Probably not loud at all. I don't recall any "Apple has GOT to go gloss!" cries during the matte days.
I think now that people are used to it, they might. But then, CRTs used to be made with a non-matte anti-glare surface and it didn't take long to forget that was ever a possibility. IBM, HP, Compaq, Apple and others offered displays with such a nice surface treatment. It's like the third option that's better than the first two but almost nobody gives it the time of day. Even then, today's LCDs are a lot sharper than displays of the past, so the difference might not have been noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH
You want matte? Slap some plastic on the front of it and done with it.
How many people can apply a large sheet of plastic without getting bubbles under them? It's hard to do for a 3" screen.
Even then, it's probably just matte, rather than a good anti-glare surface.
In my opinion, the current cinema display is amazing. I have one at work and I'm thinking of getting the new one for home. Everyone comments on how "gorgeous" the screen images are. We have Dell monitors in the same size (and literally use the same LCD panel manufacturer as Apple's Cinema Display) in their matte finish. People want the Apple Cinema Displays. They say the Dell monitors look fuzzy after having used the Apple one for awhile. They ask me why Apple's are so much crisper and clearer.
this is exactly what I would expect if people where allowed to choose and didn't have to conform to somebody else's wishes. The fuzzy appearance of matte screens is the big reason for the lack of interest.
Quote:
The glossy doesn't seem be a problem for me on the desktop displays (iMacs or Cinema Display). It has annoyed me on the MacBook Pros. I bought my 17" MacBook Pro with the anti-glare two years ago. Having used my iPhone, iPad, and a glossy MacBook Pro at work from time-to-time, the glossy doesn't seem to be as big of an issue for me now as it was back then. Could I be getting used to glossy?
I likewise purchased a matte screened MBP in 2008. Quickly learned to hate it. The simple fact is reflections are manageable, ruddy looking images on screen aren't.
You could also try changing your lighting in the Mac room, you know? A diffused lighting plan that avoids the fluorescents in the ceiling, and doesn't put your back to the window, gives you the better blacks of a glossy finish and... no reflections.
Though a matte finish is a good compromise, and I agree that you should get the option.
You could also try changing your lighting in the Mac room, you know? A diffused lighting plan that avoids the fluorescents in the ceiling, and doesn't put your back to the window, gives you the better blacks of a glossy finish and... no reflections.
1) Adjusting the environment to fit the user's needs? That's crazy talk¡
2) I wonder why these same people that complain about reflections in a room they have control over aren't complaining about using their iMac on the floor... or did they figure out how to adjust their their environment by using a desk and chair? (see what I did there?)
In my opinion, the current cinema display is amazing. I have one at work and I'm thinking of getting the new one for home. Everyone comments on how "gorgeous" the screen images are. We have Dell monitors in the same size (and literally use the same LCD panel manufacturer as Apple's Cinema Display) in their matte finish. People want the Apple Cinema Displays. They say the Dell monitors look fuzzy after having used the Apple one for awhile. They ask me why Apple's are so much crisper and clearer.
The glossy doesn't seem be a problem for me on the desktop displays (iMacs or Cinema Display). It has annoyed me on the MacBook Pros. I bought my 17" MacBook Pro with the anti-glare two years ago. Having used my iPhone, iPad, and a glossy MacBook Pro at work from time-to-time, the glossy doesn't seem to be as big of an issue for me now as it was back then. Could I be getting used to glossy?
Isn't the difference in clarity related to the fact that most PCs still use RGB analog video output and Apple uses digital output (which it has used for years)?
Isn't the difference in clarity related to the fact that most PCs still use RGB analog video output and Apple uses digital output (which it has used for years)?
No - it's there even if you have DVI, any PC under 5 years old should be using DVI by now, frankly most older should too. A genuinely Matte screen has a surface that is arranged so that reflected light is scattered, but inevitably that introduces a slight blurring to the light being transmitted from below.
If you're in a high reflection environment that may still be preferable, but it is still there. Matte screens aren't strictly better than glossy.
2) I wonder why these same people that complain about reflections in a room they have control over aren't complaining about using their iMac on the floor... or did they figure out how to adjust their their environment by using a desk and chair? (see what I did there?)
You are a very bad man
Now I can't get the image of those poor benighted users stuck on the floor out of my head.
Apple: this is a health and productivity issue. Please, include matte displays, at least as an option.
You best be joking because the facts don't support your statements.
Quote:
You can sign the matte petition at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
Their are a lot of petitions floating about, most of them about a very small minority trying to enforce their beliefs upon the general population. It is onething for these to be directed at Apple, it is entirely different when directed at government. The problem with petitions and government is that we end up with to many I'll conceived laws that affect everybody, but only have the support of a tiny segment of the population. So hopefully you will understand me when I say take your petition and shove it.
No - it's there even if you have DVI, any PC under 5 years old should be using DVI by now, frankly most older should too.
Should, but apparently not all. I just helped install a new computer that only had the analog VGA connector. I was surprised, to say the least. I was also surprised that the screen image wasn't terrible, though I didn't look very long as it wasn't my problem if it was. Still, I don't know how they managed that, I can normally spot the artifacts of an analog computer connection instantly.
Quote:
If you're in a high reflection environment that may still be preferable, but it is still there. Matte screens aren't strictly better than glossy.
Yes, they both have their downsides. Which is why I prefer a good anti-glare rather than matte or gloss, reduced reflections and none of the blurring effects of a matte surface. My 50" TV has it, so it doesn't seem like it should be prohibitively expensive to implement on sheets of glass a quarter of the area of the TV and smaller.
I think now that people are used to it, they might. But then, CRTs used to be made with a non-matte anti-glare surface and it didn't take long to forget that was ever a possibility. IBM, HP, Compaq, Apple and others offered displays with such a nice surface treatment. It's like the third option that's better than the first two but almost nobody gives it the time of day. Even then, today's LCDs are a lot sharper than displays of the past, so the difference might not have been noticed.
How many people can apply a large sheet of plastic without getting bubbles under them? It's hard to do for a 3" screen.
Even then, it's probably just matte, rather than a good anti-glare surface.
It's not air bubbles that are the problem, it's dust particles. If you get the radtech product that I'd linked to earlier, they have a protective sheet over the top so you can use credit cards to smooth out bubbles without getting scratches in the the anti-glare sheet.
I've found the best way to get it to work is to have a helper. One person puts on the sheet, and the second uses compressed air to keep dust off while you go.
My opinion is that glossy is the way to got. The colors and picture are way sharper with the glossy option. If glare is an issue you can always get a cheap solution to solve that. If anything changes you can peel it back off and you're good to go, and get your good picture back. If you go matte though, you're stuck with that forever.
Also the glossy screens are far more durable than matte LCD screens. You don't have to worry about a cleaning solution ruining the plastic of the screen. Also in the case of laptops, you don't run the risk of having the oils from your hands left on the keys burning your display. The Dell laptops we have at work have lots of burns on the screen from the oil on the keys.
Their are a lot of petitions floating about, most of them about a very small minority trying to enforce their beliefs upon the general population. It is onething for these to be directed at Apple, it is entirely different when directed at government. The problem with petitions and government is that we end up with to many I'll conceived laws that affect everybody, but only have the support of a tiny segment of the population. So hopefully you will understand me when I say take your petition and shove it.
What's with the hostility? Chillax. I don't think the petition asks Apple to ditch the glossy screens, I think they just want the option for matte screens on the iMacs and Cinema Displays. How does someone wanting the choice between types of displays impact your life to the extent that you feel the need to be abusive?
How does someone wanting the choice between types of displays impact your life to the extent that you feel the need to be abusive?
Because you can't offer all things to all people. There are costs associated with choice - and when Apple did offer Matte displays, but appropriately charged for the extra cost in doing so, people flew off the handle!
News flash: you don't have the right to have what you want, when you want it, for what you want to pay.
And frankly, I think it's easier for Apple to just not offer the option than take the grief for (appropriately) charging more for it.
Comments
Probably not loud at all. I don't recall any "Apple has GOT to go gloss!" cries during the matte days.
I think now that people are used to it, they might. But then, CRTs used to be made with a non-matte anti-glare surface and it didn't take long to forget that was ever a possibility. IBM, HP, Compaq, Apple and others offered displays with such a nice surface treatment. It's like the third option that's better than the first two but almost nobody gives it the time of day. Even then, today's LCDs are a lot sharper than displays of the past, so the difference might not have been noticed.
You want matte? Slap some plastic on the front of it and done with it.
How many people can apply a large sheet of plastic without getting bubbles under them? It's hard to do for a 3" screen.
Even then, it's probably just matte, rather than a good anti-glare surface.
In my opinion, the current cinema display is amazing. I have one at work and I'm thinking of getting the new one for home. Everyone comments on how "gorgeous" the screen images are. We have Dell monitors in the same size (and literally use the same LCD panel manufacturer as Apple's Cinema Display) in their matte finish. People want the Apple Cinema Displays. They say the Dell monitors look fuzzy after having used the Apple one for awhile. They ask me why Apple's are so much crisper and clearer.
this is exactly what I would expect if people where allowed to choose and didn't have to conform to somebody else's wishes. The fuzzy appearance of matte screens is the big reason for the lack of interest.
The glossy doesn't seem be a problem for me on the desktop displays (iMacs or Cinema Display). It has annoyed me on the MacBook Pros. I bought my 17" MacBook Pro with the anti-glare two years ago. Having used my iPhone, iPad, and a glossy MacBook Pro at work from time-to-time, the glossy doesn't seem to be as big of an issue for me now as it was back then. Could I be getting used to glossy?
I likewise purchased a matte screened MBP in 2008. Quickly learned to hate it. The simple fact is reflections are manageable, ruddy looking images on screen aren't.
Apple: this is a health and productivity issue. Please, include matte displays, at least as an option.
You can sign the matte petition at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com
You could also try changing your lighting in the Mac room, you know? A diffused lighting plan that avoids the fluorescents in the ceiling, and doesn't put your back to the window, gives you the better blacks of a glossy finish and... no reflections.
Though a matte finish is a good compromise, and I agree that you should get the option.
You could also try changing your lighting in the Mac room, you know? A diffused lighting plan that avoids the fluorescents in the ceiling, and doesn't put your back to the window, gives you the better blacks of a glossy finish and... no reflections.
1) Adjusting the environment to fit the user's needs? That's crazy talk¡
2) I wonder why these same people that complain about reflections in a room they have control over aren't complaining about using their iMac on the floor... or did they figure out how to adjust their their environment by using a desk and chair? (see what I did there?)
In my opinion, the current cinema display is amazing. I have one at work and I'm thinking of getting the new one for home. Everyone comments on how "gorgeous" the screen images are. We have Dell monitors in the same size (and literally use the same LCD panel manufacturer as Apple's Cinema Display) in their matte finish. People want the Apple Cinema Displays. They say the Dell monitors look fuzzy after having used the Apple one for awhile. They ask me why Apple's are so much crisper and clearer.
The glossy doesn't seem be a problem for me on the desktop displays (iMacs or Cinema Display). It has annoyed me on the MacBook Pros. I bought my 17" MacBook Pro with the anti-glare two years ago. Having used my iPhone, iPad, and a glossy MacBook Pro at work from time-to-time, the glossy doesn't seem to be as big of an issue for me now as it was back then. Could I be getting used to glossy?
Isn't the difference in clarity related to the fact that most PCs still use RGB analog video output and Apple uses digital output (which it has used for years)?
Isn't the difference in clarity related to the fact that most PCs still use RGB analog video output and Apple uses digital output (which it has used for years)?
No - it's there even if you have DVI, any PC under 5 years old should be using DVI by now, frankly most older should too. A genuinely Matte screen has a surface that is arranged so that reflected light is scattered, but inevitably that introduces a slight blurring to the light being transmitted from below.
If you're in a high reflection environment that may still be preferable, but it is still there. Matte screens aren't strictly better than glossy.
2) I wonder why these same people that complain about reflections in a room they have control over aren't complaining about using their iMac on the floor... or did they figure out how to adjust their their environment by using a desk and chair? (see what I did there?)
You are a very bad man
Now I can't get the image of those poor benighted users stuck on the floor out of my head.
Apple: this is a health and productivity issue. Please, include matte displays, at least as an option.
You best be joking because the facts don't support your statements.
You can sign the matte petition at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
Their are a lot of petitions floating about, most of them about a very small minority trying to enforce their beliefs upon the general population. It is onething for these to be directed at Apple, it is entirely different when directed at government. The problem with petitions and government is that we end up with to many I'll conceived laws that affect everybody, but only have the support of a tiny segment of the population. So hopefully you will understand me when I say take your petition and shove it.
Why Won't 13" MBP Thunderbolt Support Two External 2560 x 1600 Monitors?
Shortcoming of the Intel HD Graphics 3000 built into the CPU.
Or it could be the same reason why iBook G4 did not support extended desktop.
No - it's there even if you have DVI, any PC under 5 years old should be using DVI by now, frankly most older should too.
Should, but apparently not all. I just helped install a new computer that only had the analog VGA connector. I was surprised, to say the least. I was also surprised that the screen image wasn't terrible, though I didn't look very long as it wasn't my problem if it was. Still, I don't know how they managed that, I can normally spot the artifacts of an analog computer connection instantly.
If you're in a high reflection environment that may still be preferable, but it is still there. Matte screens aren't strictly better than glossy.
Yes, they both have their downsides. Which is why I prefer a good anti-glare rather than matte or gloss, reduced reflections and none of the blurring effects of a matte surface. My 50" TV has it, so it doesn't seem like it should be prohibitively expensive to implement on sheets of glass a quarter of the area of the TV and smaller.
I think now that people are used to it, they might. But then, CRTs used to be made with a non-matte anti-glare surface and it didn't take long to forget that was ever a possibility. IBM, HP, Compaq, Apple and others offered displays with such a nice surface treatment. It's like the third option that's better than the first two but almost nobody gives it the time of day. Even then, today's LCDs are a lot sharper than displays of the past, so the difference might not have been noticed.
How many people can apply a large sheet of plastic without getting bubbles under them? It's hard to do for a 3" screen.
Even then, it's probably just matte, rather than a good anti-glare surface.
It's not air bubbles that are the problem, it's dust particles. If you get the radtech product that I'd linked to earlier, they have a protective sheet over the top so you can use credit cards to smooth out bubbles without getting scratches in the the anti-glare sheet.
I've found the best way to get it to work is to have a helper. One person puts on the sheet, and the second uses compressed air to keep dust off while you go.
My opinion is that glossy is the way to got. The colors and picture are way sharper with the glossy option. If glare is an issue you can always get a cheap solution to solve that. If anything changes you can peel it back off and you're good to go, and get your good picture back. If you go matte though, you're stuck with that forever.
Also the glossy screens are far more durable than matte LCD screens. You don't have to worry about a cleaning solution ruining the plastic of the screen. Also in the case of laptops, you don't run the risk of having the oils from your hands left on the keys burning your display. The Dell laptops we have at work have lots of burns on the screen from the oil on the keys.
Their are a lot of petitions floating about, most of them about a very small minority trying to enforce their beliefs upon the general population. It is onething for these to be directed at Apple, it is entirely different when directed at government. The problem with petitions and government is that we end up with to many I'll conceived laws that affect everybody, but only have the support of a tiny segment of the population. So hopefully you will understand me when I say take your petition and shove it.
What's with the hostility? Chillax. I don't think the petition asks Apple to ditch the glossy screens, I think they just want the option for matte screens on the iMacs and Cinema Displays. How does someone wanting the choice between types of displays impact your life to the extent that you feel the need to be abusive?
How does someone wanting the choice between types of displays impact your life to the extent that you feel the need to be abusive?
Because you can't offer all things to all people. There are costs associated with choice - and when Apple did offer Matte displays, but appropriately charged for the extra cost in doing so, people flew off the handle!
News flash: you don't have the right to have what you want, when you want it, for what you want to pay.
And frankly, I think it's easier for Apple to just not offer the option than take the grief for (appropriately) charging more for it.