[Martian]

[quote name='jragosta']
>

Martian said:

> I will bet an HONEST matte vs glossy poll ? ie: a poll where marketing people and others who peddle spin and dishonesty for a living have nothing to do with the methodology or results ? would strongly favor matte screens.
>
> A VALID opinion survey on the glossy vs matte debate would focus on:
> ? Those who have a STRONG opinion ? an opinion strong enough to actually influence their actions
> ? Those who base their opinions on real comparative experience and won't be surprised after blundering into a wrong purchase
> ? Those whose comparative experience is specifically with laptops. Laptops are viewed tilted up, and are moved around to multiple environments.
>
> Matte screens would be a clear winner here.

First you advocate an honest poll - and then make an unsupported flat statement that Matte screens would be the winner. Contradict yourself much?

Sorry jragosta..sorry that my post got you so emotional that you were too upset to comprehend my post. I started off saying, ?I will bet?. In English, this means that I have a strong hunch, but it is not an absolute inflexible statement like you seem to make.

You, on the other hand, are effectively telling all the people who have said they can?t stand the glare or reflections that they are wrong just because the glare doesn?t seem to bother you.

I smell a fanboy.

[jragosta]

[quote name='Martian']
> [quote name='jragosta']
> >

Martian said:

> > I will bet an HONEST matte vs glossy poll ? ie: a poll where marketing people and others who peddle spin and dishonesty for a living have nothing to do with the methodology or results ? would strongly favor matte screens.
> >
> > A VALID opinion survey on the glossy vs matte debate would focus on:
> > ? Those who have a STRONG opinion ? an opinion strong enough to actually influence their actions
> > ? Those who base their opinions on real comparative experience and won't be surprised after blundering into a wrong purchase
> > ? Those whose comparative experience is specifically with laptops. Laptops are viewed tilted up, and are moved around to multiple environments.
> >
> > Matte screens would be a clear winner here.
>
> First you advocate an honest poll - and then make an unsupported flat statement that Matte screens would be the winner. Contradict yourself much?

Sorry jragosta..sorry that my post got you so emotional that you were too upset to comprehend my post. I started off saying, ?I will bet?. In English, this means that I have a strong hunch, but it is not an absolute inflexible statement like you seem to make.

You, on the other hand, are effectively telling all the people who have said they can?t stand the glare or reflections that they are wrong just because the glare doesn?t seem to bother you.

I smell a fanboy.

Read your last sentence. "Matte screens would be a clear winner here". No bets, no statement that it's a personal opinion, just a statement of fact which is completely unsupported. Since it quickly follows your suggestion that a poll should be conducted, it is hypocritical.

I never told anyone that they shouldn't be bothered by the glare. I was responding to the statement that most people would prefer the matte - I was clearly given a counterexample. Please show me where I ever made the suggestion that the glare would not affect anyone else.

Furthermore, I suggested that the fact that Apple dropped it was the best evidence that it wasn't a huge seller -- not anyone's personal opinion.

Considering that we're presumably hundreds or thousands of miles apart, if you're smelling a fanboy, it's coming from you. Considering that fanboys take irrational, unsupported positions and expect others to adopt them merely on their word and then pretend that other people say things that they never said, that's a pretty good description of the position you've taken.

[Dan Frakes]

Let's stick to civil discussion, folks, and refrain from ad hominems. (That's directed at everyone, not just jragosta.)

[rlav]

Some questions about the "hugeness" factor, mainly for those who own 17" laptops:

How heavy and cumbersome do you feel they are? Do you think if you had a 15" laptop you'd carry it around more? Do you use it mainly as a desktop replacement, and only carry it home (for example) in the car? Did you seriously consider 15" models, or were you always set on a 17" laptop?

Just trying to get a picture of who buys 17 inchers and how they use them, and whether cost is the main reason to go 15", or if most of us should be considering 17".

[belmeloro]

I just love the huge high resolution screen, which I use for some heavy Photoshop work and lots of multitaskting - I take my 17-inch all over town all day long, for presentations, note taking, photo editing... It's snug in my rucksack and I honestly don't really notice it as I bike around, but I'm used to hauling camera gear wherever I travel, and often is it just one of the many things in my (well-made, well-fitting, Lowepro) rucksack. the 17 inch is only nominally heavier than a 15 inch but both computers are a wonderfully thin slab of metal, so in my mind there is little difference between a 15 inch and 17 inch weight and size-wise, and I choose to go for the better screen.

Mind you, I find my self more and more not taking any laptop at all if I head off somewhere for a weekend, and follow my email and more with my iPhone for such short jaunts. So I've got everything covered between Apple's smallest and largest portable offerings.

[snowcreative]

I don't at all see the non-inclusion of the video adapter and Apple Remote as a "con". I see it as a big "pro". Most people probably wouldn't use at least one of these. When I bought my MacBook Pro a couple of years ago, it came with a video adaptor, which I use, and an Apple Remote, which I never use. The remote is now yet another hunk of plastic I don't want and which will end up in a landfill somewhere as a result. I think it's far more responsible of Apple to offer these items as options rather than including them by default (whether or not being environmentally friendly was any part of their decision to do this).

[Dan Frakes]

elove1975 said:

I'm confused about the battery test. When you reviewed the Feb 09 17in MBP 2.66, it ran 4 hours and 43 minutes on the ripped dvd test. Now you state that it lasted 4 hours and 20 minutes. Which is it?

Good question. We retested the February model with the latest OS and app updates so the results would be more directly comparable. (The battery on the February model is also a few months older now, but if Apple's claims about the new battery technology used in these models is even roughly accurate, that shouldn't affect the battery's runtime significantly.)

[Dan Frakes]

snowcreative said:

I don't at all see the non-inclusion of the video adapter and Apple Remote as a "con". I see it as a big "pro". Most people probably wouldn't use at least one of these.

To some extent, I agree with you on the Apple Remote. But when you stick a new display-connection technology on a laptop, and it's a port only four or five displays in the world currently feature, you need to include an adapter for the standard display technology (in this case, DVI). Especially on a "pro" machine, which is far more likely, in my experience, to be connected to an external display or projector than is a consumer model.

[Dan Frakes]

rlav said:

Some questions about the "hugeness" factor, mainly for those who own 17" laptops:

How heavy and cumbersome do you feel they are? Do you think if you had a 15" laptop you'd carry it around more? Do you use it mainly as a desktop replacement, and only carry it home (for example) in the car? Did you seriously consider 15" models, or were you always set on a 17" laptop?

Just trying to get a picture of who buys 17 inchers and how they use them, and whether cost is the main reason to go 15", or if most of us should be considering 17".

I can speak only for myself, but I've owned everything from a PowerBook 2400 to a 17-inch model, and to me, it's hard to ignore the fact that the 17-inch model weighs over a pound more than the 15-inch model and is nearly 20% larger. It's a challenge to find good bags that fit (I receive a good amount of email from readers on this topic, too), it's bulkier to carry, and forget about using it in coach on a flight ;) (To be fair, that last one is getting to be the case for the 15-inch model, as well, with so many airlines shrinking coach seats.) And while 1 pound may not seem like a lot on paper, it can feel like 5 or 10 after a while, especially if you're carrying a lot of other gear.

On the other hand, it's amazing to have a screen that big. I found that I was much more productive on the road with the 17-inch, since I didn't put as many tasks off "until I get home to my big display." In fact, my old 17-inch was the only laptop I ever owned where I didn't feel like I needed to connect a larger display to be productive at my desk. And if you want a matte screen or ExpressCard slot, 17 is now your only choice.

So it really comes down to your personal needs and how you'll use (and transport) the laptop.

[Islandgirl]

@ Dan Frakes,

I'd like to echo the requests of several commenters who have asked for a side-by-side comparison of the anti-glare vs. glossy screens on the latest 17-inch MacBook Pro.

Are the blacks as deep and colors as good on the anti-glare display as the glossy one? Is text as sharp? And is the new anti-glare screen the same as what was known as a matte finish before? Does the anti-glare model have some type of coated glass on the outside of its display?

I haven't seen this kind of discussion but would be very interested to read it. Apparently, so would many others.

[dreyfus]

Islandgirl said:

Are the blacks as deep and colors as good on the anti-glare display as the glossy one? Is text as sharp? And is the new anti-glare screen the same as what was known as a matte finish before? Does the anti-glare model have some type of coated glass on the outside of its display?

Well, we have both in the company:

- The blacks on the anti-glare model are not as deep as the blacks on the glossy model. They can't be. The glossy coating enhances the contrast and the glass panel enhances it again. There is a certain amount of diffusion happening on all matte screens, this weakens the representation of pure black even a bit more. The matte display is more "truthful" though, e.g. with the glossy screen some dark areas on the screen will appear deep black, but will then contain content when printed or when watched on a less glossy display. Editing e.g. gradients on the glossy display is about impossible, the contrast is just too high. But then, nobody does professional print proofing on a 6-bit laptop screen.
- If the colors are "better" is a matter of definition. The colors on the glossy model do pop quite a bit more. If you equal pop = better, than yes. The colors on the glossy model are far less accurate though, especially skin tones are off quite a bit. You have to make faces almost red on screen, if you do not want them pale white in print. The matte screen is as good and accurate as it gets when it comes to laptops. If you mainly play games and watch video, the glossy model looks more impressive for sure. If you need color accuracy, then the matte version is the only solution. You can check the 24" Cinema Display test on Macworld UK for a good discussion of the color issues with the glossy screen.
- Text sharpness is about identical, as it is mainly determined by the resolution of the screen (and both have identical resolution) and the font smoothing technology used (identical too). Extremely small fonts look a bit rougher on the glossy model, as the high contrast works against the anti-aliasing, but I talk about extremely small fonts here... as in: unreadable anyhow.
- The anti-glare screen has the same finish as the newer matte models (e.g. last years MBPs). They are not "as matte" as the PowerBook and early MBP screens from 2006/2007 though. There is a bit less diffusion which is positive when using them in daylight; the newer anti-glare models are easier to use in daylight, but show a moderate amount of reflection in extreme settings.
- The new anti-glare model has no glass on the outside. It also has no dreaded black framing. It looks beautiful.

[Martian]

dreyfus said:

>....The colors on the glossy model are far less accurate though, especially skin tones are off quite a bit. You have to make faces almost red on screen, if you do not want them pale white in print.

Can't you compensate by calibrating the screen in the Display Preferences? I am not a big fan of glossy screens, but I didn't realize that the color and contrast exaggeration would be a problem for non-professional photography.

By the way, I found ? at least with my eyes and lack of training ? that when I calibrate my Samsung monitor using the ?Expert Mode?, the resulting calibration profile has significantly less contrast than the non-Expert Mode.

[LIZARD]

I AM A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE MATTE SCREEN IS NOT OPTIONAL. HOURS OF EDITING AND CREATING PHOTO-VIDEOS EVERYDAY WOULD MAKE MY EYES BLEED IF I HAD TO DEAL WITH A GLASS SCREEN. I BELIEVE APPLE IS MAKING A MISTAKE HERE, BY TRAILING AFTER THEIR COMPETITORS ON LED BACKLIT SCREENS. YES, THE BULK OF CONSUMERS MAY BE (AT FIRST GLANCE) DAZZLED WITH GLASS, BUT IN APPLE'S BOLD ATTEMPT TO DO AWAY WITH THE MATTE SCREEN (IT'S SO RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS) THEY ARE FORGETTING ABOUT THE LOYAL AUDIENCE AND PATRONS OF PROFESSIONALS-PHOTOGRAPHERS, CINEMA PHOTOGRAPHERS, GRAPHIC ARTISTS, JUST TO NAME A FEW THAT RELY ON SOME OF THE KEY COMPONENTS THAT THEY ARE YANKING.
I'M TOO TIRED TO COMMENT ON THE NEW MINI-DVI PORT AND THAT RIDICULOUS $99.00 DUAL LINK ADAPTER -WHICH ARE MOSTLY FAULTY. I'M ON #4 IN JUST TWO MONTHS. SURPRISINGLY, I'VE ADJUSTED TO THE CHANGE - I CONSIDER IT A PLUS IF MY 30" CINEMA SCREEN ONLY FLICKERS TWICE IN A TEN MINUTE VIDEO PRESENTATION. THANKS, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT, AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE READ ALL THE COMMENTS POSTED. THEY JUST GOT ME MORE WOUND UP THAN USUAL.

[ChrisLJ]

Looks like you need a new keyboard too. Your caps key is stuck. Or didn't you notice.