, created the user programmable shader languages and models used in all games today (even OpenGL games).

But Apple is the 'graphics' leader... *cough*

brent3000 said,
IMHO using 1080p on smaller screens is only good for sites etc as any bigger most ppl just up the zoom which in turn looses the resolution benefits until you open a website or image...

You also lose the ability to see you added an extra "o" to "loses" at lower resolutions.

Cut the crap Microsoft and from day one have your new device that is on par with competitors.

No one wants their tablet to be spewing out hot air because the CPU of choice is a desktop model CPU and to be rather thick. At least it doesn't weight much, and on par with the iPad.

I do think their version of the smart cover is excellent, being home to a keyboard and track pad. That was a good move.

I run Windows 7 on a first generation Netbook, so a slow as Intel Atom, with a lousy graphics chip. The tablet should in no need be equipped with an Intel i5.. Drop the i5 for a ultra low voltage i5 at least, giving users better battery life and they will never notice the performance difference.

That should drop the need for any fans and then make the device thinner.

To top it off, sell it that under cuts the iPad pricing, and you may have yourself a winner.

watchthisspace said,
Cut the crap Microsoft and from day one have your new device that is on par with competitors.

No one wants their tablet to be spewing out hot air because the CPU of choice is a desktop model CPU and to be rather thick. At least it doesn't weight much, and on par with the iPad.

I do think their version of the smart cover is excellent, being home to a keyboard and track pad. That was a good move.

I run Windows 7 on a first generation Netbook, so a slow as Intel Atom, with a lousy graphics chip. The tablet should in no need be equipped with an Intel i5.. Drop the i5 for a ultra low voltage i5 at least, giving users better battery life and they will never notice the performance difference.

That should drop the need for any fans and then make the device thinner.

To top it off, sell it that under cuts the iPad pricing, and you may have yourself a winner.

There are TWO tablets, the first one is using the same ARM technologies used in iPad and Android tablets, so your argument against the 'heat' and 'desktop' CPU is kind of lost there.

Secondly it is the 'Pro' tablet with the i5 processor, and there will be a more heat and weight.

However, when you consider the 'Pro' version with the i5 is forty (40) times faster than the iPad in pure hardware specifications, do you think people MIGHT not care about a tiny amount of weight and a bit of heat?

(Especially when the iPad3 was burning the hell out of people when it was first released, and isn't even using a high power processor.)

thenetavenger said,

There are TWO tablets, the first one is using the same ARM technologies used in iPad and Android tablets, so your argument against the 'heat' and 'desktop' CPU is kind of lost there.

Secondly it is the 'Pro' tablet with the i5 processor, and there will be a more heat and weight.

However, when you consider the 'Pro' version with the i5 is forty (40) times faster than the iPad in pure hardware specifications, do you think people MIGHT not care about a tiny amount of weight and a bit of heat?

(Especially when the iPad3 was burning the hell out of people when it was first released, and isn't even using a high power processor.)

Why do you need a desktop CPU in a tablet? If you read what I said, I said to drop the I5 for an Ultra Low Voltage I5. You'll still have performance that's a lot faster than the iPad's ARM SoC (for example) AND you'd get more battery life and less heat.

BIGGEST FACTOR!!!!

Will these models come with or without 3G options and still offer good battery life....

I dont know about you guys but i think its a Must in todays day and age for 3G in tablets out of the box. This will determine if i go with one or not.

There's a huge difference there, but it's clear Microsoft doesn't think that will matter to potential buyers, and many probably don't even know what the number means. But Microsoft does hit all the right buzzwords with HD in the tagline, the real question is, will the consumer care?

They may not know what the numbers mean but they know which one has an Apple logo. So at $499 for the 3rd generation iPad or at $399 for the second generation iPad, it will come down to how low can Microsoft price this tablet at.

MS clearly arent chasing specs here with the RT and what will capture consumers imaginations is going to be how this integrates with their Xbox (smartglass) PC and WP, I think MS is on the verge - or perhaps not till the next version of windows combined with the next xbox - of achieving a unified Home/Work/Play experience...

Considering that (nearly) no one has a Windows Phone, integrating with WP doesn't matter for consumers. And Windows 8 doesn't have any special integration with WP anyways...

iPad has that smartglass thing too. So that's no advantage.

MS could make it successful if they released several exclusive killer games on it. That's the only way I see this ever having a chance competing with an iPad. Otherwise its sells will just be mehh.

(Now to the tech crowd, sales will be pretty great since this is an actual tablet PC. But we've seen how badly tablet PC's sell to the real world).

andrewbares said,
Considering that (nearly) no one has a Windows Phone, integrating with WP doesn't matter for consumers. And Windows 8 doesn't have any special integration with WP anyways...

iPad has that smartglass thing too. So that's no advantage.

MS could make it successful if they released several exclusive killer games on it. That's the only way I see this ever having a chance competing with an iPad. Otherwise its sells will just be mehh.

(Now to the tech crowd, sales will be pretty great since this is an actual tablet PC. But we've seen how badly tablet PC's sell to the real world).

How do you know Windows 8 doesn't have integration with WP8, have you seen all the final products for these???? You would and will be surprised I think what MS hasn't shown everyone in Windows 8, Windows RT ( and RT for phone) or Windows Phone 8, just wait till the final product to see what it actually has.

andrewbares said,
Considering that (nearly) no one has a Windows Phone, integrating with WP doesn't matter for consumers. And Windows 8 doesn't have any special integration with WP anyways...

iPad has that smartglass thing too. So that's no advantage.

MS could make it successful if they released several exclusive killer games on it. That's the only way I see this ever having a chance competing with an iPad. Otherwise its sells will just be mehh.

(Now to the tech crowd, sales will be pretty great since this is an actual tablet PC. But we've seen how badly tablet PC's sell to the real world).

So much wrong with everything you said, I'm just going to give you a FAIL, and move on.

This is why I'm not that interested in Windows RT, the resolution is too low, 1366x768 -- the lowest Windows 8 can go down too.

Surface with Windows 8 Pro is running at 1080p!

I'll look at Windows RT once there are tablets with higher resolutions (and a lot of apps in the Store).

A340600 said,
This is why I'm not that interested in Windows RT, the resolution is too low, 1366x768 -- the lowest Windows 8 can go down too.

Surface with Windows 8 Pro is running at 1080p!

I'll look at Windows RT once there are tablets with higher resolutions (and a lot of apps in the Store).

Other OEM's will be releasing tablet for RT with higher resolutions for sure, MS just wants to set the bar with making these. They are fed up with crappy product from OEM's and making windows look bad. OEM's will have to step it up a notch now, so all in all is good for everyone that MS will be releasing these tablets.

A340600 said,
This is why I'm not that interested in Windows RT, the resolution is too low, 1366x768 -- the lowest Windows 8 can go down too.

Surface with Windows 8 Pro is running at 1080p!

I'll look at Windows RT once there are tablets with higher resolutions (and a lot of apps in the Store).

The resolution could change before they ship.

However, also consider the market and targeted consumer for each device. As nice as the Windows RT Tablet is with a fast ARM based processor, the 'Pro' version with the i5 processor is going to be 15 to 30 times faster. (That is several years of Moore's Law difference. So the Windows RT would be like a nice fluid Pentium 4m from 2001/2002 in terms of raw performance.)

So for people viewing the web, watching videos, doing things like they do on Android or iPads, that is the target audience of casual user where 100ms of response time is never going to be noticed.

Funny how every thread / topic where Apple releases something, people are usually the first to jump to the "it doesn't have googoogaagaa" latest nVidia/ATI hardware but when a PC product gets released that features already out of date hardware, the apologists come out of the woodwork.

Pretty hilarious.

the dpi of the ipad is pointless. it takes effort to see any difference which is the sign that it is all but marketing bluff. the cosumer won't care as long as they don't use a telescope to read their tablet. as usual, apple is just a load of crap marketing. Just like they used to try to overhype the benefits of power PC, they now try to overhype resolution you don't even notice.

TBH I still believe the retina resolution to be more of a nice number that an actual real life improvement.

For me playing video will be a main purpose of getting a tablet and as such the iPad will show your average HD movie at 2048x1152 with fugly black borders. The Surface will show these at full screen. If the ARM model is HD as I interpret it it will be a 16:9 1366x768 screen which will be a much better experience IMO..

The Pro models show FullHD which would imply a 1920x1080 resolution if the above assumption would be true. That said there's really not that much of an actual + on the retina screen, especially since the Pro models will run rings around the iPad performance wise.

Paul

Commenting is disabled on this article.