The reason people used the antireflective filters was because early monitors and cheap monitors lacked antireflective coatings. One reason the AR filters were glossy is because it would be virtually impossible to apply a film smoothly and without wrinkles over the entire surface of a curved CRT. A matte filter that isn't in close contact with the display surface would blur the image to an unacceptable degree.
I remember the main reason for using those filters was to protect against radiation.
It's sad for those who can't even read what someone is saying. I've never hailed matte screen as the only best option. I've never said that those whoever use glossy screen is ignorant. I've never said that Apple should get rid of glossy screen forever.
What I have been trying to say is that Apple choose to ignore the glare issue when they can improve it because most users don't think of it as a problem, which is an ignorant act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
If it was really a problem people would walk away and go buy something else. Thats my point. Apple isn't twisting everyone's arm to buy a Mac. If it pisses you off that much that Apple only offers a glossy display, then go find something else that suits your needs.
I in now way insulted anyone with my post other than calling the quoted person ignorant for thinking everyone who likes glossy displays ignorant. His post makes no sense and his reply makes no sense. He just refused to acknowledge that just because he doesn't like them that everyone who does is an idiot.
So should Apple offer it? Yeah, no problem. I don't have a problem with them offering the matte screen. There is a little extra engineering involved to get the matte display set in place correctly and steadily since it can't use the glass to keep it strong and steady. This I would assume would be the reason for the extra charge for the matte option.
We also have to realize its not just as simple as just throwing a matte display in the case and calling it good. If it were that the case they would have just done it. Like I just said...there's extra engineering involved to make them work as they've designed their products with the glass cover. I don't think its in Apple's best interest to spend the extra time and money to design a product that will fit both glossy and matte displays when the glossy display would be the primary selection anyways. Like I said in my previous post, there are more people who like glossy displays than people who like matte displays. Just the matte display people are very vocal about the lack of the option which makes them seem like a very large crowd.
I think Apple does acknowledge this issue, especially in the higher end Macs where its more of a problem. I think this is why there isn't a 30" LED Cinema yet. This is why there's the option for matte on the 17" MBP. These are the high end products Apple is concerned with on a professional basis and therefore offer the matte finish.
People should seriously consider some of the world's real problems and maybe their own and realize how awesome a time it is to live in, and how some people are so spoiled to feel slighted by a stupid computer screen.
Anyone feel the same?[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY THE REAL POINT!!!!
(but what about Brittany Spear's hair, or Berlusconi's affair, or Chas Bono's sexual lipo, or Michael Jackson's Peter Pan nose? Clearly these are the glairing issues we try to sweep under the matte, when the real issues get glossed over!)
The discussion is about glare v. matte, so why even mention screen type?
MacBooks have been using TN displays for years, like most notebook makers. I?d rather have a non-TN display that is glossy than a TN display that matte. You may think differently but that is why it?s an opinion AND an option for you.
Again, you missed my point. Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro, just like they did with the TN display.
The only question is why focus on Apple. These screens have been around for quite some time, as has the problems identified. It makes no sense not to issue a general comment. Why focus on any particular manufacturer?
Because MacBooks are by far the most popular laptop among students.
But really, MOST computers (idiotically) have glossy screens, and I hope the trend reverses.
Anyway, I've always loved Macs but hated the glossy screens (still love the anti-glare screen on my 2006 iMac). I've been holding off getting a 13" unibody MacBook because of the screens, and hopefully this 'study' and the continual complaining by almost everybody about the shiny screens will prompt Apple to offer anti-glare screens on all their products. I mean, maybe a few people prefer the glossy screens, but except under perfect lighting conditions they're pretty much useless.
All you have done is drawn attention to, and highlighted, how appalling Apple's use of flat gloss screens is, not justified it.
Where did I try to justify it?! Try reading the post again. I did not say Apple's glossy screens are flawless. Glossy and matte screens have their flaws. Apple was not the only nor the first one to use glossy screens and my brother in law bought an HP laptop few years back and that model came with glossy display only. The fact is people like glossy screens and there will always be a minority that will keep complaining about it.
I’ve never said that those whoever use glossy screen is ignorant.
Post #7: They just don't want to admit the issue because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
Post #16: This goes to show that Apple acknowledges the glaring issue of the glossy screen already and does not want to admit it because bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
Post #39: A large number of consumers, if not most consumers, are ignorant. Period.
With a perfect dismount into a pesonal attack
Post #40: [At Macxpress] ...then you're obviously ignorant.
I understand personal preference. If someone doesn't like glossy screens, they don't like them, and that's it.
Having said that, I have to say I don't get it. I use two glossy screen laptops (MacBook Pro and ASUS Windows) at work and home. At home, I also have a 24" Apple LED glossy display. At work there are bright overhead fluorescents and windows along one side. At home I have a window to my back and one side. I keep the blinds open during the day. I just don't have any problems. If I stop and think about it, I notice that there are reflections at times, but they don't bother me. I maintain that the mind will tune out all but the most severe reflections, but you have to stop thinking about it, relax, and let your mind do its marvelous work.
People watch glossy screen TVs all the time. Why don't we hear outrage about them?
I prefer glossy screens not just because they don't bother me, but because they are sharper and clearer. Matte screens provide a muddy image and dull contrast. But that's my personal preference.
An Australian University is warning its faculty and students about some potential adverse health effects of using Apple's notebook and other products with high gloss screens, saying prolonged use could lead to injury if precautionary measures aren't adopted.
The advisory, published a few months ago by Brisbane, Australia-based Queensland University of Technology on its Health and Safety website, specifically addresses Mac users with Apple 'glass' or high gloss monitor screens and urges them to assess the manner in which those products are positioned and used.
"Reflections and glare on high gloss monitor screens and their relation to the angle of the monitor screen, could cause the operator to adopt awkward postures when viewing the monitor screen and using related equipment," the advisory says. "These reflections on the screen can be from internal and external sources such as the overhead lighting and/or position of windows."
Queensland recommends that users of such products conduct an assessment of the area in which those products are to be used to ensure the sources of reflections and glare are eliminated or minimised to reduce the potential for injury. It advises users to close their blinds or window shades and place the glossy displays at a 90 degree angle to any overhead lighting to minimise glare and reflection.
The university even goes as far as to recommend that students and faculty consider not purchasing products with glossy displays. Those who must, however, are urged to consult with a "Facilities Management Lighting engineer to determine if overhead lighting can be modified e.g. tube removed and still provide adequate levels of light to enable reading, writing and screen based equipment work tasks to be performed."
Other recommendations for those who must use glossy displays include adjusting the contrast to a 'low brightness' setting, which the school says will increases readability for users of high gloss monitor screens with a glass surface.
Apple began offering glossy displays as an option on its high-end MacBook Pros a few years ago before making them standard on its redesigned aluminum iMac line (review) in the summer of 2007. While introducing its all-new line of unibody MacBooks (review) and MacBook Pros (review) last fall, the company announced that glossy displays would be the new standard for its notebook lines with no build-to-order option available for downgrading to a matte display.
An early generation MacBook Pro compared to one of the latest models sporting a high gloss display.
Apple's new 24-inch LED-lit Cinema Display (review) also sports a glossy screen.
Then good for you... so glare is a preference for you after all. So you're telling me that the 6-bit TN screen is a preference for others?
An issue that can be improved on is not a preference matter. As I mentioned over and over again, my point is not to get rid of the glossy screen, but for Apple to get rid most of that glare from the glossy screen, especially when Apple have the ability to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
I like my glossy screen so therefore I'm an ignorant consumer? Fascinating...
I really wish Apple would offer the matte finish on all notebooks, if nothing else but to shut the vocal minority up.
And yes, you are in a minority - otherwise Apple would support both across the board. And no, I don't think glossy only notebooks have hurt their sales - just look at the growth rate in the notebook category vs. desktop and the success they had last quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Good for you. Still doesn't change the fact that for me, the glossy screen on my Mac Book Pro isn't an issue.
You can slap a diffuser over the glossy screen and create a matte display if you want - "improve" it yourself!
Again, you missed my point. Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro, just like they did with the TN display.
1) I?m pretty sure the glass covered display costs more than the plastic coating.
2) MBPs don?t have TN displays, even the unibody MB was reportedly without the TN display for a month or two prior to the name change.
3) You?ve missed the point that we?re all saying that choice is great, while you are stating over and over that choosing glossy means you?re ignorant. Oh wait, you say most, not all, so I guess that qualifier gives you an out. One of those ?present company excluded" comments so you can say that you didn?t mean anyone here.
They probably ditched the Matte option because it added additional cost to keep that option in on the 13" and the 15" lines when too few people asked for it.
If I were running a business, and it was costing me money to leave a little used option in a product line, I would 86 that option.
The matte option is more expensive than the glossy to produce. The matte option is simply a plastic coating that goes over the glass, much like the anti-glare coating you get added to your eye glasses.
If anybody can supply peer-reviewed clinical evidence, please?
Now we know a lot of comments about Apples glossy screens are about to flood this site, it wouldn't hurt anybody to look at some of this university's other recommendations before commenting.
Post #7: They just don't want to admit the issue because many ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Post #16: This goes to show that Apple acknowledges the glaring issue of the glossy screen already and does not want to admit it because bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Post #39: A large number of consumers, if not most consumers, are ignorant. Period.
So that means whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
With a perfect dismount into a pesonal attack
Post #40: [At Macxpress] ...then you're obviously ignorant.
Oh... so that draws to the conclusion that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
Comments
The reason people used the antireflective filters was because early monitors and cheap monitors lacked antireflective coatings. One reason the AR filters were glossy is because it would be virtually impossible to apply a film smoothly and without wrinkles over the entire surface of a curved CRT. A matte filter that isn't in close contact with the display surface would blur the image to an unacceptable degree.
I remember the main reason for using those filters was to protect against radiation.
What I have been trying to say is that Apple choose to ignore the glare issue when they can improve it because most users don't think of it as a problem, which is an ignorant act.
If it was really a problem people would walk away and go buy something else. Thats my point. Apple isn't twisting everyone's arm to buy a Mac. If it pisses you off that much that Apple only offers a glossy display, then go find something else that suits your needs.
I in now way insulted anyone with my post other than calling the quoted person ignorant for thinking everyone who likes glossy displays ignorant. His post makes no sense and his reply makes no sense. He just refused to acknowledge that just because he doesn't like them that everyone who does is an idiot.
So should Apple offer it? Yeah, no problem. I don't have a problem with them offering the matte screen. There is a little extra engineering involved to get the matte display set in place correctly and steadily since it can't use the glass to keep it strong and steady. This I would assume would be the reason for the extra charge for the matte option.
We also have to realize its not just as simple as just throwing a matte display in the case and calling it good. If it were that the case they would have just done it. Like I just said...there's extra engineering involved to make them work as they've designed their products with the glass cover. I don't think its in Apple's best interest to spend the extra time and money to design a product that will fit both glossy and matte displays when the glossy display would be the primary selection anyways. Like I said in my previous post, there are more people who like glossy displays than people who like matte displays. Just the matte display people are very vocal about the lack of the option which makes them seem like a very large crowd.
I think Apple does acknowledge this issue, especially in the higher end Macs where its more of a problem. I think this is why there isn't a 30" LED Cinema yet. This is why there's the option for matte on the 17" MBP. These are the high end products Apple is concerned with on a professional basis and therefore offer the matte finish.
People should seriously consider some of the world's real problems and maybe their own and realize how awesome a time it is to live in, and how some people are so spoiled to feel slighted by a stupid computer screen.
Anyone feel the same?[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY THE REAL POINT!!!!
(but what about Brittany Spear's hair, or Berlusconi's affair, or Chas Bono's sexual lipo, or Michael Jackson's Peter Pan nose? Clearly these are the glairing issues we try to sweep under the matte, when the real issues get glossed over!)
The discussion is about glare v. matte, so why even mention screen type?
MacBooks have been using TN displays for years, like most notebook makers. I?d rather have a non-TN display that is glossy than a TN display that matte. You may think differently but that is why it?s an opinion AND an option for you.
Again, you missed my point. Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro, just like they did with the TN display.
Well, guess what... I used some other glossy screen that haven't had much glare.
Good for you. Still doesn't change the fact that for me, the glossy screen on my Mac Book Pro isn't an issue.
Oh... the glare is a preference for you when Apple choose not to improve it even though they can?
You can slap a diffuser over the glossy screen and create a matte display if you want - "improve" it yourself!
How about the 6-bit TN screen on the earlier Macbooks? Is that considered a preference for you as well?
Well obviously not since I didn't buy one
The only question is why focus on Apple. These screens have been around for quite some time, as has the problems identified. It makes no sense not to issue a general comment. Why focus on any particular manufacturer?
Because MacBooks are by far the most popular laptop among students.
But really, MOST computers (idiotically) have glossy screens, and I hope the trend reverses.
Anyway, I've always loved Macs but hated the glossy screens (still love the anti-glare screen on my 2006 iMac). I've been holding off getting a 13" unibody MacBook because of the screens, and hopefully this 'study' and the continual complaining by almost everybody about the shiny screens will prompt Apple to offer anti-glare screens on all their products. I mean, maybe a few people prefer the glossy screens, but except under perfect lighting conditions they're pretty much useless.
gives me a more complete tanning of the chest and facial features for this summer season.
So There!
All you have done is drawn attention to, and highlighted, how appalling Apple's use of flat gloss screens is, not justified it.
Where did I try to justify it?! Try reading the post again. I did not say Apple's glossy screens are flawless. Glossy and matte screens have their flaws. Apple was not the only nor the first one to use glossy screens and my brother in law bought an HP laptop few years back and that model came with glossy display only. The fact is people like glossy screens and there will always be a minority that will keep complaining about it.
BTW: when trying to support an argument, never appeal to "authority".
I wasn't appealing to authority, I'm simply stating fact. Apple's in business to make money, not make everyone happy.
If they wanted to really make me happy, they could ship a two slot single socket CPU minitower
I’ve never said that those whoever use glossy screen is ignorant.
Having said that, I have to say I don't get it. I use two glossy screen laptops (MacBook Pro and ASUS Windows) at work and home. At home, I also have a 24" Apple LED glossy display. At work there are bright overhead fluorescents and windows along one side. At home I have a window to my back and one side. I keep the blinds open during the day. I just don't have any problems. If I stop and think about it, I notice that there are reflections at times, but they don't bother me. I maintain that the mind will tune out all but the most severe reflections, but you have to stop thinking about it, relax, and let your mind do its marvelous work.
People watch glossy screen TVs all the time. Why don't we hear outrage about them?
I prefer glossy screens not just because they don't bother me, but because they are sharper and clearer. Matte screens provide a muddy image and dull contrast. But that's my personal preference.
An Australian University is warning its faculty and students about some potential adverse health effects of using Apple's notebook and other products with high gloss screens, saying prolonged use could lead to injury if precautionary measures aren't adopted.
The advisory, published a few months ago by Brisbane, Australia-based Queensland University of Technology on its Health and Safety website, specifically addresses Mac users with Apple 'glass' or high gloss monitor screens and urges them to assess the manner in which those products are positioned and used.
"Reflections and glare on high gloss monitor screens and their relation to the angle of the monitor screen, could cause the operator to adopt awkward postures when viewing the monitor screen and using related equipment," the advisory says. "These reflections on the screen can be from internal and external sources such as the overhead lighting and/or position of windows."
Queensland recommends that users of such products conduct an assessment of the area in which those products are to be used to ensure the sources of reflections and glare are eliminated or minimised to reduce the potential for injury. It advises users to close their blinds or window shades and place the glossy displays at a 90 degree angle to any overhead lighting to minimise glare and reflection.
The university even goes as far as to recommend that students and faculty consider not purchasing products with glossy displays. Those who must, however, are urged to consult with a "Facilities Management Lighting engineer to determine if overhead lighting can be modified e.g. tube removed and still provide adequate levels of light to enable reading, writing and screen based equipment work tasks to be performed."
Other recommendations for those who must use glossy displays include adjusting the contrast to a 'low brightness' setting, which the school says will increases readability for users of high gloss monitor screens with a glass surface.
Apple began offering glossy displays as an option on its high-end MacBook Pros a few years ago before making them standard on its redesigned aluminum iMac line (review) in the summer of 2007. While introducing its all-new line of unibody MacBooks (review) and MacBook Pros (review) last fall, the company announced that glossy displays would be the new standard for its notebook lines with no build-to-order option available for downgrading to a matte display.
An early generation MacBook Pro compared to one of the latest models sporting a high gloss display.
Apple's new 24-inch LED-lit Cinema Display (review) also sports a glossy screen.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
lol
LOLLOLOLOLOLOL
An issue that can be improved on is not a preference matter. As I mentioned over and over again, my point is not to get rid of the glossy screen, but for Apple to get rid most of that glare from the glossy screen, especially when Apple have the ability to do so.
I like my glossy screen so therefore I'm an ignorant consumer? Fascinating...
I really wish Apple would offer the matte finish on all notebooks, if nothing else but to shut the vocal minority up.
And yes, you are in a minority - otherwise Apple would support both across the board. And no, I don't think glossy only notebooks have hurt their sales - just look at the growth rate in the notebook category vs. desktop and the success they had last quarter.
Good for you. Still doesn't change the fact that for me, the glossy screen on my Mac Book Pro isn't an issue.
You can slap a diffuser over the glossy screen and create a matte display if you want - "improve" it yourself!
Well obviously not since I didn't buy one
It seems to me that a company should try to give consumers what they want.
Not anymore- it has to be "Environmentally Friendly".
Again, you missed my point. Apple chose to lower the bar to cut down cost when they chose not to use the glossy screen that could have less glare than the one on current Macbook Pro, just like they did with the TN display.
1) I?m pretty sure the glass covered display costs more than the plastic coating.
2) MBPs don?t have TN displays, even the unibody MB was reportedly without the TN display for a month or two prior to the name change.
3) You?ve missed the point that we?re all saying that choice is great, while you are stating over and over that choosing glossy means you?re ignorant. Oh wait, you say most, not all, so I guess that qualifier gives you an out. One of those ?present company excluded" comments so you can say that you didn?t mean anyone here.
If I were running a business, and it was costing me money to leave a little used option in a product line, I would 86 that option.
The matte option is more expensive than the glossy to produce. The matte option is simply a plastic coating that goes over the glass, much like the anti-glare coating you get added to your eye glasses.
If anybody can supply peer-reviewed clinical evidence, please?
Now we know a lot of comments about Apples glossy screens are about to flood this site, it wouldn't hurt anybody to look at some of this university's other recommendations before commenting.
They even outline how you should was your hands, how armrests could be harmful and how to find out if the 'seat' pan is suitable for you. http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/healthsafe...ely/chairs.jsp
\t\t
No doubt they concluded that pocket knives can cut your fingers, hot coffee can burn parts of your body, and people die in auto accidents.
Let's all just sit in our rooms quietly on the couch wearing safety gloves, safety glasses, gas masks and hardhats. That way we will be safe!
My poor friend ... he got a horrible back injury twisting to avoid the glare on his computer screen.
With a perfect dismount into a pesonal attack
Oh... so that draws to the conclusion that whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant?
Man, you really crack me up.
This and no Firewire on the MacBook have been among Apple's most controversial issues. Apple listened on the Firewire issue. I hope they will on this.
it might save your life.