Supporting the story, there's evidence out there of price action to clear the retail distribution channel. MicroCenter is offering $200 instant rebates on the regularly priced $999 white 13.3" MacBooks and $100 mail-in VISA card rebates on the $1199 13.3" MacBook Pros and $1199 21.5" iMacs. MicroCenter typically does this just before new models come out.
That does not negate the reasoning it DOES in fact exist. Having begun as an artist before moving to accounting I am aware of museum glass. Even if i were not, a perfunctory google search reveals its existence:
As to why the manufacturers choose not to utilize it, that is a question one should ask Samsung or whomever else manufactures the Apple glossy screens.
Do not expect manufacturers to think the obvious, as you or I would, but also do not attack someone for stating it.
A perfect example would be the springboard one obtains by jail breaking an iPhone. It is of such utter common sense one wonders why it was not thought of by the apple engineers, but alas, the supposed hacking community has to show where the messiah is human.
I don't believe museum glass has caustic chemicals. If it did, all those paintings would deteriorate in short fashion.
I would assume it is scratch proof, from personal experience.
Thickness may be an apt reservation.
I don't believe it's weight would be an issue. Pictures do hang on walls, and these paintings usually weigh less than our new LCD televisions.
But to attack someone without performing your own due diligence puts one in the same caliber as the person they feel superior to by attacking them.
Hence....zealotry.
These are all very valid points - I am not going into the forum squabbles.
Museum glass is a tangible option it seems, and apple should better at least be exploring this or other similar ones because the glare issues with the laptops and the imacs are not imaginary. This is not not akin to a demand for flash on the idevices or blu ray drives say, but a very pertinent usability issue that has arisen with apple's stubbornness with the glass surfaces.
I can appreciate that this is their current design cue, but they can't pretend that glares are a non issue. I have seen work environments were lighting conditions cannot be so well controlled were imacs are virtually unusable. Like I said, even if it's not museum glass, they better be considering some solution to this, because the problem there and it won't go away by ignoring it.
PC makers are cheap. They will never use anything but the lowest cost material.
The display makers are just as cheap and will sell the worst quality they can get away with. Only when a big player like Apple demands IPS LCDs do you see anything but TN or the lowest cost vertical alignment screens on the market. The high quality display business is a tiny niche with exorbitant prices.
I cannot see any display maker ever including a special anti-reflective glass without someone like Apple pressing for it and even then it'll come at a hefty price premium.
Apple customers are prepared to pay more to get a better product so cost cannot be the only reason why Apple doesn't use Museum Glass or a competitive solution. My guess is that anti-reflective glass contains some of the harmful chemicals that Apple has fought to eliminate from their machines.
My thought on this has always been that the museum glass may simply not have the strength of the glass currently in use for displays. I mean there seems to be some reason that some display manufacterer is not doing this. It may be great in museums where climate is controlled and the glass is never subjected to any kind of stresses, but in the real world that a laptop has to endure it simply may not cut it.
These are all very valid points - I am not going into the forum squabbles.
Museum glass is a tangible option it seems, and apple should better at least be exploring this or other similar ones because the glare issues with the laptops and the imacs are not imaginary. This is not not akin to a demand for flash on the idevices or blu ray drives say, but a very pertinent usability issue that has arisen with apple's stubbornness with the glass surfaces.
I can appreciate that this is their current design cue, but they can't pretend that glares are a non issue. I have seen work environments were lighting conditions cannot be so well controlled were imacs are virtually unusable. Like I said, even if it's not museum glass, they better be considering some solution to this, because the problem there and it won't go away by ignoring it.
I know this to be true.
Coincidentally, in the industrial applications section they mention consumer electronics as a viable application....
My thought on this has always been that the museum glass may simply not have the strength of the glass currently in use for displays. I mean there seems to be some reason that some display manufacterer is not doing this. It may be great in museums where climate is controlled and the glass is never subjected to any kind of stresses, but in the real world that a laptop has to endure it simply may not cut it.
Even though I am an accountant now, one of my responsibilities for my current position is also to manage our mobile phone accounts.
In the last month there have been 3 iPhones dropped. I am in the process of waiting for kits from Amazon to repair the screens (digitizers).
One of the phones actually had the entire screen (digitizer) and capacitive touch screen LCD replaced and the previous owner actually cracked the replacement screen (digitizer) in an attempt to repair it with a kit from iFixit.
My point in all of this is the current glass used cannot be that strong....
What's the evidence that Museum Glass(R) is any better at eliminating reflections than Apple's current LCD glass with its optical coatings? After all, MG's manufacturer (Tru-Vue) qualifies its "lowest possible reflection" claims with the fact that it's accompanied by UV protection. Do LCDs need UV protection in the way museum pieces do? If not, then perhaps an even less-reflective coating can be (and is already being) used than what Museum Glass provides.
Whatever the case, I hope that they come out soon. I've already placed an order for a Vaio Z and it ships on 4/13, so if they come out before that I'll cancel my order. I just couldn't wait for Apple to get it together anymore. The fact that I was able to get EXACTLY what I wanted without the compromises I would have inevitably had to make with a Macbook Pro is just icing on the cake. And I have to say, having used Windows 7 for the past few days I don't miss OS X as much as I thought I would.
If you had been arround here long enough, you would have seen that this particular individual has posted this point repeatedly, but never discusses it. His knowledge of this special glass and his certainty that it should be used combined with his incessantly bringing it up makes expecting him to have more information a fair complaint.
Seeing as that NO manufacturers are using it, I assume there must be some drawbacks. Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:
1) prohibitively expensive
2) not durable / scratch prone
3) heavy
4) needs to be thick to work properly
Now, I don't know if any of these are true but it seems safe to assume if there were no problems, it would be in use already. And certainly, if I was going to champion this solution repeatedly, I would try to find answers to the logical questions that follow...
Nevertheless,
I've taken FineTunes and backtomac's advice and put these trolls on my ignore list.
I've had this conversation with MacTrpper/SpotOn before. The entire premise is evidence that he's never looked into it. I called the company and spoke to their marketing when he first mentioned this last year. I did research to obtain actual data. Data that he's ignored. For starters, he never mentions the company, just a single product they offer, and not even the right product at that, which can be deemed by 2 seconds on the website.
I could give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using "museum glass" as a generic term but he already makes note of it being trademarked, which rules that out. The better choice is not Museum Glass unless there is an argument to be made that notebook's display panel needs protection from UV light for a few years.I can't think of any. The better fit would be their Reflection Control or AR Reflection-Free products, which is Museum Glass sans UV coating. This also cuts down on cost.
But there are other issues, like the complete lack of CE devices using their technology. They say it's possible but if you can't check out who uses it then it's pointless. Yet another problem is the product offerings. The coatings on the glass are no problem but the only glass they have is 2.5mm thick. If you go for acrylic you can reduce that to 2.3mm (I forget this info but it's all on their webpage. The glass on the MBPs is 1.1mm thick. Can Apple deal with 2.5x the thickness of the glass for the panel? Is 2.5mm the thinnest they can make it? I don't know and MacTripper couldn't give me an answer but he's sure it's only solution for Apple.. and that UV protection is required.
Yet another concern foolishly overlooked as if it's not an issue is the production of this patented product. Does the process take place in the US? Can this company handle the load of 12M Apple PC products, this year, to be sold with their product? Would they agree to Apple's terms for secrecy and the heavy discounts on pricing while applying even more QC than usual and eating additional costs if Apple requires it? Will Apple want to go with a single company to supply nearly all their applicable Macs? Can the coating hold up to stress tests as well as glass, which doesn't scratch easily? What about other options for AR coatings, why this company and only that product from this company?
Like I said, I tried to get info back in the day but they weren't too forthcoming about other implementations. Either they didn't know (which isn't good) or they had reason to keep it so secret (which also isn't good). Either way, it was foolish then and it's foolish now to suggest that Apple is foolish for not using Museum Glass®.
What's the evidence that Museum Glass(R) is any better at eliminating reflections than Apple's current LCD glass with its optical coatings? After all, MG's manufacturer (Tru-Vue) qualifies its "lowest possible reflection" claims with the fact that it's accompanied by UV protection. Do LCDs need UV protection in the way museum pieces do? If not, then perhaps an even less-reflective coating can be (and is already being) used than what Museum Glass provides.
LOL I was just going over the UV point (again) about Museum Glass.
You can already get 15 inch and 17 inch MacBook Pros with matte screens ($50 extra), and I assume that will continue. Don't know about the 13 inchers, though.
I hope this rumor is true. I could use a 640Gb hard disk in the laptop. It would be nice if they make 4Gb RAM standard on the Macbook Pros too. These could have been delayed by 10.6.3 release too.
4 GB is already standard on all the MacBook Pros - in fact, only the cheapest MacBook comes with just 2 GB standard. You ought to check out the Apple website sometime.
4 GB is already standard on all the MacBook Pros - in fact, only the cheapest MacBook comes with just 2 GB standard. You ought to check out the Apple website sometime.
Here's something interesting about the RAM use by notebooks from vendors out of the box. The bottom line is that cheap notebooks need to come with more RAM simply because they need it. Now, you can argue that you can format and reinstall the OS without the crapware or uninstall every hidden piece of preinstalled crapware, but that isn't how they're sold and that isn't what the average buyer does. It's an interesting test...
Well....that destroys the possibility of placing a 2 terabyte drive in my iMac before giving it to my mother.
You really should do some research before spouting nonsense. Apple's policy is that you can replace the hard drive and still be under AppleCare, as long as you don't break anything.
I've taken FineTunes and backtomac's advice and put these trolls on my ignore list.
I've had this conversation with MacTrpper/SpotOn before. The entire premise is evidence that he's never looked into it. I called the company and spoke to their marketing when he first mentioned this last year. I did research to obtain actual data. Data that he's ignored. For starters, he never mentions the company, just a single product they offer, and not even the right product at that, which can be deemed by 2 seconds on the website.
I could give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using "museum glass" as a generic term but he already makes note of it being trademarked, which rules that out. The better choice is not Museum Glass unless there is an argument to be made that notebook's display panel needs protection from UV light for a few years.I can't think of any. The better fit would be their Reflection Control or AR Reflection-Free products, which is Museum Glass sans UV coating. This also cuts down on cost.
But there are other issues, like the complete lack of CE devices using their technology. They say it's possible but if you can't check out who uses it then it's pointless. Yet another problem is the product offerings. The coatings on the glass are no problem but the only glass they have is 2.5mm thick. If you go for acrylic you can reduce that to 2.3mm (I forget this info but it's all on their webpage. The glass on the MBPs is 1.1mm thick. Can Apple deal with 2.5x the thickness of the glass for the panel? Is 2.5mm the thinnest they can make it? I don't know and MacTripper couldn't give me an answer but he's sure it's only solution for Apple.. and that UV protection is required.
Yet another concern foolishly overlooked as if it's not an issue is the production of this patented product. Does the process take place in the US? Can this company handle the load of 12M Apple PC products, this year, to be sold with their product? Would they agree to Apple's terms for secrecy and the heavy discounts on pricing while applying even more QC than usual and eating additional costs if Apple requires it? Will Apple want to go with a single company to supply nearly all their applicable Macs? Can the coating hold up to stress tests as well as glass, which doesn't scratch easily? What about other options for AR coatings, why this company and only that product from this company?
Like I said, I tried to get info back in the day but they weren't too forthcoming about other implementations. Either they didn't know (which isn't good) or they had reason to keep it so secret (which also isn't good). Either way, it was foolish then and it's foolish now to suggest that Apple is foolish for not using Museum Glass®.
Oh my god. He actually read the research material rather than spouting off at how it doesn't exist.
It doesn't replace the fact he has apparently for years looked like an idiot due to not taking 5 seconds to do the research, but hey, its progress. I'll take what I can get.....
BTW, MT or SO, my MBP 17" has a glossy screen and have little if any problems with reflections or glare. Advantages are brilliant colors and SHARP DEFINITIONS, CRISP IMAGES. Trust me did a lot of comparison--side by side--Glossy IMO is best for me. What others want is up to them tired of SOS. PS-why do all the PC's and Netbooks all seem to have glossy screens????????
I was at the Apple store today, and the 15" MacBook Pro with glossy screen didn't look any "crisper" than the matte screen one to me. And I could see the entire matte screen at one time without having to move it around so the part I wanted to look at didn't have lights reflecting in it (the Apple Store has a lot of lights). But that's just me.
I've taken FineTunes and backtomac's advice and put these trolls on my ignore list.
Works for me. I can still comment. Attempts at insults aside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I've had this conversation with MacTrpper/SpotOn before. The entire premise is evidence that he's never looked into it. I called the company and spoke to their marketing when he first mentioned this last year. I did research to obtain actual data. Data that he's ignored. For starters, he never mentions the company, just a single product they offer, and not even the right product at that, which can be deemed by 2 seconds on the website.
This implies he actually did the research way back when. I highly doubt that. I am willing to stake an iPad on the fact he didn't know who this company was until the link was posted today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I could give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using "museum glass" as a generic term but he already makes note of it being trademarked, which rules that out. The better choice is not Museum Glass unless there is an argument to be made that notebook's display panel needs protection from UV light for a few years.I can't think of any. The better fit would be their Reflection Control or AR Reflection-Free products, which is Museum Glass sans UV coating. This also cuts down on cost.
Has he ever been involved in the manufacture of ANYTHING? This I highly doubt as well, so one should not state what they have no knowledge of via lack of experience as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
But there are other issues, like the complete lack of CE devices using their technology. They say it's possible but if you can't check out who uses it then it's pointless. Yet another problem is the product offerings. The coatings on the glass are no problem but the only glass they have is 2.5mm thick. If you go for acrylic you can reduce that to 2.3mm (I forget this info but it's all on their webpage. The glass on the MBPs is 1.1mm thick. Can Apple deal with 2.5x the thickness of the glass for the panel? Is 2.5mm the thinnest they can make it? I don't know and MacTripper couldn't give me an answer but he's sure it's only solution for Apple.. and that UV protection is required.
Black & Decker, Intel, Amazon, Sony, Microsoft....just a few examples of companies with standard Non-disclosure agreements. This statement is almost ludicrous coming from a follower of Apple products. It defeats its own purpose.
Also, the statement also shows there was no knowledge of the company until the link was posted and no further diligence than perusing the site has occurred. Essentially, he tells on himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Yet another concern foolishly overlooked as if it's not an issue is the production of this patented product. Does the process take place in the US? Can this company handle the load of 12M Apple PC products, this year, to be sold with their product? Would they agree to Apple's terms for secrecy and the heavy discounts on pricing while applying even more QC than usual and eating additional costs if Apple requires it? Will Apple want to go with a single company to supply nearly all their applicable Macs? Can the coating hold up to stress tests as well as glass, which doesn't scratch easily? What about other options for AR coatings, why this company and only that product from this company?
This matters WHY, again? The scenario is obvious. The electronics can be manufactured and assembled in China or Taiwan, where all Current Mac Products are made currently, and then shipped to the United States, where they can be inspected by Apple, and then finally the top glass/digitizer layer can be installed, it will be packaged and then shipped.
In an attempt to seem more informed then one actually is they succeeded in displaying how uninformed they actually are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Like I said, I tried to get info back in the day but they weren't too forthcoming about other implementations. Either they didn't know (which isn't good) or they had reason to keep it so secret (which also isn't good). Either way, it was foolish then and it's foolish now to suggest that Apple is foolish for not using Museum Glass®.
That is an outright fallacy. The fact it is a fallacy is quoted in the above statements.
I really wish people would think before speaking. At least re-read what they previously wrote.....
You really should do some research before spouting nonsense. Apple's policy is that you can replace the hard drive and still be under AppleCare, as long as you don't break anything.
And THAT was a BLATANT PERSONAL ATTACK. You led off with the attack and then attempted to follow with something less benign.
It seems to be standard practice here, apparently.
And THAT was a BLATANT PERSONAL ATTACK. You led off with the attack and then attempted to follow with something less benign.
It seems to be standard practice here, apparently.
The fact is, you were wrong in your assumptions about AppleCare and about not being able to replace the hard drive without violating the warranty, which you stated in several different posts. Sorry if my language was too strong.
The fact is, you were wrong in your assumptions about AppleCare and about not being able to replace the hard drive without violating the warranty, which you stated in several different posts. Sorry if my language was too strong.
The fact is you have been called out for initiating a personal attack and are now hoping the moderators have not noticed this.
Of course, the correct way to avoid that is simple:
Don't engage in personal attacks.
Interesting how that works out, isn't it?
Also, I HAVE apple care. It will still be active when I pass this iMac extreme to my mother in place of a new apple set up. I personally asked apple, their tech support, and all associated reps if my replacing the hard drive would void my warranty and was told it not only would but also that my only option for upgrading the drive was (over) paying them to install an apple approved drive, which at that time still only capped out to a terabyte.
Apparently they were misinformed?
Due to what I know has occurred just sending iPhones in for repair, I am unsure I would like to send my mac with my HDD to apple to repair. I feel I may have to wipe my drive first, in case they actually succeed in losing the unit.
Ironically, my posting "style" is an exact carbon copy of someone else posting here, if they actually elected to be polite in their statements rather than attempting to display their transparent attempt at superiority.
This can be verified by doing something as simple as an "all post from this user" search.
Amazingly, the ignore list works quite well. Though I can always see the result of the resident bullies in the responses to their posts.
Comments
That does not negate the reasoning it DOES in fact exist. Having begun as an artist before moving to accounting I am aware of museum glass. Even if i were not, a perfunctory google search reveals its existence:
http://www.tru-vue.com/Tru-Vue/Products/33/
As to why the manufacturers choose not to utilize it, that is a question one should ask Samsung or whomever else manufactures the Apple glossy screens.
Do not expect manufacturers to think the obvious, as you or I would, but also do not attack someone for stating it.
A perfect example would be the springboard one obtains by jail breaking an iPhone. It is of such utter common sense one wonders why it was not thought of by the apple engineers, but alas, the supposed hacking community has to show where the messiah is human.
I don't believe museum glass has caustic chemicals. If it did, all those paintings would deteriorate in short fashion.
I would assume it is scratch proof, from personal experience.
Thickness may be an apt reservation.
I don't believe it's weight would be an issue. Pictures do hang on walls, and these paintings usually weigh less than our new LCD televisions.
But to attack someone without performing your own due diligence puts one in the same caliber as the person they feel superior to by attacking them.
Hence....zealotry.
These are all very valid points - I am not going into the forum squabbles.
Museum glass is a tangible option it seems, and apple should better at least be exploring this or other similar ones because the glare issues with the laptops and the imacs are not imaginary. This is not not akin to a demand for flash on the idevices or blu ray drives say, but a very pertinent usability issue that has arisen with apple's stubbornness with the glass surfaces.
I can appreciate that this is their current design cue, but they can't pretend that glares are a non issue. I have seen work environments were lighting conditions cannot be so well controlled were imacs are virtually unusable. Like I said, even if it's not museum glass, they better be considering some solution to this, because the problem there and it won't go away by ignoring it.
PC makers are cheap. They will never use anything but the lowest cost material.
The display makers are just as cheap and will sell the worst quality they can get away with. Only when a big player like Apple demands IPS LCDs do you see anything but TN or the lowest cost vertical alignment screens on the market. The high quality display business is a tiny niche with exorbitant prices.
I cannot see any display maker ever including a special anti-reflective glass without someone like Apple pressing for it and even then it'll come at a hefty price premium.
Apple customers are prepared to pay more to get a better product so cost cannot be the only reason why Apple doesn't use Museum Glass or a competitive solution. My guess is that anti-reflective glass contains some of the harmful chemicals that Apple has fought to eliminate from their machines.
My thought on this has always been that the museum glass may simply not have the strength of the glass currently in use for displays. I mean there seems to be some reason that some display manufacterer is not doing this. It may be great in museums where climate is controlled and the glass is never subjected to any kind of stresses, but in the real world that a laptop has to endure it simply may not cut it.
These are all very valid points - I am not going into the forum squabbles.
Museum glass is a tangible option it seems, and apple should better at least be exploring this or other similar ones because the glare issues with the laptops and the imacs are not imaginary. This is not not akin to a demand for flash on the idevices or blu ray drives say, but a very pertinent usability issue that has arisen with apple's stubbornness with the glass surfaces.
I can appreciate that this is their current design cue, but they can't pretend that glares are a non issue. I have seen work environments were lighting conditions cannot be so well controlled were imacs are virtually unusable. Like I said, even if it's not museum glass, they better be considering some solution to this, because the problem there and it won't go away by ignoring it.
I know this to be true.
Coincidentally, in the industrial applications section they mention consumer electronics as a viable application....
My thought on this has always been that the museum glass may simply not have the strength of the glass currently in use for displays. I mean there seems to be some reason that some display manufacterer is not doing this. It may be great in museums where climate is controlled and the glass is never subjected to any kind of stresses, but in the real world that a laptop has to endure it simply may not cut it.
Even though I am an accountant now, one of my responsibilities for my current position is also to manage our mobile phone accounts.
In the last month there have been 3 iPhones dropped. I am in the process of waiting for kits from Amazon to repair the screens (digitizers).
One of the phones actually had the entire screen (digitizer) and capacitive touch screen LCD replaced and the previous owner actually cracked the replacement screen (digitizer) in an attempt to repair it with a kit from iFixit.
My point in all of this is the current glass used cannot be that strong....
If you had been arround here long enough, you would have seen that this particular individual has posted this point repeatedly, but never discusses it. His knowledge of this special glass and his certainty that it should be used combined with his incessantly bringing it up makes expecting him to have more information a fair complaint.
Seeing as that NO manufacturers are using it, I assume there must be some drawbacks. Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:
1) prohibitively expensive
2) not durable / scratch prone
3) heavy
4) needs to be thick to work properly
Now, I don't know if any of these are true but it seems safe to assume if there were no problems, it would be in use already. And certainly, if I was going to champion this solution repeatedly, I would try to find answers to the logical questions that follow...
Nevertheless,
I've taken FineTunes and backtomac's advice and put these trolls on my ignore list.
I've had this conversation with MacTrpper/SpotOn before. The entire premise is evidence that he's never looked into it. I called the company and spoke to their marketing when he first mentioned this last year. I did research to obtain actual data. Data that he's ignored. For starters, he never mentions the company, just a single product they offer, and not even the right product at that, which can be deemed by 2 seconds on the website.
I could give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using "museum glass" as a generic term but he already makes note of it being trademarked, which rules that out. The better choice is not Museum Glass unless there is an argument to be made that notebook's display panel needs protection from UV light for a few years.I can't think of any. The better fit would be their Reflection Control or AR Reflection-Free products, which is Museum Glass sans UV coating. This also cuts down on cost.
But there are other issues, like the complete lack of CE devices using their technology. They say it's possible but if you can't check out who uses it then it's pointless. Yet another problem is the product offerings. The coatings on the glass are no problem but the only glass they have is 2.5mm thick. If you go for acrylic you can reduce that to 2.3mm (I forget this info but it's all on their webpage. The glass on the MBPs is 1.1mm thick. Can Apple deal with 2.5x the thickness of the glass for the panel? Is 2.5mm the thinnest they can make it? I don't know and MacTripper couldn't give me an answer but he's sure it's only solution for Apple.. and that UV protection is required.
Yet another concern foolishly overlooked as if it's not an issue is the production of this patented product. Does the process take place in the US? Can this company handle the load of 12M Apple PC products, this year, to be sold with their product? Would they agree to Apple's terms for secrecy and the heavy discounts on pricing while applying even more QC than usual and eating additional costs if Apple requires it? Will Apple want to go with a single company to supply nearly all their applicable Macs? Can the coating hold up to stress tests as well as glass, which doesn't scratch easily? What about other options for AR coatings, why this company and only that product from this company?
Like I said, I tried to get info back in the day but they weren't too forthcoming about other implementations. Either they didn't know (which isn't good) or they had reason to keep it so secret (which also isn't good). Either way, it was foolish then and it's foolish now to suggest that Apple is foolish for not using Museum Glass®.
What's the evidence that Museum Glass(R) is any better at eliminating reflections than Apple's current LCD glass with its optical coatings? After all, MG's manufacturer (Tru-Vue) qualifies its "lowest possible reflection" claims with the fact that it's accompanied by UV protection. Do LCDs need UV protection in the way museum pieces do? If not, then perhaps an even less-reflective coating can be (and is already being) used than what Museum Glass provides.
LOL I was just going over the UV point (again) about Museum Glass.
Matte screen please.
You can already get 15 inch and 17 inch MacBook Pros with matte screens ($50 extra), and I assume that will continue. Don't know about the 13 inchers, though.
I hope this rumor is true. I could use a 640Gb hard disk in the laptop. It would be nice if they make 4Gb RAM standard on the Macbook Pros too. These could have been delayed by 10.6.3 release too.
4 GB is already standard on all the MacBook Pros - in fact, only the cheapest MacBook comes with just 2 GB standard. You ought to check out the Apple website sometime.
4 GB is already standard on all the MacBook Pros - in fact, only the cheapest MacBook comes with just 2 GB standard. You ought to check out the Apple website sometime.
The cheapest MacBook Pro actually comes with 2GB. http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...co=MTM3NDczMDY
Here's something interesting about the RAM use by notebooks from vendors out of the box. The bottom line is that cheap notebooks need to come with more RAM simply because they need it. Now, you can argue that you can format and reinstall the OS without the crapware or uninstall every hidden piece of preinstalled crapware, but that isn't how they're sold and that isn't what the average buyer does. It's an interesting test...
Well....that destroys the possibility of placing a 2 terabyte drive in my iMac before giving it to my mother.
You really should do some research before spouting nonsense. Apple's policy is that you can replace the hard drive and still be under AppleCare, as long as you don't break anything.
I've taken FineTunes and backtomac's advice and put these trolls on my ignore list.
I've had this conversation with MacTrpper/SpotOn before. The entire premise is evidence that he's never looked into it. I called the company and spoke to their marketing when he first mentioned this last year. I did research to obtain actual data. Data that he's ignored. For starters, he never mentions the company, just a single product they offer, and not even the right product at that, which can be deemed by 2 seconds on the website.
I could give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using "museum glass" as a generic term but he already makes note of it being trademarked, which rules that out. The better choice is not Museum Glass unless there is an argument to be made that notebook's display panel needs protection from UV light for a few years.I can't think of any. The better fit would be their Reflection Control or AR Reflection-Free products, which is Museum Glass sans UV coating. This also cuts down on cost.
But there are other issues, like the complete lack of CE devices using their technology. They say it's possible but if you can't check out who uses it then it's pointless. Yet another problem is the product offerings. The coatings on the glass are no problem but the only glass they have is 2.5mm thick. If you go for acrylic you can reduce that to 2.3mm (I forget this info but it's all on their webpage. The glass on the MBPs is 1.1mm thick. Can Apple deal with 2.5x the thickness of the glass for the panel? Is 2.5mm the thinnest they can make it? I don't know and MacTripper couldn't give me an answer but he's sure it's only solution for Apple.. and that UV protection is required.
Yet another concern foolishly overlooked as if it's not an issue is the production of this patented product. Does the process take place in the US? Can this company handle the load of 12M Apple PC products, this year, to be sold with their product? Would they agree to Apple's terms for secrecy and the heavy discounts on pricing while applying even more QC than usual and eating additional costs if Apple requires it? Will Apple want to go with a single company to supply nearly all their applicable Macs? Can the coating hold up to stress tests as well as glass, which doesn't scratch easily? What about other options for AR coatings, why this company and only that product from this company?
Like I said, I tried to get info back in the day but they weren't too forthcoming about other implementations. Either they didn't know (which isn't good) or they had reason to keep it so secret (which also isn't good). Either way, it was foolish then and it's foolish now to suggest that Apple is foolish for not using Museum Glass®.
Oh my god. He actually read the research material rather than spouting off at how it doesn't exist.
It doesn't replace the fact he has apparently for years looked like an idiot due to not taking 5 seconds to do the research, but hey, its progress. I'll take what I can get.....
Are you sure, MT?
BTW, MT or SO, my MBP 17" has a glossy screen and have little if any problems with reflections or glare. Advantages are brilliant colors and SHARP DEFINITIONS, CRISP IMAGES. Trust me did a lot of comparison--side by side--Glossy IMO is best for me. What others want is up to them tired of SOS. PS-why do all the PC's and Netbooks all seem to have glossy screens????????
I was at the Apple store today, and the 15" MacBook Pro with glossy screen didn't look any "crisper" than the matte screen one to me. And I could see the entire matte screen at one time without having to move it around so the part I wanted to look at didn't have lights reflecting in it (the Apple Store has a lot of lights). But that's just me.
I've taken FineTunes and backtomac's advice and put these trolls on my ignore list.
Works for me. I can still comment. Attempts at insults aside.
I've had this conversation with MacTrpper/SpotOn before. The entire premise is evidence that he's never looked into it. I called the company and spoke to their marketing when he first mentioned this last year. I did research to obtain actual data. Data that he's ignored. For starters, he never mentions the company, just a single product they offer, and not even the right product at that, which can be deemed by 2 seconds on the website.
This implies he actually did the research way back when. I highly doubt that. I am willing to stake an iPad on the fact he didn't know who this company was until the link was posted today.
I could give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using "museum glass" as a generic term but he already makes note of it being trademarked, which rules that out. The better choice is not Museum Glass unless there is an argument to be made that notebook's display panel needs protection from UV light for a few years.I can't think of any. The better fit would be their Reflection Control or AR Reflection-Free products, which is Museum Glass sans UV coating. This also cuts down on cost.
Has he ever been involved in the manufacture of ANYTHING? This I highly doubt as well, so one should not state what they have no knowledge of via lack of experience as fact.
But there are other issues, like the complete lack of CE devices using their technology. They say it's possible but if you can't check out who uses it then it's pointless. Yet another problem is the product offerings. The coatings on the glass are no problem but the only glass they have is 2.5mm thick. If you go for acrylic you can reduce that to 2.3mm (I forget this info but it's all on their webpage. The glass on the MBPs is 1.1mm thick. Can Apple deal with 2.5x the thickness of the glass for the panel? Is 2.5mm the thinnest they can make it? I don't know and MacTripper couldn't give me an answer but he's sure it's only solution for Apple.. and that UV protection is required.
Black & Decker, Intel, Amazon, Sony, Microsoft....just a few examples of companies with standard Non-disclosure agreements. This statement is almost ludicrous coming from a follower of Apple products. It defeats its own purpose.
Also, the statement also shows there was no knowledge of the company until the link was posted and no further diligence than perusing the site has occurred. Essentially, he tells on himself.
Yet another concern foolishly overlooked as if it's not an issue is the production of this patented product. Does the process take place in the US? Can this company handle the load of 12M Apple PC products, this year, to be sold with their product? Would they agree to Apple's terms for secrecy and the heavy discounts on pricing while applying even more QC than usual and eating additional costs if Apple requires it? Will Apple want to go with a single company to supply nearly all their applicable Macs? Can the coating hold up to stress tests as well as glass, which doesn't scratch easily? What about other options for AR coatings, why this company and only that product from this company?
This matters WHY, again? The scenario is obvious. The electronics can be manufactured and assembled in China or Taiwan, where all Current Mac Products are made currently, and then shipped to the United States, where they can be inspected by Apple, and then finally the top glass/digitizer layer can be installed, it will be packaged and then shipped.
In an attempt to seem more informed then one actually is they succeeded in displaying how uninformed they actually are.
Like I said, I tried to get info back in the day but they weren't too forthcoming about other implementations. Either they didn't know (which isn't good) or they had reason to keep it so secret (which also isn't good). Either way, it was foolish then and it's foolish now to suggest that Apple is foolish for not using Museum Glass®.
That is an outright fallacy. The fact it is a fallacy is quoted in the above statements.
I really wish people would think before speaking. At least re-read what they previously wrote.....
You really should do some research before spouting nonsense. Apple's policy is that you can replace the hard drive and still be under AppleCare, as long as you don't break anything.
And THAT was a BLATANT PERSONAL ATTACK. You led off with the attack and then attempted to follow with something less benign.
It seems to be standard practice here, apparently.
And THAT was a BLATANT PERSONAL ATTACK. You led off with the attack and then attempted to follow with something less benign.
It seems to be standard practice here, apparently.
The fact is, you were wrong in your assumptions about AppleCare and about not being able to replace the hard drive without violating the warranty, which you stated in several different posts. Sorry if my language was too strong.
The fact is, you were wrong in your assumptions about AppleCare and about not being able to replace the hard drive without violating the warranty, which you stated in several different posts. Sorry if my language was too strong.
The fact is you have been called out for initiating a personal attack and are now hoping the moderators have not noticed this.
Of course, the correct way to avoid that is simple:
Don't engage in personal attacks.
Interesting how that works out, isn't it?
Also, I HAVE apple care. It will still be active when I pass this iMac extreme to my mother in place of a new apple set up. I personally asked apple, their tech support, and all associated reps if my replacing the hard drive would void my warranty and was told it not only would but also that my only option for upgrading the drive was (over) paying them to install an apple approved drive, which at that time still only capped out to a terabyte.
Apparently they were misinformed?
Due to what I know has occurred just sending iPhones in for repair, I am unsure I would like to send my mac with my HDD to apple to repair. I feel I may have to wipe my drive first, in case they actually succeed in losing the unit.
Ironically, my posting "style" is an exact carbon copy of someone else posting here, if they actually elected to be polite in their statements rather than attempting to display their transparent attempt at superiority.
This can be verified by doing something as simple as an "all post from this user" search.
Amazingly, the ignore list works quite well. Though I can always see the result of the resident bullies in the responses to their posts.