In side-by-side comparisons, the Surface RT suffers from a tangible degree of pixel blur, whereas the iPad makes all content look like a continuous-tone photographic print. The difference in resolution is particularly noticeable in text rendering, despite Microsoft's use of ClearType (a technology that enlists a display's subpixels to smooth out character edges) and optical bonding (a manufacturing process that provides for greater visual clarity and reduces screen reflection).

That said, within the context of the greater tablet market, the Surface RT's display is actually quite nice. With a 16:9 aspect ratio, the 10.6-inch screen provides an HD video window that's 42 percent larger than what you'll see on the iPad's 4:3, 9.7-inch display. The Surface's widescreen proportions also accommodate Windows' new "" multitasking feature, which lets you run two apps side by side.

As for color reproduction, the Surface RT screen doesn't quite have the richness and accuracy of the iPad, but this drawback is noticeable only during A/B comparisons, and I don't think it's a big problem for Microsoft. The company is positioning Surface RT as a consumer-grade tablet that's great for the more pedestrian aspects of productivity: writing long email messages, setting up monthly calendars, creating documents in Word and Excel, that sort of thing. I would never use Surface RT for serious image editing, and that's just fine since the tablet currently doesn't support any apps for serious image editing (though that's a problem in and of itself).

No news is good news when it comes to any discussion of mobile device performance. In other words, a tablet or smartphone should just , delivering a user experience that never, ever reminds you a processor is locked inside, chewing up its gears to keep pace with what's happening on screen.