or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple releases new 15" MacBook Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple releases new 15" MacBook Pro - Page 4

post #121 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Here's a nice little comparison between a matte and glossy display. As you can see, the glossy display has by far the most distracting reflections, where you can see the top of the lamp very clearly. All you get in the matte display is a slodge of light from behind (at the top centre). This is much less distracting than being able to clearly see what is behind you!


Except that adjusting the angle of the glossy screen a few degrees away from the lamp would eliminate it completely, while the horrible glare on the matte screen behind, which is much worse overall, would not.

The black on the glossy screen is black, while the black on the matte screen is grey.

How you missed the fact that the entire middle of the matte screen is completely white from your flash (or something else), while the glossy screen wasn't affected at all, is hard to understand.

I guess it just shows what I've been saying all along, you see what you want to, and ignore the rest.
post #122 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Cut it out wilco, you been ok for a while, don't go back to your old self.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
post #123 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Despite what some of you think, matte is no answer.

Despite what you think, your opinion is no answer. It is merely an opinion. Matte vs Glossy is a subjective argument. Ramming your opinion down the throats of others doesn't somehow make your opinion indisputable.
post #124 of 384
I have a Penryn MBP 15 inch and ordered the "matte", although it really should be called "satin" rather than matte. It combines the best of both traditional matte and glossy and is far easier on the eyes than any glossy display I've seen so far, especially the fishbowl effect of the old Macbook and the Macbook Air. I had a Macbook and it was just ruining my eyes. The matte was like a tremendous relief, sharper and yet less reflective. And at the same time a better predictor of how photos are going to work. On any inkjet printer, the glossy overestimates the degree of saturation. The only output that's even close in my view is the very high gloss Fuji Crystal Archive paper now used for enlargements at, among other places, Costco. And Crystal Archive is still very close as well to the latest matte/satin displays.

I guess if I had to replace my computer in a hurry I'd reluctantly have to go refurb or, failing that, 17 inch, but there's no doubt that I'd at least confer with my geekier friends about setting up OS X with a Lenovo. I am really not happy about this development at all because of the awful experience with the Macbook (and also because the Macbook Air visibly had the same effect on me despite the superior backlight).

I also like my two FireWire ports, quite honestly. Although I'll concede one thing to Apple on this -- in order to make the hard drive accessible they had absolutely no choice but to move the DVD to the side, and that took away a lot of space for ports. You can't have an accessible hard drive AND a back-hinged display AND an optical drive without losing a lot of space for extra ports. I wish Apple would revisit their display hinge so they can use the back of the computer for ports once again, but I think overall the decision on the FireWire is probably the right one under the circumstances. No excuse for losing it altogether on the MacBook though, it isn't as though they had to rearrange the case on that computer.

At the same time earlier this year I got an NEC 24 inch monitor. Again, a good move. Even though the new Apple display is marginally cheaper and has a superb backlight, it doesn't work with legacy hardware, it does not have multiple inputs, it's not height adjustable, and once again you have to put up with that glossy-only surface. Added to which NEC's warranty and tech support are better than Apple.

I firmly expect the new MacBook to sell like hotcakes despite Apple's bloody-minded deletion of FireWire, for the simple reasons that it finally has acceptable graphics and finally has an acceptable case. But that loss of satin "matte" on the MBP 15 is a killer for me. Try as I might, I simply have not found a glossy as yet that my eyes can work with.
post #125 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Except that adjusting the angle of the glossy screen a few degrees away from the lamp would eliminate it completely, while the horrible glare on the matte screen behind, which is much worse overall, would not.

How you missed the fact that the entire middle of the matte screen is completely white from your flash (or something else), while the glossy screen wasn't affected at all, is hard to understand.

I guess it just shows what I've been saying all along, you see what you want to, and ignore the rest.

I also gather that photography is not his bent.
post #126 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ah, fair point.
My mistake on that calculaiton.

And you had a fair point about the cost of business being a bit higher in the UK. And maybe I'm annoyed that I have to buy a new bathroom before I can buy shiny toys again.
post #127 of 384
Apple went down to a 50 watt-hour battery in this new version. So the result is that to maintain the battery life of the previous version, you have to use the integrated graphics chip. In practice, that wouldn't be a problem if it supported 8GB of RAM. But it only supports 4GB, amazingly enough. And so to maintain the battery life of the previous computer, you have to give up RAM. Not good.
post #128 of 384
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #129 of 384
Geez Louise,

What a bunch of freakin' WHINERS!

What is really sad is that many of you don't have a clue that the supposedly slower CPU's will actually produce a faster machine due to other enhancements.

It's really rather simple.

If you don't like it - don't buy it!
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #130 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Here are a couple more comparisons for those interested. Apologies for the bluriness, I turned flash off to get a fairer comparison.




You've done a good job of angling it for the worst effect.

I also find that unless you like your monitor up high, which is a holdoever from the bad old days of putting monitors on top of the computer, or later, on top of something else, when you sit in front of it, it cuts down on a lot of the light entering.

Tilting the screen down a few degrees also make reflections bounce towards the desk instead of your eyes.
post #131 of 384
where to start...
no one has mentioend the LIE about HDMI...it can drive a 58" Plasma but not a 30" display - sham! Then they charge you for the industry standard (DVI) adapter

Where's the eSATA? Nobody uses freaking Firewire any more

Where's the GD docking connector - time for another POS Book Enz dock - and another $300

WTF with the case - who cares that you're making a more expensive case - it not LIGHTER

Where's the longer battery life!!!!

It's the same size, same weight, same CPU, same battery life, with a constantly glared screen!!!!
post #132 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Except that adjusting the angle of the glossy screen a few degrees away from the lamp would eliminate it completely, while the horrible glare on the matte screen behind, which is much worse overall, would not.

The black on the glossy screen is black, while the black on the matte screen is grey.

How you missed the fact that the entire middle of the matte screen is completely white from your flash (or something else), while the glossy screen wasn't affected at all, is hard to understand.

I guess it just shows what I've been saying all along, you see what you want to, and ignore the rest.

Trouble with that is to get the glossy screen to an angle where it doesn't reflect the light means putting it at a totally unsuable angle and/or contorting my sitting position to fit in with it, which is far from ideal if you are sitting for extended periods.

It was simply the angle the photo was taken at that meant the glossy screen has no flash reflection.

What the glossy screen gives you is a more focussed reflection of any light source, but also reflects a lot more than the matte screen to begin with.



Quote:
You've done a good job of angling it for the worst effect.

They're actually both at about the same angle with the notebook held up in front of the TFT to take its photo.
post #133 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by bread View Post

This is exactly right... glossy screens oversaturate and provide too much contrast... that leads to washed out images when they are output to print and I don't know any pros who would touch one...

... then again I don't know anyone who would work extensively on a laptop for high quality photographic work (unless it's hooked up to a decent screen)...

...and as far as the issue of reflection goes it drives me mad and it seems I'm not the only one Apple!

that's my 2p

Again, have you heard of calibrating your monitor?

I'm amazed at how some people here who claim to be graphics professionals in some capacity or another, fail to know even the most basic of requirements.

If you do what you are supposed to do, which is calibrate your monitor, the color, saturation, and black levels, will be where they are supposed to be.

If you don't, then you can't claim to have anything like a correct monitor.

Glossy monitors calibrate better than do matte models.
post #134 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by YipYipYipee View Post

But I have to agree the omission of a FireWire is not a good idea. Not a show-stopper mind you, but it does mean you'll have to purchase a CardBus FireWire adapter which Apple or some third-party supplier will gladly sell you.
-YipYipYipee

MB does not have an express card slot... what now

I sold my older 17" just yesterday in hopes of a new 17". I guess I'll go refurb for now!
post #135 of 384
anyone have a previous gen. glossy macbook pro and a glass-glossy imac to compare the level of glare & reflection?
i am interested in how the last model with plastic-glossy compares to the new model with glassy-glossy
post #136 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoeditor View Post

I have a Penryn MBP 15 inch and ordered the "matte", although it really should be called "satin" rather than matte. It combines the best of both traditional matte and glossy and is far easier on the eyes than any glossy display I've seen so far, especially the fishbowl effect of the old Macbook and the Macbook Air. I had a Macbook and it was just ruining my eyes. The matte was like a tremendous relief, sharper and yet less reflective. And at the same time a better predictor of how photos are going to work. On any inkjet printer, the glossy overestimates the degree of saturation. The only output that's even close in my view is the very high gloss Fuji Crystal Archive paper now used for enlargements at, among other places, Costco. And Crystal Archive is still very close as well to the latest matte/satin displays.

I guess if I had to replace my computer in a hurry I'd reluctantly have to go refurb or, failing that, 17 inch, but there's no doubt that I'd at least confer with my geekier friends about setting up OS X with a Lenovo. I am really not happy about this development at all because of the awful experience with the Macbook (and also because the Macbook Air visibly had the same effect on me despite the superior backlight).

I also like my two FireWire ports, quite honestly. Although I'll concede one thing to Apple on this -- in order to make the hard drive accessible they had absolutely no choice but to move the DVD to the side, and that took away a lot of space for ports. You can't have an accessible hard drive AND a back-hinged display AND an optical drive without losing a lot of space for extra ports. I wish Apple would revisit their display hinge so they can use the back of the computer for ports once again, but I think overall the decision on the FireWire is probably the right one under the circumstances. No excuse for losing it altogether on the MacBook though, it isn't as though they had to rearrange the case on that computer.

At the same time earlier this year I got an NEC 24 inch monitor. Again, a good move. Even though the new Apple display is marginally cheaper and has a superb backlight, it doesn't work with legacy hardware, it does not have multiple inputs, it's not height adjustable, and once again you have to put up with that glossy-only surface. Added to which NEC's warranty and tech support are better than Apple.

I firmly expect the new MacBook to sell like hotcakes despite Apple's bloody-minded deletion of FireWire, for the simple reasons that it finally has acceptable graphics and finally has an acceptable case. But that loss of satin "matte" on the MBP 15 is a killer for me. Try as I might, I simply have not found a glossy as yet that my eyes can work with.

My previous agency/graphic design house had both matte and gloss at the beginning. Then we got smart and just bought gloss, but also pre-cut matte film for those that wanted it. However, making the proper lighting adjustments re intensity and positioning, gloss became the norm. Main reason: the crew just loved showing off their work more.

My biggest mistake last year was getting a Macbook Pro 'matte'. Can't wait to pass it down now and get the new display as well.

As for Firewire, can't think of any reason to have two or more ports that I can't do with one.
post #137 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by treymaier View Post

where to start...
no one has mentioend the LIE about HDMI...it can drive a 58" Plasma but not a 30" display - sham! Then they charge you for the industry standard (DVI) adapter

HDMI can drive a 1920x1080 display at 60Hz unless you have a HDMI 1.3 compliant device.

DisplayPort can drive a 2560x1600 display at 60Hz. It can tunnel HDMI and DVI protocols.

Quote:
Where's the eSATA? Nobody uses freaking Firewire any more

Audio and Video professionals use Firewire, and they use MacBook Pros.
post #138 of 384
Every update will have their pros/cons.

Overall I really like the new MBP and while I am neutral on the glossy/matte screen issue I look at the graphics architecture as a very significant upgrade, not as incremental as some suggest.

This is easily more important than the usual speed bumps in processor speed which will inevitably follow soon. The change in RAM indicates a Mobo upgrade should already be in place.

Re. BluRay I feel that licensing was a lame response though. No reason not to offer it as a BTO option and have people decide if it's worth the price. They had no problems doing that with solid state drives in the Air which offer less value than a BD upgrade...
post #139 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by treymaier View Post

where to start...
no one has mentioend the LIE about HDMI...it can drive a 58" Plasma but not a 30" display - sham! Then they charge you for the industry standard (DVI) adapter

Displayport supports higher resolutions that either HDMI 1.1, HDMI 1.3 or dual-link DVI, and it also has the advantage of longer transmission distances and no royalties. Your 58" plasma has a very low resolution compared to a 30" LCD monitor.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #140 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by r0bw View Post

Despite what you think, your opinion is no answer. It is merely an opinion. Matte vs Glossy is a subjective argument. Ramming your opinion down the throats of others doesn't somehow make your opinion indisputable.

I suppose that those against glossy "ramming" their sometimes outsize opinions are ok?

It's more than an opinion on my part. I've been in this business a long time, and have studied this issue in my own company with over 30 Macs there at any one time. I've worked with other companies on this as well If you have been around the commercial graphics industry for any time, you would know of the frustration amongst graphics professionals when glossy monitors began to disappear.

Like it or not.
post #141 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I also gather that photoraphy is not his bent.

So I gather.
post #142 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sorry, but you're wrong here.

Matte displays cut down on the possible saturation and contrast the monitor is natively capable of. They also out a hard limit on the blacks which is below what the display is again itself capable of delivering.

If you really want to, you can always lower these numbers yourself numerous ways. PS offers mucho options to do this on your monitor all by itself.

But, you can never bring it back properly on your monitor when it's cut down by the matte screen.

When you raise saturation, you're always in danger of losing a few levels in that color. That simply lowers the quality even further.

Try raising saturation in a single color in PS. If it's already well saturated, you'll notice that detail in that color begins to disappear as the saturation is raised. That's because you're artificially moving the entire gamma structure out of range on the high side.

That's no solution. It gives us even more reasons for doing graphics work in a darkened room. That's less of a problem with glossy.

Well, I never was arguing that matte was a perfect solution either, just that it alleviated the known problems with over saturation and contrast associated with glossy and that it was strongly preferred by graphics professionals. You raise some interesting problems with matte screens that I had not heard of before, but I have known and talked to a lot of graphics professionals over the years and you are the first I have ever heard argue *for* a glossy screen.

Your comments are not clear though. Are you just gain-saying my argument by pointing out possible problems with matte screens (which is what it appears like), or are you actually arguing that glossy is "better than matte?" Secondary to that point, are you actually arguing that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards over-saturation and contrast? I'm asking because it seems from your wording that you are very carefully not arguing anything at all and really just trying to be clever.

In the end a professional uses calibration, which alleviates a lot of these issues, and the screen part is of much greater importance than the cover or the coating. As I have said though, I have known a lot of people in the field and if you are arguing that glossy is better for professional work, you are in a real minority it seems to me.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #143 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by treymaier View Post

where to start...
no one has mentioend the LIE about HDMI...it can drive a 58" Plasma but not a 30" display - sham! Then they charge you for the industry standard (DVI) adapter

Can you find for us any Tv display that goes higher than 1080p? Size of the display doesn't matter.

Quote:
Where's the eSATA? Nobody uses freaking Firewire any more

That I agree with. I hope they're just waiting for the new e-sata standard to come out. That's the one with power over e-sata, which the current versions don't offer.

Quote:
Where's the GD docking connector - time for another POS Book Enz dock - and another $300

?

Quote:
WTF with the case - who cares that you're making a more expensive case - it not LIGHTER

I thought these are lighter.

Quote:
Where's the longer battery life!!!!

That sucks. Saved a few bucks and a few ounces by not going there.

Quote:
It's the same size, same weight, same CPU, same battery life, with a constantly glared screen!!!!

Not really.
post #144 of 384
YAYYY

___________________
iPhone, iPod
Reply
iPhone, iPod
Reply
post #145 of 384
+1
I agree with you for the most part. I'm impressed by the MBP manufacturing process but don't care for the black keyboard and LED bezel. The Macbook is a mini Pro now but its lack of Firewire concerns me. The price points seem high. Apple could drop them like they discounted the original iPhone if they don't sell. Who knows? The Nvidia graphics will be a good move unless Nvidia blows it as they normally do! I prefer glossy screens so that's no biggy.
post #146 of 384
So...What time can i buy it in person tomorrow in nyc?
post #147 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Trouble with that is to get the glossy screen to an angle where it doesn't reflect the light means putting it at a totally unsuable angle and/or contorting my sitting position to fit in with it, which is far from ideal if you are sitting for extended periods.

It was simply the angle the photo was taken at that meant the glossy screen has no flash reflection.

What the glossy screen gives you is a more focussed reflection of any light source, but also reflects a lot more than the matte screen to begin with.





They're actually both at about the same angle with the notebook held up in front of the TFT to take its photo.

But that's not true!

Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.

Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.

ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.

The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.

Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.

Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.

You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.

I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.
post #148 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But that's not true!

Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.

Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.

ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.

The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.

Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.

Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.

You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.

I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.

Well to be honest, I'm not trying to get studio level quality photography, I'm just giving a general usage comparison of a matter and glossy screen.

You're right, the flash isn't any sort of indication of real world usage since few people work with xenon flashes going off behind them constantly. Mind, it was you who raised the point about the original photo showing the glossy screen not reflecting the flash at all, which I was simply correcting since it does.

They're both as unusable as each other in this scenario anyway.

Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!

post #149 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But that's not true!

Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.

Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.

ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.

The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.

Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.

Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.

You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.

I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.

This may help: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/r.../12/08.1.shtml
post #150 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

A camera can never do this, especially when it focuses on the background. Having used a glossy display for a while I can tell you the human eye forgets about the background.

Yes, because your brain is working at erasing that background... As for myself, I would rather have my brain focussing on the work at hand rather than doing real-time reality editing...
post #151 of 384
Well, like my bro said, it's the 80/20 rule. Our loud mouth 20% is not paying the bills, so it's obvious after changing the entire iMac line and now the MBP to the glossy screens that this is what the consumers want. I will have to check it out at the store to see what I think of it. I hope it's nice. I am glad I bought the older model in June, with the education discount and the free iPod make it well worth it. Now the discount is only $100, with no iPod.

I also think the 4 gig upgrade is worth it, as is the increase to 7,200 rpm, unless battery life is a huge issue for you.
post #152 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Well, I never was arguing that matte was a perfect solution either, just that it alleviated the known problems with over saturation and contrast associated with glossy and that it was strongly preferred by graphics professionals. You raise some interesting problems with matte screens that I had not heard of before, but I have known and talked to a lot of graphics professionals over the years and you are the first I have ever heard argue *for* a glossy screen.

Back in the "old" days we used to work in dark rooms wearing black clothing. A small part of that was to prevent reflections, but the rest was to increase the saturation, and apparent blacks to as high a level as possible.

As monitors began to use better phosphors, capable of brighter output, the requirements for those dark rooms began to wane.

All of the top graphics monitors were glossy though. Only the cheaper models were matte. The reason was that matte cut down on stauration and blacks.

When companies stopped making those very high quality monitors, we began to see matte in everything else.

Now, most people are used to matte, and the idea of glossy is odd to them, even for professionals. Unfortunately, because of competitiveness, standards have also gone down in the graphics field.

It used to be that only shops with the experience and money to do it "right" did commercial work. But Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc. brought that down to a much lower level. The cost difference made it difficult for the high end shops to compete on most of the business, and even they reduced their spending. The $10,000 Barco monitors saw fewer sales, and eventually, Barco, and others, dropped out of the graphics business entirely, remaining in the medical, military, and other free spending industries more suited to their products.

What we seem to have now are lower end monitors that are spruced up to graphics levels rather than the other way around. And they are matte.

Quote:
Your comments are not clear though. Are you just gain-saying my argument by pointing out possible problems with matte screens (which is what it appears like), or are you actually arguing that glossy is "better than matte?" Secondary to that point, are you actually arguing that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards over-saturation and contrast? I'm asking because it seems from your wording that you are very carefully not arguing anything at all and really just trying to be clever.

I tried to be as clear as I could, but possibly not clear enough.

First, I'm not trying to be clever. I can't see how you think that. I gave the reasons that exist. That's not trying to be clever.

I don't see you disputing what I said, point by point. You just seem to be dissing what I did say, without saying anything that I can show to be wrong here.

I pointed out that there are benefits to glossy screens for graphics work, as there are. I also pointed out what they were, clearly, I thought.

I am saying that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards to over saturation and contrast. You are correct in saying that.

If you ever look at reviews for monitors, you will see several things that are thought to be of supreme importance, though there are others. You don't even have to know anything about them to see where the reviews are going:

1. sharpness
2. contrast
3. color
4. saturation

The more of all of those (though color accuracy rather than "more" is meant) the better the monitor.

As you say down below, agreeing mostly with I've also been saying:

Quote:
In the end a professional uses calibration, which alleviates a lot of these issues, and the screen part is of much greater importance than the cover or the coating. As I have said though, I have known a lot of people in the field and if you are arguing that glossy is better for professional work, you are in a real minority it seems to me.

I may be in the minority today, because people are used to matte. The one thing it seems to do better, is often considered to be more important than what it does worse. Many professionals today have never seen a high quality glossy graphics display, and what they compare their matte displays to aren't comparable.

As I'm sure you know, its much better to be able to turn saturation, and contrast, down in the calibration process than turning it up. Glossy displays allow that to happen with more regularity than do matte displays, depending on the overall quality of the display, of course.
post #153 of 384
Not to deflect the conversation from the glossy screens, but I have a question about the dual video cards. In terms of outright effectiveness (when plugged in), is a 256 mb dual video card setup going to be the same as a 256 mb single video card, or a 512 mb single video card?

For example, for the upcoming game Starcraft II, specifications are a 256 mb NVidia card as "minimum," and a 512 mb as "recommended." These ratings are for a single video card. Would the base MacBookPro with dual cards rated at 256 mb be "minimum" or "recommended"?
MacBook Pro 2.53GHz 15", Powerbook G4 15"
Reply
MacBook Pro 2.53GHz 15", Powerbook G4 15"
Reply
post #154 of 384
Sometimes I forget how ignorant most of you apple geeks are about hardware. This update was AMAZING technology-wise, and most of you missed it because of your anal-retentive gawkings over the glossy screen.


HUGE tech innovations:

1) The processor speed is pegged at 2.53Ghz. Why is this significant? Because the only mathematical way this works out is if the quad-pumped front side bus runs at 1066 Mhz. (i.e. 1066/4 = 266. 266 * 9.5 = 2533 = 2.53Ghz). THIS IS THE FIRST MASS PRODUCED NOTEBOOK WITH A 1066 FSB!

2) THIS IS THE FIRST MASS PRODUCED NOTEBOOK WITH DDR3 MEMORY! And not just any DDR3, but DDR3 1066 (more evidence of the 1066 FSB)

3) This is the first mass produced notebook, and Nvidia's first release of, a combined discrete GPU (the 9400m) and integrated chipset. This provides the power of a mid-level graphics card with the energy efficiency of integrated graphics.

4) This (might) incorporate multi-platform SLI between with the 9400 and 9600GT. The hardware is there, it's only a matter of whether Apple will provide the drivers to do it.

5) ALL the new latops have LED screens, standard, for the first time.



In short, what we saw today was a hardware revolution.

Yet, most of you people can't get over glossy screens.

LIVE IN THE NOW. GET OVER IT.

I don't even like Mac O/S, but I may buy a new Macbook Pro to run Windows on once the drivers are finalized.

P.S. I do realize that some of the creative professionals have a real need for matte screens.
post #155 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

Well to be honest, I'm not trying to get studio level quality photography, I'm just giving a general usage comparison of a matter and glossy screen.

You're right, the flash isn't any sort of indication of real world usage since few people work with xenon flashes going off behind them constantly. Mind, it was you who raised the point about the original photo showing the glossy screen not reflecting the flash at all, which I was simply correcting since it does.

They're both as unusable as each other in this scenario anyway.

Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!


That's better. however, the laptop is still in a different position, and much lower.

Comparing a large separate monitor and a small laptop screen isn't a fair comparison, if you need to position the angle of the displays differently.

You can't do a really fair test because of that.

That's why I said you need two photos, with the screens in the exact position. That would mean moving the laptop so that the center of its screen is where the center of the monitors screen is, at the same distance from the wall, and taking the pictures from the exact same spot, requiring a tripod, as a few inches would make a big difference.

So, while the big monitor is positioned so that the reflection is positioned fowards, or down, the laptop has its display faced upwards, which naturally makes the reflection also face upwards.

Do you see why this is difficult?

Sometimes, unless you want to think the parameters through all the way to get it right, there's no point in doing it at all.

Sorry for being so critical, as I know you are trying to be helpful, but there must be NO variables other than the surface of the screens.
post #156 of 384
I can't believe it. The most important message of the whole event seemed to be how exciting it is to cut out a notebook shell from a single block of metal.

You know what? I don't care for that sh**. What I care for is having a timeless, state of the art which SUPPORTS my work by adding superior functionality, like apple's macbook pros did. So far.

This design doesn't support a professional. And stripping some ports, not-much increasing speed, leaving weight and battery power the same doesn't really help, too.

I'll probably grab one of the last generations MBPs. They will soon cost a fortune!!!
post #157 of 384
I'm certainly pleased with them. I think I'll have my boss order a 15" for me.
post #158 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I admit I'm really surprised to see the "block" machined cases after all. They do seem to be using a water/slurry technique though, as I said they might.

I don't think they are using a water/slurry technique. Based on the video on the MacBook page on apple's site it looks like they are just using a milling machine. That white watery liquid is just the cutting lubricant for the milling bit.
Addicted to a Mac since the Mac Plus
Reply
Addicted to a Mac since the Mac Plus
Reply
post #159 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

This may help: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/r.../12/08.1.shtml

That's interesting. Most people I've spoken to about this have gone with glossy.
post #160 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchelljd View Post

Apple made a nice incremental improvements and some substantial ones, and lagged elsewhere.

I won't be upgrading because of
1- Glossy Screen
2- Blu-Ray
3- not sold on new trackpad lack of buttons, will need to try it out.

honestly, apple is only coming up with lame excuses for not supporting Blu-Ray, even as an option, at this time.

on MBP, the price is there and so are the interested consumers. Apple ought to stop stifling new technology that competes with their itunes movie store.

pretty damn lame.

This is great for me. do tons of photo work... would like a blu ray burner.. watching blu-ray on a laptop is over kill its a 15 inch montor Beta will look good on it..

I am not sure why people want blu-ray so much.. I needed it for HD video work but never have found the need to use a computer to watch a HD movie. I have a 50inch tv for that stuff..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple releases new 15" MacBook Pro