I'm surprised http://home.mcom.com/ didn't make the list. How else are we going to properly view these sites without a proper web browser?

I think you're a bit confused here. Why are you even talking about zooming? "Normal viewing distance" refers to the distance between your eye and the screen, not how much it's zoomed in. In other words, your eye is not physically capable of seeing a difference between the iPhone's "retina display" and a display…

OK, now you're just trolling me.

What does that have to do with anything this article mentions, let alone screen quality?

Dedication: To Lucy Barfield

"Just wait a week or two later people will still attack your comment."

You know what gets me? When girls play games obviously marketed towards guys. It pisses me off whenever I see a girl playing a violent first-person shooter. People need to learn their place in the world.

At first I thought you were talking about a commenter that goes around posting grossly ignorant and negative things on anything pony-related needing a warning. I realized my error fairly quickly.

They were looking at things other than pixel density...

The people who replied here are all correct, unless... Al Morales is a cyborg, but doesn't know it, and just has that great of vision.

"Why don't you take those same phones and do what most people do everyday and zoom in on a picture or website "

You mean at their respective sizes? That wouldn't work, because your screen probably couldn't show the differences in pixel density. The only way to get "something representative of a viewing experience", you'd have to go and look at the screens in person.

They're talking about when viewed at regular viewing distances, the difference is almost imperceptible.

"It's still no where near the Droid DNA in terms of resolution, but again, the difference is almost imperceptible to the naked eye...We'd take the better brightness and color accuracy."

"When you actually hold this device in your hands, that sample picture up top isn't going to matter at all, and you will understand why your eyes never get tired of looking at it."

...and the iPhone 5 is engineered with lower error tolerance than that used in satellite manufacturing. Neat? Yes. Useful? Probably not so much.

Nope! As a matter of fact, I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong - that is, once it's actually been demonstrated that I'm wrong. Another Gizmodo reader did their own analysis of the code and replied to one of my posts with their result. I was able to confirm their results, which were that if you ran their…

That's OK: I don't believe me either. I actually just recently ran a different test. Turns out, Apple is in fact evil. Feeding it a screen height of 2000 results in a a web page, what was it, 2135 pixels high? Something like that. The thing that confused me was that they were using a smaller iPad Mini image than…

In an earlier post, I compared people's attitudes about this to that of a witch trial (making accusations without offering any substantial evidence to support them).

I just ran a different test and I think both of these conclusions are wrong. Feeding it a screen height of 2000 pixels results in a page size of 2225 pixels. However, I didn't notice the iPad Mini's image being scaled by the code when smaller resolutions were used, which implies that they were simply using a smaller…