Re: Matte matters
I'm still not buying one, cant stand the glare. My office window is
behind me so as not to be distracted by passing traffic, seeing the
reflections instead are just taking the miki mouse.Sad, but true. There are many (capital M) other (capital O) options out there.
Re : FW800 : It has been touched previously on but ...
Check out the FW 800 to 400 cables (sonnet/belkin etc etc) since there are none in the box. They are cheap enough and you only really need one since FW device can string together easily enough (in most cases unless they are at opposite sides of your studio of course). Good quality FW devices, eg the LaCie desktop HD don't need to be turned on to activate the FW through connection. Hope that helps.
behind me so as not to be distracted by passing traffic, seeing the
reflections instead are just taking the miki mouse.Sad, but true. There are many (capital M) other (capital O) options out there.
Re : FW800 : It has been touched previously on but ...
Check out the FW 800 to 400 cables (sonnet/belkin etc etc) since there are none in the box. They are cheap enough and you only really need one since FW device can string together easily enough (in most cases unless they are at opposite sides of your studio of course). Good quality FW devices, eg the LaCie desktop HD don't need to be turned on to activate the FW through connection. Hope that helps.
This myth that glossy screens produce "more vivid color and deeper blacks" is completely false. It is the panel technology and calibration that produce this, a glossy screen may at best give the illusion of this.
There is a reason why fashion magazines are glossy, and newspapers and books matte. Matte surfaces are much more suitable for looking at for long periods of time as they cause less eye strain.
There is no logic in adding glass over the LCD display in the first place. CRTs had glass because it was required by the technology, not so with LCDs.
The sheer fact that people are thinking of buying anti-glare coatings indicates a fundamental product design flaw. Good design does not require add-on products to make it acceptable.
Hopefully this is only a period of adjustment. Does anyone know if Apple will be discontinuing the current matte LCD cinema displays?
There is a reason why fashion magazines are glossy, and newspapers and books matte. Matte surfaces are much more suitable for looking at for long periods of time as they cause less eye strain.
There is no logic in adding glass over the LCD display in the first place. CRTs had glass because it was required by the technology, not so with LCDs.
The sheer fact that people are thinking of buying anti-glare coatings indicates a fundamental product design flaw. Good design does not require add-on products to make it acceptable.
Hopefully this is only a period of adjustment. Does anyone know if Apple will be discontinuing the current matte LCD cinema displays?
On me it will have a big effect. And that is giving up on Apple after 24 years and roughly 400k spent with them. Glossy is simply a complete no-go for me. And yes, I have tried to grow into a 24" iMac for three month, even in a dim room with controlled lighting I developed headaches and neck pain, and got into the habit of wiping the screen nervously every few minutes, as every single piece of dust was sitting three-dimensional on top of my work. Whenever watching widescreen movies, I had myself letterboxed and editing black and white images the excessive contrast made any serious work impossible. Do I need to even top that by trying to get into acrobatic performances when using my laptop in a train or plane? I thought Schiller's comment was downright condescending and humiliating. I will not continue to bother a company that hates its customers so much with my money.
Yes, Apple has the best OS in existence, but no way am I going to give them my or my companies business ever again. Since the keynote has finished I have terminated three subscriptions to Mac-related papers and a paid broadcast, my equipment will be on eBay or a similar site within a week. I can get a really professional Lenovo machine with three years international warranty, card reader, matte high res display, longer battery life, all connectivity, sudden motion sensor, webcam and all the toppings for less than this glorified mirror.
How can somebody with reason talk for 15 minutes about improved manufacturing process, smaller shipping packages etc. and then reveal a product that is more expensive than its predecessor while having less ports, same battery life, same resolution, still 5400rpm HDs standard, still 4GB RAM max, etc. Why is it more expensive: You will need a display adapter for everything and not a single one is included. Attaching my 30" Cinema Display would add 100 bucks, adding my 23" another 30 and then I still need something for a projector (VGA) and the remote... great deal.
What have we got: less ports, same performance, worse keyboard, worse location of the optical drive (needs more desk space), ugly design (subjective, I hate this black frame and the black keyboard), and a higher price while gaining nothing but glare. With every keynote we get less options than before (you would think that a company with growing market share would be nice to its customers, but ignorance is bliss it seems). Where is a decent desktop Mac, where is a replacement for the 12" PB (no, the MBA is not it - too big and no connectivity), what is going on with the Mini, what will happen to the 17" model, what will happen to the other displays???
A company inviting the press to kick its customers behinds is another Apple first.
Yes, Apple has the best OS in existence, but no way am I going to give them my or my companies business ever again. Since the keynote has finished I have terminated three subscriptions to Mac-related papers and a paid broadcast, my equipment will be on eBay or a similar site within a week. I can get a really professional Lenovo machine with three years international warranty, card reader, matte high res display, longer battery life, all connectivity, sudden motion sensor, webcam and all the toppings for less than this glorified mirror.
How can somebody with reason talk for 15 minutes about improved manufacturing process, smaller shipping packages etc. and then reveal a product that is more expensive than its predecessor while having less ports, same battery life, same resolution, still 5400rpm HDs standard, still 4GB RAM max, etc. Why is it more expensive: You will need a display adapter for everything and not a single one is included. Attaching my 30" Cinema Display would add 100 bucks, adding my 23" another 30 and then I still need something for a projector (VGA) and the remote... great deal.
What have we got: less ports, same performance, worse keyboard, worse location of the optical drive (needs more desk space), ugly design (subjective, I hate this black frame and the black keyboard), and a higher price while gaining nothing but glare. With every keynote we get less options than before (you would think that a company with growing market share would be nice to its customers, but ignorance is bliss it seems). Where is a decent desktop Mac, where is a replacement for the 12" PB (no, the MBA is not it - too big and no connectivity), what is going on with the Mini, what will happen to the 17" model, what will happen to the other displays???
A company inviting the press to kick its customers behinds is another Apple first.
Re: Matte matters
I have an old matte MPB Core Duo and like it. I have always liked matte screens. However my wife bought a new MBP a few months ago with the LED backlighting and a glossy screen. I must admit that I really do prefer her machine. To me, the brightness more than compensates for any glare problems. I have to admit I prefer her machine's display.
Yes Matte Matters! If you want to know how your images will actually look, in Final Cut Pro or PhotoShop....if you're a Graphic Designer, a Filmmaker or a Photographer....a glossy screen won't do it. It pumps up the contrast and saturation in ways that aren't true to what you'll see when you make a print or output your film.
I was ready to buy one of the new line of MacBook Pros....not now.
I was ready to buy one of the new line of MacBook Pros....not now.
Re: Matte matters
I have "no empirical data" to back up the fact that I prefer matte screens? Did you miss the bit about how I actually spent my own cash on a MacBook, used it for everything I did for six months, then sold it because I found the reflections and glare way too distracting to put up with?
I'm not sure how to get any more empirical than "I used a glossy screen. I personally found the reflections and glare so troublesome that I chose to sell it and spend $1,000 more to purchase a machine with a matte display."
What sort of empirical data are you looking for? As far as I know, there's no official measure of "how much of my face can I see in the screen?"
-rob.
Collecting email for a Macworld project: ineedalearjet@gmail.com
I'm not sure how to get any more empirical than "I used a glossy screen. I personally found the reflections and glare so troublesome that I chose to sell it and spend $1,000 more to purchase a machine with a matte display."
What sort of empirical data are you looking for? As far as I know, there's no official measure of "how much of my face can I see in the screen?"
-rob.
Collecting email for a Macworld project: ineedalearjet@gmail.com
Keep in mind we're talking about laptops, not desktops. Until the original MacBook came out, Apple had never offered a glossy-screened laptop. So there's no "adjustment" to think about back to CRT, because Apple laptops have always been matte.
-rob.
Collecting email for a Macworld project: ineedalearjet@gmail.com
-rob.
Collecting email for a Macworld project: ineedalearjet@gmail.com
webraider wrote:
What the heck did all you guys do BEFORE we had Matted Screens. Back in the CRT days.. all the screens were glossy. Whatever you did there.. you'll simply have to do again! Stop griping and get over it.
What the heck did all you guys do BEFORE we had Matted Screens. Back in the CRT days.. all the screens were glossy. Whatever you did there.. you'll simply have to do again! Stop griping and get over it.
Before anybody feels the urge to bring up this non-argument again:
- The first TFTs had worse image quality and color accuracy than high-end CRTs. They were a success anyhow because of the lack of glare. A few years back I was working for an airline department (350 people) where the staff choose the purchase of TFTs over a pay raise. Now Apple tries to sell a step back as a main innovation. It is not - it is just a step back.
- Have you ever looked into large daylight offices with many CRTs at that time. People were using all kinds of filters, add-ons, shades and whatever to make them usable. Want that back?
- CRTs (good ones) were color accurate, neither the iMac, nor the MacBook, nor the MacBook Air, nor the glossy MacBook Pro are. Contrast and blackpoint are way off on all of them - even with hardware profiling predictable prints are impossible. Or why do you think Apple silently removed all links to the (white) iMacs SWOP (soft proofing) certification when bringing out the alu model - because it is superior? Yeah!
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html
Go tell them. Tell them what you think and what your consequences will be. Especially if you DON'T belong to the "vast majority" of glossy lovers... (I don't. Definitely.)
Go tell them. Tell them what you think and what your consequences will be. Especially if you DON'T belong to the "vast majority" of glossy lovers... (I don't. Definitely.)
I couldn't agree more with the original poster and with dreyfus. It seems that if all you do is watch DVD's or play games the color vibrance might make those 'pop' more on the glossy screen.
Having had to use a MacBook on several occasions in the last year I can honestly say that a glossy screen makes the notebook nearly impossible for me to use. Yes, if you have complete control over your environment and lighting you might be able to make it work, but in many cases (most when using a laptop) you don't have any influence over the lighting, be it outside, at the airport, at the office or even in some places in your own home. Seeing myself in the screen is very distracting and I have been very happy to go back to my 15" powerbook (especially on my lazy boy in the living room, where the MacBook was nearly unusable).
I had been waiting to purchase two new laptops following today's announcements and as many here and on many other polls I will now most likely not purchase any Apple laptops, which is a very shame.
Adding to that is also the removal of the firewire port on the MacBook. We use firewire hard drives, firewire connected ipods and firewire dv cams. They are usually connected to the rear of the cinema display, which with the new ones we will also not be able to do anylonger, as they have removed the firewire ports from the new display. Not to count the target mode which has been a god send and being able to boot from firewire external drives.
Battery life has indeed staid stagnant with Apple. Were a couple of years ago they were the champions with battery life now they are falling further and further behind. So yes, in many ways we are now paying the same amount for less features and having to even spend more just to be able to achieve status quo with cable connectivities. Keeping the max memory at 4GB is not making our photoshop guy happy either.
The firewire issue with the MacBooks and the new Display would have been a major annoyance by itself but might not have prevented me of buying the new hardware, BUT, the removal of the matte option for the displays is definitely now putting the nail in the coffin for me. And yes, even if an add-on film/screen makes it bearable, that is not what I would want to again have to spend more money again after having to spend near to 3 grand just to achieve the status quo.
As many have said, our postings and feelings will not have any influence on Apple and very likely they will not come back on that decision. They didn't do it for the MacBooks and neither for the iMacs. So the only way we can let them know is with our wallet and keeping the Credit Card in there now and in the foreseeable future.
This was big enough reason for me to sign up for an account here to get my frustration out there with many same minded fellows and in the faint hope that maybe, maybe we can get enough voices out here that Apple might actually take notice that the 'vast' majority doesn't think that way (the majority maybe, but definitely not the 'vast').
Written happily on a 15' Powerbook G4 with matte screen.
BH
This is a non-issue for me. The screen on my current MacBook has a little bit of glare in the correct position, but about 95% of the time, I don't notice a thing... just the bright vivid colors it displays.
2Ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook • Airport Extreme (Gigabit) • 8GB iPod touch
http://www.wesg.ca - Macs and More
2Ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook • Airport Extreme (Gigabit) • 8GB iPod touch
http://www.wesg.ca - Macs and More
Matt screens for Pro's please Apple. At least give us the choice 
Ditto. Not so long ago only the cheapest entry-level CRTs had glossy screens and all the pro models had good anti-reflective coatings. With Macs' long legacy as the graphics platform it is absurd that they should have standardized on the glossy screens. They might look great in the showrooms, but they are not meant for everyday use and will be widely scorned by graphics and photo professionals.
- PCW Network
- MacUser
- Mac OS X Hints
- iPhone Central
- PC World
- PCW Business Center
- About Macworld
- Advertise
- Macworld Expo
- MacMania
- Terms of Service Agreement
- Privacy Policy
© Jive Software


