or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury - Page 5

post #161 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

the SONY Hybrid patented screen used in the TT line- hands down the best.

Is it a hybrid matte/glossy? Or does the hybrid refer to something else? Could this type of coating be applied to the glass covering style as used in Apple's stuff?

I personally love the fact that I can push in on the screen without any puddling. It is a valuable feature that some portion of the consumer base would likely not want to see go.

I remember back in the days of CRT there were many types of proprietary coatings and treatments designed to reduce glare, on both glossy and matte screens. Part of the process of selecting a monitor was your preference of one style over another, isn't this the same thing?

Of course it is a bit more contentious when it comes to a laptop screen as you are also choosing the hardware and some may be "forced" to compromise on things like the screen.
post #162 of 333
I too originally thought that the glossy screens were terrible. Then I had to replace my 1st gen 17" Macbook pro. I saw the matte option at Macworld and it looked cheesy. Like they took an old screen from the last gen and bolted it on the new one, no finesse at all. The issue with the reflection is easily fixed by making sure you're not working in an environment that has a lot of light sources to create glare or reflections that would distract you. Anybody that's been using computers for more than 15 years should remember that in the early 90's glare was a real problem on CRTs.

I also followed some advice on Apple's discussion groups and found out that the glossy screen is better than the matte color-wise. You may disagree if you ever see one at the Applestore since they look terrible there. The reason is that they aren't calibrated. You will have to invest in a calibrator to get the right gamut, but when you do, the results are astounding. It completely blows away my old matte screen and external flat panels with the same calibrator on it. Buy a cheap spyder calibrator, they are easy to use and are fast at calibrating.

Although there are some issues with some people getting defective glossy screens, that shouldn't dissuade you into getting one, just make sure you are happy with it and don't let Apple slide if you think you have a defective one. Most of those people bought early this year, mine is about a month old, so I think they fixed this issue.
post #163 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jglavin View Post

Anyone care to provide an example of a glossy screen that defeats glare more effectively than Apple's line.

Feel free, any time now.

Actually you are correct.

Glare (vision) is difficulty seeing in the presence of very bright light such as direct or reflected sunlight, or artificial light such as car headlights at night.

Glare should not be confused with reflection.

Reflection on the other hand is the change in direction of a wave at an interface which makes it return to the original medium. A mirror shows your reflection because the light on you is brighter than the light shining directly on the mirror' surface.

Apples' new backlit LED actually reduces glare by emitting light, so that any external light shining directly on it is proportionally lower. That is why the new glossy Macbooks work exceptionally well outdoors, even on a bright sunny day. The matte Macbook Pro 17" wouldn't reduce glare as much because the emitted light is being diffused.

The simplest way to reduce reflection besides adjusting the angle of light hitting the surface of the monitor, is to decrease the amount of light on the objects in front of the monitor, or increase the amount of light behind or coming from the monitor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glare_(vision)
http://www.azooptics.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=79
post #164 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


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.

Hahaha...nice. I'm pretty sure mechengit is a Facilities Management Lighting Engineer, although I'd ask to see his/her badge first.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #165 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jglavin View Post

Is it a hybrid matte/glossy? Or does the hybrid refer to something else? Could this type of coating be applied to the glass covering style as used in Apple's stuff?

I personally love the fact that I can push in on the screen without any puddling. It is a valuable feature that some portion of the consumer base would likely not want to see go.

I remember back in the days of CRT there were many types of proprietary coatings and treatments designed to reduce glare, on both glossy and matte screens. Part of the process of selecting a monitor was your preference of one style over another, isn't this the same thing?

Of course it is a bit more contentious when it comes to a laptop screen as you are also choosing the hardware and some may be "forced" to compromise on things like the screen.

It's a hybrid glossy/matte- very cool. You can view it very easily at an angle. Check it out at any Best buy - you'll be struck how the glare from the flourescent lights is minimal.
post #166 of 333
Ok, let the whining begin. There are those in favor of glossy screens and there are those in favor of matte screens. Right? Well, how many of those hav actually tried working 8 hours a day with both matte and glossy screens? I have and here are my 2 cents.

I previously had a 17" MBP old style with matte screen and a 23" cinema display. Both worked great. But I updated to a brand new 15" glossy MBP and a 24" glossy cinema display. I worked with those for about a week and then enough was enough. I returned both the new cinema display and the MBP and returned to my old 17" matte MP and my old 23" matte cinema display and it was bliss.

I'm still interested in upgrading so instead I bought a 250GB vortex SSD for my old MBP which was great and now I kind of consider buying a 30" matte cinema display while they are still for sale.

For me, glossy is not an option. Not any more. I have not tried the new 17" MBP with anti glare yet but I'm kind of interested but I guess that I will have to see one first before buying.
post #167 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Apples' new backlit LED actually reduces glare by emitting light, so that any external light shining directly on it is proportionally lower. That is why the new glossy Macbooks work exceptionally well outdoors, even on a bright sunny day. The matte Macbook Pro 17" wouldn't reduce glare as much because the emitted light is being diffused.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glare_(vision)
http://www.azooptics.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=79

There you confirmed it- the iMac and MacBook glossy screens, which are basically LCD's under glass, are good for sheet compared to their pri0r matte counterparts.
post #168 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

Taking several quotes out from me only goes to show that your understanding of "choosing glossy means being ignorant" is based on your own deduction.

Actually, it's exactly what you said. You may have meant something different but if that is the case I think you should have worded it differently. Having said that, I would like if there was the option for a matte display. The glossy I have now does bother me on rare occassions BUT provides more color depth. It's something I'd like to be able to compare side by side and make a decision on. It's all a matter of personal preference. I hate ultra glossy plasma TV's but some people prefer them.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #169 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltman View Post

Ok, let the whining begin. There are those in favor of glossy screens and there are those in favor of matte screens. Right? Well, how many of those hav actually tried working 8 hours a day with both matte and glossy screens? I have and here are my 2 cents.

I previously had a 17" MBP old style with matte screen and a 23" cinema display. Both worked great. But I updated to a brand new 15" glossy MBP and a 24" glossy cinema display. I worked with those for about a week and then enough was enough. I returned both the new cinema display and the MBP and returned to my old 17" matte MP and my old 23" matte cinema display and it was bliss.

I'm still interested in upgrading so instead I bought a 250GB vortex SSD for my old MBP which was great and now I kind of consider buying a 30" matte cinema display while they are still for sale.

For me, glossy is not an option. Not any more. I have not tried the new 17" MBP with anti glare yet but I'm kind of interested but I guess that I will have to see one first before buying.

The new 17 "matte in gorgeous and will eventually return in all the models- IMO. The reason it is only available is because it was the last size laptop produced not because no one wants it.
I wll buy the new 13" LED model not because the screen is my choiuce buy because I have no option. I mean how long can I wait? At least now it is a brighter Pro LED not average LED like the previous 13" UNibody.
post #170 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post

I too originally thought that the glossy screens were terrible. Then I had to replace my 1st gen 17" Macbook pro. I saw the matte option at Macworld and it looked cheesy. Like they took an old screen from the last gen and bolted it on the new one, no finesse at all. The issue with the reflection is easily fixed by making sure you're not working in an environment that has a lot of light sources to create glare or reflections that would distract you. Anybody that's been using computers for more than 15 years should remember that in the early 90's glare was a real problem on CRTs.

I also followed some advice on Apple's discussion groups and found out that the glossy screen is better than the matte color-wise. You may disagree if you ever see one at the Applestore since they look terrible there. The reason is that they aren't calibrated. You will have to invest in a calibrator to get the right gamut, but when you do, the results are astounding. It completely blows away my old matte screen and external flat panels with the same calibrator on it. Buy a cheap spyder calibrator, they are easy to use and are fast at calibrating.

Although there are some issues with some people getting defective glossy screens, that shouldn't dissuade you into getting one, just make sure you are happy with it and don't let Apple slide if you think you have a defective one. Most of those people bought early this year, mine is about a month old, so I think they fixed this issue.

Not really. The problem in the stores is due to the relative position of the screens on the display tables and yourself, and equally important, the relative position of the overhead florescent lights onto the screens and/or yourself. In effect, the room is too bright and the table displays too low.

Notice in the SONY Stores, how the all their monitors in the brightly lit front part of the store show some degree of reflection while those at the back in the darkened showrooms are without.
post #171 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltman View Post

Ok, let the whining begin. There are those in favor of glossy screens and there are those in favor of matte screens. Right? Well, how many of those hav actually tried working 8 hours a day with both matte and glossy screens? I have and here are my 2 cents.

I previously had a 17" MBP old style with matte screen and a 23" cinema display. Both worked great. But I updated to a brand new 15" glossy MBP and a 24" glossy cinema display. I worked with those for about a week and then enough was enough. I returned both the new cinema display and the MBP and returned to my old 17" matte MP and my old 23" matte cinema display and it was bliss.

I'm still interested in upgrading so instead I bought a 250GB vortex SSD for my old MBP which was great and now I kind of consider buying a 30" matte cinema display while they are still for sale.

For me, glossy is not an option. Not any more. I have not tried the new 17" MBP with anti glare yet but I'm kind of interested but I guess that I will have to see one first before buying.

What exactly did you not like about the glossy screens? Did you have a lot of glare or reflections, or was it the colors seemed more purple and out of gamut? Did you calibrate them? Just wondering, since I thought I would have the same outcome as you. I thought I would have wanted the matte option, but seeing it looked muted to me. Although a lot of people who are used to the matte screens think the glossy ones have too much saturation. That may or may not be true if they aren't calibrated.
post #172 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Not really. The problem in the stores is due to the relative position of the screens on the display tables and yourself, and equally important, the relative position of the overhead florescent lights onto the screens and/or yourself. In effect, the room is too bright and the table displays too low.

Notice in the SONY Stores, how the all their monitors in the brightly lit front part of the store show some degree of reflection while those at the back in the darkened showrooms are without.

Yes really. The salespeople told me that they don't calibrate the screens with colorsync at all, they just use the default profile. The default profile is waay too purple. Mine was out of the box and it scared me until I hooked up my spyder to it and ran the software. You do have a point about it being to low and the lights may affect the reflection and or glare, but if they took the time to setup the machines correctly, they would look a hell of a lot better.
post #173 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post

What exactly did you not like about the glossy screens? Did you have a lot of glare or reflections, or was it the colors seemed more purple and out of gamut? Did you calibrate them? Just wondering, since I thought I would have the same outcome as you. I thought I would have wanted the matte option, but seeing it looked muted to me. Although a lot of people who are used to the matte screens think the glossy ones have too much saturation. That may or may not be true if they aren't calibrated.

The problem was glare and reflections. I work as a senior software developer so gamut, saturation etc is not a very big deal for me.
post #174 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Notice in the SONY Stores, how the all their monitors in the brightly lit front part of the store show some degree of reflection while those at the back in the darkened showrooms are without.

You are talking out your ass. I am in the Sony Style Madison Ave store once a week. The laptops don't show glare because they are a patented hybrid (matte/glossy) technology that no one else has. These screen not only are under bright lights but also under bright windows. What are you talking about?
post #175 of 333
wtf I've had ZERO change in posture since I bought my new MBP 15-inch.
post #176 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


The advisory, published a few months ago by the Centre for Teckstudian Logic at the 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.

Small edit to improve readability.
post #177 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

Small edit to improve readability.

IS a PATROLL a troll with a Prince Albert?
post #178 of 333
You know, I just realized that all the pictures of the Macbooks/iMacs in Apple's store show a bit of glare partially obscuring the picture.
post #179 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

I already responded earlier and ironically you started this rhetoric topic again by misreading my post yourself. Maybe I'm harsh and there are points that I didn't make clear, but that doesn't justify the misinterpretation that some few people have made, especially the "whoever use glossy screen are ignorant" statement.

I've never said that matte screen is necessarily better than glossy screen. The point of mentioning anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen. This doesn't mean matte screen is better than glossy screen and that is not my point at all. What I'm criticizing is the fact that Apple acknowledge the glare issue but chose not to improve the glossy screen even though they can because many users either don't acknowledge the issue or chose to ignore the issue that can be fixed, which is ignorant. This does not mean that whoever use glossy screen are ignorant AT ALL.

Some people just like to tense up when they hear different opinions from theirs.

You said that most are ignorant. To backpeddle to state that you not referring to purchase decisions of glossy screens is not going to go well for you. You made the comment numerous times without ever stating any objective stance that many matte screen purchasers are also ignorant.

As for the "anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen is simply not true. If the glare issue was the issue then why did not they opt for the cheaper matte display on all there machines? Why have the glossy option at all if they are acknowledging that glare is an issue. Theyve just done a sweeping Mac notebook change and the 17 MBP is still the only one with that option. What you may have meant to say, but didnt, is that Apple has acknowledged that some customers prefer matter displays over glossy. Like myself and others have stated numerous times, even ones that prefer matte, wed like to see Apple offer these options to all their displays and that the choosing of glossy in no way signifys that the preference is ill-informed or foolishly derived.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #180 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jglavin View Post

You know, I just realized that all the pictures of the Macbooks/iMacs in Apple's store show a bit of glare partially obscuring the picture.

In the Fifth Ave Store they teach classes using the old Matte cinema display. Why- NO GLARE!!!
post #181 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

In the Fifth Ave Store they teach classes using the old Matte cinema display. Why- NO GLARE!!!

You cant think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Cant even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the troll label so easily gets placed.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #182 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

In the Fifth Ave Store they teach classes using the old Matte cinema display. Why- NO GLARE!!!

How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.
post #183 of 333
WELL WELL WELL!!!

I had a cracked tooth and needed to see the dentist first thing this morning. So I'm very late to this party to say the least.

It's going to take me some time to read through all the posts here, but let me state my position.


1: I'm for CHOICE! If you like glossy, good for you! I can't use a glossy display at all, it seriously hurts my eyes and I'm not alone on the subject. So all I ask is glossy people respect mine and others need for a matte screen option alongside glossy choices. Everyone wins, there is no "what is better debate", it's subject to variable environmental conditions.

2: Many many polls taken, and more people prefer matte screens than glossy. But it's something like 60% matte 40% glossy on average. Even if it was 40% matte and 60% glossy, the large market share being denied is way too much to ignore.

3: Apple is the only legal provider of OS X as it's tied to their hardware. When Apple makes a computer that 60% of people can't use, what are they supposed to do with thousands of dollars of invested software/files etc?

Right now Apple is losing a sale with me, because I need a new 15" matte MacBook Pro and I can't get it, without having to spend an additional $200 and void my AppleCare/warranty by having TechRestore replace the glossy with a matte screen. And then, what about the next versions of Mac's?, will there be a option to switch the screen? Perhaps not.

Multiply my case by 60% of Mac users out there and you see there is a problem.

Peal and stick anti-glare films totally suck. They trap display heat, bubble and peel, collect dirt. Not good for a top of the line computer system. So that's not a solution.

The first PC company to introduce glossy screens was HP, who has had their eye on the consumer market since the cozy HP/Apple iPod breakup.

It costs MORE to make a glossy screen than a matte one. So why do we have to pay more for a matte screen 17" MacBook Pro? And why no matte screen MacBook Air?

When Phil said "Our customers love glossy screens" does he really mean "We only want to have customers who love glossy screens"??

There are tons of poll results, people's opinions and vital information on this subject if you click on the link "glossy bah humbug" in my signature.

Please take the time and review the information and evaluate. I will then welcome any intelligent responses to the subject.

http://macmatte.wordpress.com/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=2417

Thank you.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #184 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You cant think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Cant even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the troll label so easily gets placed.

Just because you are ignorant and accept glossy/glare gives you no reason for a hissy fit. Now that Apple finally offers matte on the 17 inch Pro you state no one wants matte? And if that's not an ABOSULTE stamentent - than what is?
post #185 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by cima113 View Post

Pifffft!! So sad... this is what they do at university?! Higher learning my @zz!

You are an idiot of the highest caliber. This is not something to be taken lightly. Poor posture can have severe long term health effects on a person. I think that does fall into reasonable research and for you to just blow it off is very telling regarding your level of education.
post #186 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You can’t think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Can’t even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the ‘troll’ label so easily gets placed.

Just because you are ignorant and accept glossy/glare gives you no reason for a hissy fit. Now that Apple finally offers matte on the 17 inch Pro you state no one wants matte? And if that's not an ABSOLUTE statement - than what is?
post #187 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.

No- the logic is that you simply can't view Glossy en masse.
post #188 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

You are an idiot of the highest caliber. This is not something to be taken lightly. Poor posture can have severe long term health effects on a person. I think that does fall into reasonable research and for you to just blow it off is very telling regarding your level of education.

it's totally understandable- these Fanboyz would be willing to get spinal degeneration for Apple if they had to.
post #189 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll View Post

How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

No- the logic is that you simply can't view Glossy en masse.

I am not sure that you can dismiss someone's opinion or conjecture and replace it with your own arbitrary conjecture by just shouting "no". If you worked at the Apple store and knew for a fact that the old displays were used because of glare issues with the new ones, things would be different. As things stand, I stick to the explanation that seems more reasonable - to me at least. Apple is extremely successful financially and demonstrates time and again that it understands the market (public information). It seems implausible that they would risk their financial success by marketing a product which their own staff consider unfit for its intended use. I therefore conclude that the more likely scenario is that Apple, being a well-run company, is "sweating its assets", i.e. uses the old displays for training instead of selling them at half price or putting them in the bin.

Having said that, if you explain in a logical way how you got to your conclusion, we should all be prepared to listen and consider your point of view. Are you able to do that?
post #190 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

WELL WELL WELL!!!

I had a cracked tooth and needed to see the dentist first thing this morning. So I'm very late to this party to say the least.

It's going to take me some time to read through all the posts here, but let me state my position.


1: I'm for CHOICE! If you like glossy, good for you! I can't use a glossy display at all, it seriously hurts my eyes and I'm not alone on the subject. So all I ask is glossy people respect mine and others need for a matte screen option alongside glossy choices. Everyone wins, there is no "what is better debate", it's subject to variable environmental conditions.

2: Many many polls taken, and more people prefer matte screens than glossy. But it's something like 60% matte 40% glossy on average. Even if it was 40% matte and 60% glossy, the large market share being denied is way too much to ignore.

3: Apple is the only legal provider of OS X as it's tied to their hardware. When Apple makes a computer that 60% of people can't use, what are they supposed to do with thousands of dollars of invested software/files etc?

Right now Apple is losing a sale with me, because I need a new 15" matte MacBook Pro and I can't get it, without having to spend an additional $200 and void my AppleCare/warranty by having TechRestore replace the glossy with a matte screen. And then, what about the next versions of Mac's?, will there be a option to switch the screen? Perhaps not.

Multiply my case by 60% of Mac users out there and you see there is a problem.

Peal and stick anti-glare films totally suck. They trap display heat, bubble and peel, collect dirt. Not good for a top of the line computer system. So that's not a solution.

The first PC company to introduce glossy screens was HP, who has had their eye on the consumer market since the cozy HP/Apple iPod breakup.

It costs MORE to make a glossy screen than a matte one. So why do we have to pay more for a matte screen 17" MacBook Pro? And why no matte screen MacBook Air?

When Phil said "Our customers love glossy screens" does he really mean "We only want to have customers who love glossy screens"??

There are tons of poll results, people's opinions and vital information on this subject if you click on the link "glossy bah humbug" in my signature.

Please take the time and review the information and evaluate. I will then welcome any intelligent responses to the subject.

Thank you.

I was wondering if the glass in the 17" is removable like it is on the new iMacs. If it was, couldn't someone make a replacement that is non-glare? You could keep your glass and put it back if you needed to take it in for service.

Apple would move more Macbooks if they could license Sony's technology or create their own non gloss (no glass) option instead of what they are selling now. It's not the same screen as the glossy and unless I'm mistaken, it wouldn't be too hard to offer the same screen without the glass on it.
post #191 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTO View Post

Dam people! Stop whining so much. Grow a pair. Only a bunch of pussies will complain about their back hurting because of a shiny computer screen. This school should be putting their resources into more important things then a back ache because someone up there has a vendetta with Apple for not offering matte LCDs.
There are starving children out there, we are destroying our earth..... Nope let's waist money on trying to shame Apple into offering an anti-glair option on their portable computers...
And if you get a back ache that's fine just make one of your girlfriends rub your back.. Thats what their there for.


Such enlightened views around here. What happened to the metrosexual "I'm a Mac" types?

Anyway, I'm at the age where years of pouring over laptops has given me back problems. Using a laptop brings it back. Not using it makes it go. If I was smart I'd get a job that didn't involve computers.

I used to think all this posture stuff was nonsense. I was wrong, painfully wrong. Chronic back pain is something that everyone should avoid. The sleepless nights give you lots of time to reflect on the mistake if you don't take steps to look after yourself.

I guess the University, like my first University, mainly runs Macs. Hence the Apple angle.
post #192 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ossian View Post

Such enlightened views around here. What happened to the metrosexual "I'm a Mac" types?

Anyway, I'm at the age where years of pouring over laptops has given me back problems. Using a laptop brings it back. Not using it makes it go. If I was smart I'd get a job that didn't involve computers.

I used to think all this posture stuff was nonsense. I was wrong, painfully wrong. Chronic back pain is something that everyone should avoid. The sleepless nights give you lots of time to reflect on the mistake if you don't take steps to look after yourself.

I guess the University, like my first University, mainly runs Macs. Hence the Apple angle.

Well, it sounds like your problem is that you didn't setup your work area correctly, but to be fair, there wasn't a lot of info in the early 90's about proper posture, how high the surface you put your laptop/keyboard is, how far and at what angle you should view the screen, and the use of lighting.
Almost twenty years later and STILL there are a lot of people who don't know these things. OSHA finally made some guidlines:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/comp...ons/index.html

For a lot of people though, the news is too late, the damage has been done. Kind of like the early days of TV when we sat too close to it and now we have to wear glasses and have weird cases of cancer.
post #193 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post

Yes really. The salespeople told me that they don't calibrate the screens with colorsync at all, they just use the default profile. The default profile is waay too purple. Mine was out of the box and it scared me until I hooked up my spyder to it and ran the software. You do have a point about it being to low and the lights may affect the reflection and or glare, but if they took the time to setup the machines correctly, they would look a hell of a lot better.

My reference to calibration was to your use of Spyder. ColorSync, yes. Spyder, never had much use of it, even though my agency had up to 24 Macs running at one time.

Problem in the stores is that it is not layout to setup the machines. Somebody at headoffice has to reorder the furnishings.
post #194 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

If you want to run Mac OS X, it's the only choice. I'm not interested in Linux or any flavor of Windows.

When it came time for me to buy a new external display, I bought a ViewSonic VP2650wb. 26", better specs than the new Apple display and a matte display.

The hostility in regard to people's display preference is idiotic.

There ya go! You bought what best suites your needs. The way it should be done.

If someone else doesn't like the glossy display of the iMac or whatever...go buy a MacMini with the display if your choice and be done with it. Don't sit here and bitch and complain about something that isn't going to change and then call people idiots because they like glossy or matte displays. I'm not buying the computer for you...I'm buying it for myself!

Sometimes it cracks me up how some people on this forum think they can run Apple better than Apple.
post #195 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

My reference to calibration was to your use of Spyder. ColorSync, yes. Spyder, never had much use of it, even though my agency had up to 24 Macs running at one time.

Problem in the stores is that it is not layout to setup the machines. Somebody at headoffice has to reorder the furnishings.

I used to think the same thing, but these new glossy screens are hinted to be wide gamut, even though Apple WON'T say one way or another. Just running Colorsync did little to remove the purple cast on it. Running the Spyder took it away and gave everything a natural look, just like the older screens used to. I used to hate calibrators and support several commercial printers, production houses and two television stations. Only one of them used calibrators, and they hated it.

I came across this thread in Apple's discussion groups and it changed my mind:

http://discussions.apple.com/message...617476#9617476

The user "15" had some very good info on the new glossy screens and their technology, and explained why now it is important to buy and use a calibrator, since "eyeballing" it with Colorsync doesn't remove the purple cast, it just made it less purple. He also goes on to say that a lot of the issues are with Nvidia's driver which is what PC users used to have to muddle thru back in the 90's. This is one reason why it's bad to rely on another company to show off your product, another is AT&T.
post #196 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You said that most are ignorant. To backpeddle to state that you not referring to purchase decisions of glossy screens is not going to go well for you. You made the comment numerous times without ever stating any objective stance that many matte screen purchasers are also ignorant.

I said that many, if not most, consumers are ignorant and I can say that as many times as you want. So... does that mean I said "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant"? Man... you're really cracking me up.

Other people's rationale of choosing matte or glossy is not in my interest at all, so why do I need to state that matte screen purchasers are also ignorant? Just because I need to guard people like you who like to draw conclusions based on your own deduction? Even if I said that "matte screen purchasers are also ignorant" is not going to change anything because you are interpreting people's word based on your own deduction anyway. From all my quotes you took earlier, none of them means "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant". It's more than obvious that the "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" statement is based on your own deduction and now you're accusing me of backpeddling. Backpeddling? Why should I backpeddling from something I've never said. You're so pathetic, though not as nearly pathetic as someone who not only does not want to be opened for discussion and does not give any rational responses, but also keeps back stabbing people on other posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As for the "anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen” is simply not true. If the glare issue was the issue then why did not they opt for the cheaper matte display on all there machines? Why have the glossy option at all if they are acknowledging that glare is an issue.

Let me put your foot into your own month... because glossy screen does have its advantage. "Why did Apple choose not to use a better glossy screens out there that have much lower glare" is the question. Is that a preference matter for some people who happened to like glare? Hopefully not. Giving a matte screen option limited to the 17" high-end model rather than increasing the cost to have a better glossy screen across all models is obviously a much cheaper option to solve the glare issue, especially the group that buy the highest-end model have a higher portion of people that are more aware and intelligible about screen quality.

PLEASE... cut the crap of making your deductions like for example... "oh... so you mean whoever that buys a smaller screen is necessarily less intelligible about their screen than those who buy a bigger screen" You did something like that and I have enough of that already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They’ve just done a sweeping Mac notebook change and the 17” MBP is still the only one with that option. What you may have meant to say, but didn’t, is that Apple has acknowledged that some customers prefer matter displays over glossy. Like myself and others have stated numerous times, even ones that prefer matte, we’d like to see Apple offer these options to all their displays and that the choosing of glossy in no way signifys that the preference is ill-informed or foolishly derived.

Still, why the lower end models don't have such options to choose from? Just because 17” MBP is still the only one with that option since the sweeping change? I don't see that as a valid answer.
post #197 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerofTruth View Post

Well, it sounds like your problem is that you didn't setup your work area correctly, but to be fair, there wasn't a lot of info in the early 90's about proper posture, how high the surface you put your laptop/keyboard is, how far and at what angle you should view the screen, and the use of lighting.
Almost twenty years later and STILL there are a lot of people who don't know these things. OSHA finally made some guidlines:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/comp...ons/index.html

For a lot of people though, the news is too late, the damage has been done. Kind of like the early days of TV when we sat too close to it and now we have to wear glasses and have weird cases of cancer.

We had the option of "workstation assessments" and I thought that was for softies. I was wrong... we are all more fragile than I realised as a young man. All my fault. I guess the point I'm making is do as I say not as I did, and that I can see where the Uni is coming from even though it sounds to many people like interfering. Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for.

Personally I prefer Matte screens however I've never owned a glossy just used other peoples. More choice would be nice.
post #198 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

Other people's rationale of choosing matte or glossy is not in my interest at all...

Now if only you had a glossy display you could use the reflection to help you with all that backpedaling youre doing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #199 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ossian View Post

We had the option of "workstation assessments" and I thought that was for softies. I was wrong... we are all more fragile than I realised as a young man. All my fault. I guess the point I'm making is do as I say not as I did, and that I can see where the Uni is coming from even though it sounds to many people like interfering. Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for.

Personally I prefer Matte screens however I've never owned a glossy just used other peoples. More choice would be nice.

Sorry if my post seemed like an attack, it wasn't. I too suffer from a bad back from improper workstation setups, and like you I and most of my colleagues didn't think that it was important to follow the guidelines once they were established.

"Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for."

AMEN to that.
post #200 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You said that most are ignorant. To backpeddle to state that you not referring to purchase decisions of glossy screens is not going to go well for you. You made the comment numerous times without ever stating any objective stance that many matte screen purchasers are also ignorant.

Yes, I said many, if not most, consumers are ignorant and I can say that as many times as you want. So... does that mean "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant"? Man... you are really cracking me up.

Other people's rationale of choosing matte between glossy is not in my interest, so why do I need to state that matte screen purchasers are also ignorant? Just because I need to guard people like you who like to draw conclusions based on your own deduction? Even if I said that "matte screen purchasers are also ignorant" is not going to change anything because you are interpreting people's word based on your own deduction anyway. From all my quotes you took earlier, none of them are saying that "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant". It's more than obvious that the "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" statement is based on your own deduction and now you're accusing me of backpeddling. You're so pathetic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As for the "anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen” is simply not true. If the glare issue was the issue then why did not they opt for the cheaper matte display on all there machines? Why have the glossy option at all if they are acknowledging that glare is an issue.

Let me put your foot into your own month... because glossy screen does have its advantage. "Why did Apple choose not to use a better glossy screens out there that have much lower glare" is the question. Is that a preference matter for some people who happened to like glare? Hopefully not. Giving a matte screen option limited to the high-end model rather than increasing the cost to fix glare across all models which few people care about is obviously a much cheaper option to solve the glare issue, especially the group that buy the highest-end model have a higher portion of people that are more aware and intelligible about screen quality.

PLEASE... cut the crap of making your deductions like for example... "oh... so you mean whoever that buys a smaller screen is necessarily less intelligible about their screen than those who buy a bigger screen" You did something like that and I have enough of that already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They’ve just done a sweeping Mac notebook change and the 17” MBP is still the only one with that option. What you may have meant to say, but didn’t, is that Apple has acknowledged that some customers prefer matter displays over glossy. Like myself and others have stated numerous times, even ones that prefer matte, we’d like to see Apple offer these options to all their displays and that the choosing of glossy in no way signifys that the preference is ill-informed or foolishly derived.

Still, why the lower end models don't have such options to choose from? Just because 17” MBP is still the only one with that option since the sweeping change? I don't see that as a valid answer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › University claims Apple's glossy screens may cause injury