Going Pro: Thinking About the Surface Screens

What this emphasizes to me is that Metro UI, in general, was designed for readability and clarity, just as Microsoft has always said.

It also suggests that either "Retina" quality resolutions are either far more of a gimmick than I thought OR that Apple really NEEDS Retina, because iOS is NOT designed for such resolution independence.

I continue to disagree with you here. One of the major reasons I bought my Pro was for kindle books. While I have a kindle e-ink book for novels and regular books, I needed something for technical reading that comprised of large format pages, code, configuration text and ios device output (cisco not apple). The RT's screen is very good for what it is, but the fact is, I and many others do see a noticeable difference between its screen and the surface Pro's (or others of the same class). I don't have to really squint. It is obvious. And I can tell that it's pretty annoying going from a high PPI device (my Lumia 920) to a low (relatively) PPI device. You get used to the perfectly crisp text. You're making the same argument as some people made when the iphone 4 with retina display came out. A lot of people mocked the need and said it was a gimmick and that on a device that small it really didn't matter. It turns out it did, because every high-end smartphone now has one. I'm not a fan of apple in general, but god bless them for pushing high resolution displays. Things have been stagnant on the PC side for far too long with everyone just accepting that being low res was ok on smaller displays. FWIW I'm also running my pro at 125%, not because I need to compromise because I'm hooking it up to a large monitor, but because I like seeing more on the screen. It's perfectly useable at 125% IMO. I'm sure I do have smaller fingers but in terms of being able to read it is no problem at all. PS. On the ebook front, cisco press/kindle really need to use higher resolution images in their books. The config text looks really soft. It was all but unreadable on my kindle but on the surface it's qute a bit better but far from perfect.

Paul...thanks for all the information you constantly bring us (and at a good price, too :)). I was disappointed when I read about your original experiences with the Pro screen. I have a Surface RT, and the screen looks good, but I was hoping for more with the Pro. A couple of days ago I went into a store to check it out, and I was blown away by the superiority of the screen (they had an RT right next to it for my AB testing). It was super-obvious to me before I even picked up the device.

So, a couple of things come to mind. First, I realize there's a psychological desire that we have for things we want to be better than what we have. :) Trust me, this wasn't that. Second, I think this type of thing is heavily dependent on the physiology of the beholder. I'm not far behind you in age (just over 4 decades since the big day), but, knock on wood, my eyes have so far stayed 20/20 at all distances. I also have always tended to be very sensitive to both screen resolution and refresh rate. So while it doesn't look a lot different to you (and probably many people), I bet there are a bunch of people who see a huge difference. This is also evident, I think, in various reviews of the device, including some, who overall didn't like the device, but commented, as in Ars' case, maybe the best screen they've ever seen. While in other reviews, such as yours, where the difference in screen resolution was not only not very useful, was actually a hindrance. Interesting opposing takes.

Anyway...just wanted to chime in. Again, appreciate all the info day in and day out.

Guys, this is really very simple:

Calibrating display DPI to match printed text, which is, of course, the true, invariant, "Atomic Reference." :)

1) Print out text, like Arial, Times, Georgia at 9, 9.5, 10, 10.5, 11 points. It's a matter of taste which size you prefer to read. I like 10-10.5. Notice the fonts don't seem the same vertical size; it's a problem of font design.

2) Hold it at the distance you usually do (arm probably not fully extended).

3) Close the other eye.

4) Compare the size to what you see on the display (also at the normal viewing distance, which typically farther away than paper) and adjust DPI scaling until they match. If you change your display distance you need to recalibrate.

Done; what you see is what you get.

With 1920x1200 24" LCD displays it's somewhere between 130-160%, typically 140-150%, perhaps exactly 146%. You have to try every 1% to get it exactly right.

Anyone having light bleed problems?

How bad of a light bleed is this: http://i.imgur.com/M51kWrf.jpg

My issue with the Surface is not really the resolution but the 16:9 form factor which is too long portrait wise.

I think Apple has it right at 4:3.

erm. nobody else has the surface's 10.6" screen with an active digitizer built in (or even without) afaik. If it was a standard screen size one might be able to accept such an argument as economics but it isn't.

MS has said that one of the reasons they used this aspect ratio is that it allowed them to have a wider keyboard. I guess they could have stretched it in the other dimension as well to get it back to 4:3, but at the expense of bulk and weight, which it was already pushing the limits of.

I wondered about the aspect ratio as well, but now that I have one I think it is fine. It doesn't limit me in any way and I always intended to use it for reading textbooks in the kindle app. I actually like the portrait mode there (ditto for long scrolling websites like The Atlantic). I use a single column in the kindle app and it is totally fine, with the bonus being that I see more configuration text and router output on a page whereas in 4:3 i'd have to flip back and forth more. 16:10, as you said, might be ideal but it's really not that big a difference. The wider aspect ratio is also very useful for the snap feature (which I really love, especially for Skype calls, or messaging). Much more elegant than desktop messaging clients imo.