[Adrian_Malloch]

gazilliontimz said:

Personally, I love the glossy screen. I think it's gorgeous, espcially for graphics work (like photos). I agree that it's too bad they are not offering the "old" screen as at least an option, but I don't think I'd ever want to go back. I haven't had a problem with glare, but then I live in Washington state where we don't get a lot of sun!

The thing is, photos look "lovely" displayed on a glossy screen, but if you are a photographer working on a high quality image, preparing it for a client, then the glossy screens are a disaster. We don't want the photos to look nice. We want them to look accurate. Reflections are annoying, but more importantly they are shadow-robbers.
Look at the delicious pictures of the new MacBook Pro on the Applestore page here.
Check out the FinalCutPro screen. The right hand side picture shows a moto-X rider leaning over. So, is the left hand side of the picture too dark, needing a bit of exposure increase, or does the right hand side need an exposure reduction, or maybe a contrast increase, or maybe it needs to be clipped more, or maybe all of the above?

We'll never know because the glossy screen interferes with that decision making process.
I won't be buying a glossy screened MacBook Pro (with the vague chiclet keyboard) or an iMac or indeed the glossy LED 24" display.
However, Apple's decision to hold off fully upgrading (debatable term) the 17" MBP, retaining the shaped-key keypad and with a matte screen option (Yes!) seems to indicate that they will be developing it as a Creative Pro machine to take on Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba et al, who have come up with some incredibly well specced laptops suitable for working photographers who expect quality and reliability.
Let's hope that the MBP's LED is at least 8bit and a reasonably wide gamut. Is 100% Adobe RGB asking too much?
Yes. I thought so.
How about throwing in SSD PLUS a 320GB HD? The SSD for booting, scratch disk and applications, the 320 HD for storage. Two FW800 ports, e-SATA, and a blu-ray drive option would also be nice too thanks Steve.

Adrian Malloch
Adrian Malloch Photography
Auckland, NZ
www.malloch.co.nz

[jftoha]

Hurley,

Read the specs on the new MacBook. They will offer both "Glossy Screen" and "Matte Screen" at no extra cost. But if you plan on switching all your computers to other brand, please let me know where you will be dumping all your useless "Glossy Screen" MacBooks and iMacs. I would love to help you and take them off your hands!!

[spiderbat]

{quote:title=jftoha}Read the specs on the new MacBook. They will offer both "Glossy Screen" and "Matte Screen" at no extra cost.{quote}
Where did you find this statement?
I've just looked at the tech specs both for MB and MBP but I found:
{quote}backlit glossy widescreen display with support for millions of colors{quote}.
Moreover, the way the display is built, similar to the iMac screens, makes me skeptical about the possibility of a matte option.
Anyway, I'd be happy to be proved wrong on this subject!

[dpshonen]

17 inch retains the shape of the previous model.

I think the new MBPs look like Sony Vaios and lost its edge in its looks IMHO. Sorry, I'm probably the minority, but I don't like the chicklet keyboard, their so damn uncomfortable. I even purchased the old white plastic wireless extended keyboard when I switched over to MBP 17" and my Cinema Display earlier this year.

For me it's the upgraded graphics card + higher capacity HD is the difference.

[peetz]

I've said it before, and now it is clearly evident that Apple does not listen to their customers -- only except in extreme embarassing situations e.g. iPhone NDA's.

For over a year, there's been dissatisfaction with lack of iMac matte screens, and -- rather than listening -- Apple goes and removes the matte screen from the MacBook Pro.

Do the following searches.
"refuse to buy" glossy imac
"will not buy" glossy imac
"cannot buy" glossy imac
"cannot stand glossy" imac
"will not get" glossy imac
"won't buy" glossy imac
i.e. lost $ales.
"hate glossy" imac
"glossy sucks" imac
"do not like glossy" imac
"dislike glossy" imac
"detest glossy" imac
"cannot use a glossy" imac
angry glossy imac
shit glossy imac
"glossy crap" matte imac
"cannot stand glossy" matte imac
"I prefer matte" imac
"I like matte" imac
"bring back matte" imac
"I need matte" imac
glossy matte livid imac
"eyes start to hurt" glossy matte imac
"eyes hurt" glossy matte imac
"get a headache" glossy matte imac

I am not a pro graphics user, and so the loss of the matte screen will not push me up to the MacPro. I am style conscious, and don't want this whopping big PC-like MacPro box. So I am forced down to the Mac Mini.
I stare at a screen for around 16 hours a day, mostly word processing and email, so even though the gloss screen looks cool, pop and snazzy, I cannot buy one.
I was forced to buy the best run-out matte screen imac there was, and cannot upgrade annually, even though I could do so for tax purposes. I will not buy a gloss screen.
I am willing to pay a premium for a matte screen, if that is what it takes.
The following poll is from macpolls.com
What type of screen do you prefer on the MacBook (Glossy or Matte)
Glossy 32.31 % (10007)
Matte 44.04 % (13639)
Don't Know 23.65 % (7324)
Total votes: 30970

86% preferred matte. according to this Ars Technica article:
http://arstechnica.c...61018-8022.html

Sure, many people like gloss screens because of its pop colors, but there are many who like matte. Please give us the choice.

Recently, my parents bought a new iMac with glossy screen. Sure, in their room where the window is to one side, i.e. not directly behind the screen -- the gloss screen looks great. Even I like it. But just turn the screen with the windows behind it, and the gloss screen is a total disaster. And in my house, with windows all around, it is just awful to use the gloss screen.

It's not longer any use to ask Apple, give suggestions. They do not listen. Now it is just a war of attrition.

[michaelwells40505]

I agree. I just ordered a new 15'", but will miss my old keyboard. At least it is still backlit.

[jftoha]

Sorry, I misspoke when I said "read the specs" I read about the matte screen in the review of the MacPro here in Macworld. In the article Jim Dalrymple states.

"One key change is that the old native screen resolution of 1680 x 1050 has been discontinued?every 17-inch MacBook Pro now comes with the 1920 x 1200 screen, in either (standard) glossy (no-cost option) matte form. While CPU speeds remain the same (2.5GHz stock, and $250 for an upgrade to 2.6GHz), RAM has been increased from 2GB to 4GB (the maximum possible), and the hard drive size has increased to 320GB from 250GB."

Read the entire article here:

http://www.macworld....macbookpro.html

I can guess that some parts of this review relate to direct conversations the writer had with the somebody from Apple or from the keynote speech which I have not heard yet. It would surprise me if he just made it up.

[jftoha]

I just noticed the statement about the Matte screen was referring to the minimally updated 17" MacBok Pro. Completely disregard my post. I am with all of you I guess. Apple should have listened to it's costumers etc,....

[technolawyer]

I couldn't agree more. MacWorld has taken Apple to task over its policies for the App Store, but has never expressed interest in the glossy display issue. Now that matte is gone forever from the 15 inch MBP, I hope MacWorld's editorial staff will address the issue.

[gag42]

MacBook Pro looks like a lovely machine and will be great for gaming and entertainment. For me (pro photographer) it will be nowhere near as useful as my present MBP unfortunately. I could probably live with the reflections, maybe, But high-gloss screens are useless for editing photos as the exaggerated contrast doesn't begin to match the printed page. OK, you obviously plug in an external monitor for serious Photoshop work, but on the road you need something more natural-looking to work with. My present matte-screened PBP is great.
Second, for typing, the previous keyboard with its standard dished keys is infinitely easier for a poor typist like me. The current "stylish" flat keys that Apple now produces give no tactile feedback for clumsy fingers trying to find their way around. I could be wrong, but I don't know of any other laptop manufacturer that has adopted this silly design.
Third, no Firewire 400 port! What are they thinking?!
It will be a great machine for watching DVDs, gaming, kid's stuff. Not useful to people like me, and after regular upgrading from my first Apple laptop (a 5300!) to better and better designs, I don't see any attraction to "upgrade" to this latest one. Maybe Apple will bring out a useful professional model later?

[TheUpbeatPenguin]

Though I'm perfectly happy with my original MacBook Pro with a matte screen ... there are times when I wish I had gotten the glossy screen as well. Apple does glossy screens better than everyone else -- I am around people with all sorts of PC machines all the time and a glossy MacBook display still has a much lower glare factor than every single PC laptop.

And I'd much rather be using a glossy Mac laptop with OS X than a PC with a matte panel running Vista (or even Linux, or a half-working hacked OS X.) A lot of people simply will refuse to switch from Aperture, or Logic, or whatever to a completely different platform just because the new laptop is shiny and you don't like it.

It boils down to market research: more college-aged students are buying Macs now, and that's Apple's target market. The recent ads can back that up and so can sales figures.

Remember, Apple is out to make money, first and foremost. Unlike competitors they make money by actually making good products, but really. I could live with a glossy screen even if it introduced a lot of glare. It might be inconvenient, but I'd rather take adjusting the position of the thing every once in a while than endure things like User Access Control, incompatibility, or instability.

[8string]

Interesting that the weight doesn't change. It's still a heavy thing to lug around when you add the mag safe adapter.

[Bubowski]

OK...so NO Firewire on the MacBook and NO Firewire 400 on the MB Pro...SO...what are all the Pro-audio people suppose to do with all the pro-audio interfaces based on the Firewire 400 interface? There are NO pro-audio interfaces based on Firewire 800 that I know of. Guess we're all screwed (certainly for taking their show on the road) including owners of the Apogee Duet (so much for co-marketing!) What the hell is Apple thinking! And please....don't start talking about USB 2 - useless for pro-audio applications.

[rockinphotog]

gag42 said:

Second, for typing, the previous keyboard with its standard dished keys is infinitely easier for a poor typist like me. The current "stylish" flat keys that Apple now produces give no tactile feedback for clumsy fingers trying to find their way around. I could be wrong, but I don't know of any other laptop manufacturer that has adopted this silly design.

Third, no Firewire 400 port! What are they thinking?!

It will be a great machine for watching DVDs, gaming, kid's stuff. Not useful to people like me, and after regular upgrading from my first Apple laptop (a 5300!) to better and better designs, I don't see any attraction to "upgrade" to this latest one. Maybe Apple will bring out a useful professional model later?

I am not a good typist, but on my old Macbook and on my new MacPro keyboard I'm much more accurate.

At first I was freaked out about the lack of FW400 as my P30 digital back requires it to shoot tethered. but them I realized that these days, FW800-400 cables are just as cheap. go to monoprice. $6 for a 15 footer.

I just ordered the 15" and I think I'll love it, although I originally only needed a macbook, their complete lack of FW killed it for me. so, $500 more for a nicer machine. I'll live.