Well, in an ideal world, CSS and HTML would be followed correctly as a standard and every browser would render perfectly any site. But it won't happen anytime soon, it's just look at the entire HTML5 situation, it's currently a "beta" version and browsers are adopting it just to get rid of Flash even with the constantly changing specs of the standard.

IE is already pretty smooth when scrooling on WP and that is the weak spot of Chrome in mobile. Still is a great browser, better than the old one in Android (functionality, tabs, render compatibility).

About the pixel quantity, a quick calculation here shows that the Nexus 10 is pushing almost 4 times more pixels.

You're probably right, but most people don't need the best app store per se. Personally, I just use a few apps all of which are on Windows Phone.

When it comes to games none of the platforms are worth my time.

Although it's clear that the Internet Explorer team has done a very good job optimizing their software for that dusty old Tegra SoC, there are two reasons why IE on Surface might seem more performant than rival tablets:

1. It's rendering 1/4 of the pixels of a Nexus 10 or iPad 4. Of course pages will tend to render and scroll faster, since it's actually doing less work. Some pages will actually load higher-quality assets to high resolution displays, so they also take more time to transfer over the network as well as to render.

2. Microsoft knows that there won't be an RT device with less than 2GB of RAM out there, while other browsers need to be able to run on devices with as little as 256MB of RAM. So for example, IE can afford to load in all images on a page, while Safari and Chrome are designed to stream those assets as the user requests them in order to conserve memory.

If Surface has a Chrome browser as well as he showed at the end of the review, why didn't he use it during the review for comparison?

I constantly had the impression that the reviewer was slightly biased. It seemed like he really wanted to make the Surface the winner from the very start, so even when the Surface clearly failed he came up with lame excuses (like around 13:15, where he opens the same website on both devices, and clicks on a certain thumbnail image at the same time on both devices. The Nexus 10 instantly loads the image, while the Surface never does - which he instantly comes up with ridiculous explanations for, first a "really bad internet connection", then that website being very slow right now.

But anyway, I've seen almost a dozen comparisons in which the Nexus 10 won web browsing, if only because it has four times the resolution of the Surface, which for web browsing is much more important than web browser X scrolling slightly faster than browser Y. So there is one reviewer who comes to a different conclusion - and he's probably rather alone with this opinion, because otherwise, we would probably have seen a new thread on every single of these reviews here on vgchartz by the usual suspects.
No reason to change my opinion. If 100 reviews say that the Surface isn't good and the keyboard cover is total crap, I'm not going to change my opinion because of one reviewer.

As someone who usually posts anti Microsoft stuff around here, your post isn't breaking character.

And this review shows exactly why 4X the pixels isn't ideal for most sites as images scale up and look like crap.  But you're welcome to drink to resolution coolade and think PPI for tiny text reading makes a world of difference when your browser lags and shows half of the screen realestate compared to competition. 

As an iPad 2 owner, I love the Surface RT and would trade in my Apple cutting board for the Surface asap. The Surface RT looks as buttery as my Galaxy Nexus too. Mmmm. Butter.

These are valid points.  Unified specs is one of the few advantages Microsoft can count on for Windows RT, being late to the game and seeing the mistakes others made. 

One has to wonder if the massive pixels are really necessary at this point though. Especially when looking at how Nexus 10 renders those pages and gives the user even less scree realestate than surface with 4X less pixels...

In terms of similar spec benchmarks, as someone that has used the iPad 2 for over a year and surface for a month(similar hardware specs minus the RAM), I can see that the Surface is quicker in almost every aspect. I do think that iPad has a major advantage in portrait mode when it comes to browsing just due to the form factor. I find the surface unusable in portrait... 

what about the price comparison are they in the same bracket??

Agree completely that a 16:9 display is wrong, wrong, wrong in portrait mode at this size. Don't much like it at phone size, either. Makes me cringe when this guy talks about how great the Surface is in portrait mode.

The pixels absolutely do make a difference. Go to a site with small text and/or messy typeface and the low PPI user has to zoom in, while the high PPI user doesn't have to. Who has more real estate at that point?

Most of the screen real estate issues in these videos are software ralated, and nothing to do with PPI. For example, in the Verge loading test, you can see that iPad and Surface show just as much content, but the Surface is cheating. IE has left the page zoomed out, leaving wasted white bars on the sides, while iPad has not. Nexus 10 shows less content, because it's zoomed so that the sides are flush, but Chrome on Android wastes the most vertical space of the three. Software issues are also behind the image search test, where Chrome is obviously reporting itself as having fewer pixels than it actually does and is getting a crummy mobile image viewer instead of one more appropriate for its size.

These videos are a demonstration of the importance of good software design in a tablet (and the challenge of good web design in a post-PC world), not evidence that low-PPI is actually superior to high-PPI. Though I'll certainly admit that there are tradeoffs. The bigger problem with high-PPI screens is power drain, not performance slowdowns.

Now, these idiots putting 1080p displays into smartphones on the other hand...