MacBook Pro (17-inch, Mid 2009)
Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:52 AM
Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:55 AM
We reviewed the unit Apple sent us, which has a glossy screen.
Which makes sense: glossy is the "stock" model -- the matte screen is a built-to-order option -- so it's what most people who don't special-order will get. My guess is that people want to know how good/bad that screen is, so they can decide whether to splurge for matte.
Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:58 AM
We covered this annoyance a few times when Apple introduced the Mini DisplayPort adapter, and I mentioned the adapter hassle in the review. It is indeed unfortunate.
Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:08 AM
Dan Frakes said:
Of course you did! I was really just adding that it will not work with most third-party 30" displays at all. This is especially annoying for the only remaining "pro" machine deserving that tag (matte option and ExpressCard slot). If Apple would at least update the 30" display at some point, at least to make it match the much cheaper 30" HP display in quality... but then, they would most likely design the biggest mirror outside of Versailles right now :-)
Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:10 AM
Counting the seconds until someone posts, "You review a 17" laptop and put 'huge screen' in pros??? What were you expecting? A netbook-sized screen?" ;)
Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:41 AM
>On the other hand, the screen?s high resolution means that items on the screen are quite small; I often had to enlarge the size of onscreen type, especially when browsing the Web.
The pixel pitch on this display is 0.20-0.21mm (approximately ? I didn?t bother doing the math) compared to approximately 0.25mm on the smaller MacBooks. If Snow Leopard adds the "sub-pixel" feature that Windows has had since XP, the user will be able to increase the on-screen size of everything by 25% (ie: reduce resolution) while maintaining native resolution sharpness. This would give an effective pixel pitch of 5/4 of the physical native resolution, about like that on the two smaller MBP's
This Windows feature saved me when I bought a (now dead) Dell with 0.19mm pixel pitch.
Are you listening Apple?
Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:49 AM
Seriously. I've been hoping for this feature for years now. Fingers crossed Apple will do it soon.
Posted 19 June 2009 - 12:13 PM
Posted 19 June 2009 - 01:27 PM
Would it be possible to review the anti-glare model some time, despite being BTO, and let us know how it compares to the old standard matte screens? Why are they called now "anti-glare" vs previously "matte"? Just word play or a technical difference?Thanks much.