ArsTechnica, a site I respect, also has an article about the LCD bit depth controversy, plus they link to a page that shows you how you can find out what kind of LCD panel is actually in your MacBook or MacBook Pro.
I personally don't even have a MB or MBP yet (just a lil' ol' iBook G4, sob sob), but this is getting interresting. Hope some folks post the results of their research and/or tests.
I used LCDTest 2.0 and the Samsung 15.2" LCD in my 1.25 GHz PowerBook G4 is obviously only 262k colors since you can see the banding. I doubt Apple has ever used a screen capable of displaying millions of colors, only 6-bit/channel. I used SwitchResX control panel, Export DDC to get the manufacturer code. Google the code and you can see who makes the screen.
Thanks to TBaggins for the post, above, with links to those things.
How can it be that I am the first one to actually go looking at the ADC Developer note that lists out the only actual truth on the subject?
[...]
Would you like to retract your lemming like following of the idiots? ^^^^
Can we cut with the calls of apologists and such now? The freaking lawsuit and nay-sayers just "forgot" to actually check the facts.
Hiro, I stand corrected. Who can you trust if you cannot trust lawyers? What have we come to?
Like others, because Apple fits the pattern so well, I assumed that Apple sold an overpriced computer with "outdated or sub-standard parts", increasing its profit margins while other computer manufacturers increase their market share by cutting prices agressively and offering new features from the likes of the Santa Rosa platform.
Was I wrong. This isn't the just released MacBook of May 2007. As foreseen by AppleInsider, it has none of the benefits and improvements of the Santa Rosa platform:
Quote:
'MacBook' update a yawner
But hey. Apple is strong in education and you should judge the company by the way it treats students and consumers.
There is no way that other computer manufacturers are going to offer Santa Rosa mobile computers with Windows Vista to students and consumers while a greedy Apple is stuck in the previous generation. No, that can't be.
And don't say that Steve Jobs is the highest paid CEO in America, $650 millions for 2006, because he cares more about himself than what's in a computer for the buyers.
If you were to come to that conclusion, well you would be pretty close to the truth. But, that can't be.
Y'know, I'm proud that I've never joined a class-action lawsuit against any company. The net result is that you'll receive a check in the mail for 12 cents and feel none the better for it.
That is what you think. I was involved in a class-action lawsuit against my former employer that netted me a six-figure settlement. It all depends what the lawsuit is about. Granted most class-action lawsuits are complaints over a small-dollar amount. Complaining about an industry-standard created display probably won't fetch much money. You might as well sue every computer company since they all use the same LCD's. Also, graphics professionals do not use laptops for color-critical work. Nor, are they advertised for performing color-critical work. Doesn't sound like the lawsuit has much merit.
How can it be that I am the first one to actually go looking at the ADC Developer note that lists out the only actual truth on the subject?
Maybe because instead of taking Apple's word for it, other people are running the LCD diagnostic utilities as was pointed out in post #73 and tracing the LCD back to the actual manufacturer:
"Yes that's right. 20ms response time, improbable viewing angles, 45% gamut (this is the pro version of the Macbook in case you forgot), and best of all: 262K colors ONLY!"
So much for the "only actual truth on the subject".
Quote:
Quoted for truth
Would you like to retract your lemming like following of the idiots? ^^^^
Can we cut with the calls of apologists and such now? The freaking lawsuit and nay-sayers just "forgot" to actually check the facts.
I noticed that my screen was grainy a couple weeks after I bought it. On OSX it wasn't too bad, but boot into XP and shades of blue and grey looked horrid. I was replaying Deus Ex at the time, a pretty dark game. I noticed that certain pixels were consistently lighter than the rest and never moved... It was like they changed color to match the surrounding pixels, but were always off by a shade or two. I can't remember the exact hex code, but there was one color of dark gray in particular that looked absolutely horrid in XP. About 1/10 of the pixels were a lighter shade than the rest... In OSX? Didn't look bad. What do I think? Dithering.
Took it in to a Genius, "I don't see it."
Of course, I have no way of testing this again and taking pictures of it or anything as my laptop has been stolen. Shit.
If anyone actually bothered to look at Apple's own discussion boards before leaping to the defensive, they would see there has been a raging battle this last year about this exact subject. Apple has 3 different suppliers for the screens, and quality varies. My brand new MBP is getting its screen replaced under warranty, because I took it back in less than 2 weeks and complained about the crap screen. The Genius agreed with me. Just because you got a good one does not mean that somebody else didn't get burned. There are other issues I am surprised the lawsuit fails to mention: Highly uneven backlighting with strong vignetting & banding. Here is a digital photo I took of the screen, centered dead on 90 degrees to the screen, which shows why I am getting a new screen:
Absolutely pathetic. So fanboys, get a life. Apple ships crap sometimes. Those too stupid to know the difference live with it. At least Apple is fixing the problem in my case. Gotta give them credit for that.
The human eye can distinguish between over 200,000 colors, but not millions.
AFAIK, the human eye can distinguish 256 seperate shades of grey (or shades of any single colour for that matter). On a three channel display device like RGB, that equals 16,777,216 separate colours (which is where the 16.7m comes in).
When I saw the MacBooks and MBPs at the official Apple press meeting on the MB launch day here in Switzerland, the displays were superb. And my Dad's Rev 2 MB has crystal clear colors as well.
Anyway, Americans would sue the shoe company after slipping out on an icy stairstep, that's got nothing to do with rights or lawfulness, that's simply a new industry branch for losers to quickly squeeze some money out of big companies.
Going through some of the links in that thread, there an article in wiki that mentions all the 4 major LCD panels manufacturer... Whether it's Samsung or Philipps or others, it doesn't matter, almost none of them are 8 bit capable, so:
1- Apple is not using sub-par panels... they're just using the same ones as the competitors... the only difference could be in the dithering software to make it look like it's displaying millions of colour (and then what's the problem if it works...)
2- other competitors are also sometimes advertising millions of colour, so should we sue them too?
But then, what would the marketing say: "capable of millions of colour through an advanced software solution"?
Ok, MacBook Pro 15 has used both Chi-Mei and Samsung displays in the past. I don't know if they've been updated or not, but at least one of the Samsung TFT modules used was the LTN145X7 - L02, HERE. That particular display is, apparently, capable of only 262k colors.
The Chi Mei displays used are in the N154C series, HERE, which you can see are all 262k color displays also.
I don't know what is in my MBP as I haven't taken it apart to find out. I also don't know whats in the MacBooks.
If that's what causes the grainy texture (I'm not convinced it is, since it really appears to change depending on what viewing angle I'm at. Seems like its part of the screen finish.) then that kinda torques me off. I really doubt that that's the case though, as the human eye, I've been told, has a lot of trouble distinguishing the difference between 262k and millions.
And yet, if you advertise it, it aught to be the real deal. Dithering or not. I'm an amateur photographer, and was rather irritated when I discovered that this grainy texture made my MBP unsuitable for fine editing. In spite of that, though, it seems to still be true that if you want really high grade color accuracy, you still have to go with CRT monitors. LCD tech just isn't there yet. Guess we'll see how this plays out.
News to me that we should sue Apple for false advertising... as if no other computer makers does similar practice. News to me that we have false advertising in this world at all!
As others have said, if any self-proclaim "Professional" needs to rely on a laptop to "display" colors accurately really needs to get out of whatever they are doing. I'm in publishing and I have yet to meet anyone in my profession that doesn't know desktop monitors and laptops are not color accurate... that's why companies spent thousands of dollars to get color calibrated monitors and softwares.
Everyone will have different experience with Apple products, I have been a Apple user since their B/W models and OS 6. My Powermac 7600 lasted over 7+ yrs and went from OS7.6 to OS9. My 2001 white iBook just died last month because I'm still using the original battery. Perhaps I should sue Apple for not making battery lasting forever?
My point is, if every disappoint consumer goes to sue a company when does it end? In this case of suing over false-advertising on laptop display... I would chalk this one up as ignorant end user's fault for not knowing the limits of their own tool and unrealistic expectations.
My 2001 white iBook just died last month because I'm still using the original battery. Perhaps I should sue Apple for not making battery lasting forever?
I don't know how that's an argument, Apple never said that their battery lasts forever.
Apple does say that their panel quality is better than anything you can currently find in any other competing product, which isn't true as other competitors do use the same panel.
I don't know how that's an argument, Apple never said that their battery lasts forever.
Apple does say that their panel quality is better than anything you can currently find in any other competing product, which isn't true as other competitors do use the same panel.
LOL Jeff, you don't get the sarcasm in my post do you eh? If end user isn't "smart" enough to distinguish the difference between false advertising and their own lack of research and unrealistic expectations.... pointing fingers at the maker doesn't help solve their work problem does it? Which company you know doesn't false advertise and claim at any point their products are better over competitors?
LOL Jeff, you don't get the sarcasm in my post do you eh? If end user isn't "smart" enough to distinguish the difference between false advertising and their own lack of research and unrealistic expectations.... pointing fingers at the maker doesn't help solve their work problem does it?
OK, then, my mistake, but Apple did make some pretty clear claims. Not meeting those claims isn't a cause to say "well, everyone else does it too, so STFU". With respect to the screen quality, there were several examples given where the competitors don't try to make the same outlandish claims for the same display panel.
Quote:
Which company you know doesn't false advertise and claim at any point their products are better over competitors?
I don't really don't think that's an excuse on any company's part, but I don't remember any major company stretching the truth as thin as Apple has in many instances.
I have a simple solution for all you guys who are so disgruntle about Apple product because you got burned at one point or another.... *gasp* boycott it ok?
If everytime I get a penny when a weather station that claims to forecast "accurate" weather report but fails every other day, then I would be a rich man right now. Better yet, I can boycott that station or accept the simple fact most thing in life isn't as people claim them to be.
Beyond that, am I the only person here that thinks suing these gaint companies over such trivial matters doesn't make them stop from "stretching the truth" in advertising? Take some personally responsibility for not doing enough product research ok? With so much information available out there, I'm really surprised we have so many "victims" here.
If everytime I get a penny when a weather station that claims to forecast "accurate" weather report but fails every other day, then I would be a rich man right now. Better yet, I can boycott that station or accept the simple fact most thing in life isn't as people claim them to be.
That is a bad analogy. The weather station does not make weather. Apple specifies the products and can control the marketing, and is thus responsible for the product if it is not as advertised.
Quote:
Beyond that, am I the only person here that thinks suing these gaint companies over such trivial matters doesn't make them stop from "stretching the truth" in advertising?
I would agree, but you also apparently haven't read much of this thread because you'll find more agreement. A lot of people mentioned that lawsuits don't solve problems, and class action lawsuits are even worse. If you aren't going to research what's in this thread, I don't see how you have a moral high ground to denounce others for not doing their own research.
That is a bad analogy. The weather station does not make weather. Apple specifies the products and can control the marketing, and is thus responsible for the product if it is not as advertised.
I would agree, but you also apparently haven't read much of this thread because you'll find more agreement. A lot of people mentioned that lawsuits don't solve problems, and class action lawsuits are even worse. If you aren't going to research what's in this thread, I don't see how you have a moral high ground to denounce others for not doing their own research.
You are right weather is a natural event, however, who gave News stations to the right call themselves "Accurate Weather Station/report"? Who says you have to believe/trust their forecast? You DO! You, the end user. They don't hold a gun to your head. Likewise, Apple isn't holding anyone hostage on buying their products. If you are sooooo unhappy with Apple products return them, report them and move on with your life. Really just boycott them, stop reading Appleinsider ok?
If these falsely advertised Apple laptops/products are only $1 from the dollar store would anyone here complaint or even file lawsuits? Hack no, because there would be no incentives, nor refunds. This is never about seeking "justice" and punishing Apple or any company that practice false advertising. Punishment is putting these companies out of business, not slapping them in the hand, ask for refunds and "rephrase" their advertisements. Who are we kidding here?
You make me laugh with your comebacks and this isn't the first time. Apparently, I'm not allow to "repeat" what has been said? Apparently, repeating = not reading the entire thread? LOL!
Listen/read carefully, I'm not here to "denounce" anyone. I'm voicing my opinion on the subject just like everyone else. However, you can't handle what I have to say.
Comments
The ArsTechnica article:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...k-pro-displays
Instructions on How to Find Out What Type of Screen Your MB or MBP Has:
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/
There's also an interesting free program called 'LCD Test' that includes a gradient test, helpful for finding out your display's true color bit depth:
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/15119
I personally don't even have a MB or MBP yet (just a lil' ol' iBook G4, sob sob), but this is getting interresting. Hope some folks post the results of their research and/or tests.
.
Thanks to TBaggins for the post, above, with links to those things.
The MacBook's LCD is 24-bit color. Period.
How can it be that I am the first one to actually go looking at the ADC Developer note that lists out the only actual truth on the subject?
[...]
Would you like to retract your lemming like following of the idiots? ^^^^
Can we cut with the calls of apologists and such now? The freaking lawsuit and nay-sayers just "forgot" to actually check the facts.
Hiro, I stand corrected. Who can you trust if you cannot trust lawyers? What have we come to?
Like others, because Apple fits the pattern so well, I assumed that Apple sold an overpriced computer with "outdated or sub-standard parts", increasing its profit margins while other computer manufacturers increase their market share by cutting prices agressively and offering new features from the likes of the Santa Rosa platform.
Was I wrong. This isn't the just released MacBook of May 2007. As foreseen by AppleInsider, it has none of the benefits and improvements of the Santa Rosa platform:
'MacBook' update a yawner
But hey. Apple is strong in education and you should judge the company by the way it treats students and consumers.
There is no way that other computer manufacturers are going to offer Santa Rosa mobile computers with Windows Vista to students and consumers while a greedy Apple is stuck in the previous generation. No, that can't be.
And don't say that Steve Jobs is the highest paid CEO in America, $650 millions for 2006, because he cares more about himself than what's in a computer for the buyers.
If you were to come to that conclusion, well you would be pretty close to the truth. But, that can't be.
Y'know, I'm proud that I've never joined a class-action lawsuit against any company. The net result is that you'll receive a check in the mail for 12 cents and feel none the better for it.
That is what you think. I was involved in a class-action lawsuit against my former employer that netted me a six-figure settlement. It all depends what the lawsuit is about. Granted most class-action lawsuits are complaints over a small-dollar amount. Complaining about an industry-standard created display probably won't fetch much money. You might as well sue every computer company since they all use the same LCD's. Also, graphics professionals do not use laptops for color-critical work. Nor, are they advertised for performing color-critical work. Doesn't sound like the lawsuit has much merit.
The MacBook's LCD is 24-bit color. Period.
How can it be that I am the first one to actually go looking at the ADC Developer note that lists out the only actual truth on the subject?
Maybe because instead of taking Apple's word for it, other people are running the LCD diagnostic utilities as was pointed out in post #73 and tracing the LCD back to the actual manufacturer:
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/
"Yes that's right. 20ms response time, improbable viewing angles, 45% gamut (this is the pro version of the Macbook in case you forgot), and best of all: 262K colors ONLY!"
So much for the "only actual truth on the subject".
Quoted for truth
Would you like to retract your lemming like following of the idiots? ^^^^
Can we cut with the calls of apologists and such now? The freaking lawsuit and nay-sayers just "forgot" to actually check the facts.
Quoted for truth:
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/
Who is forgetting "to actually check the facts" now? Who should be retracting now?
Took it in to a Genius, "I don't see it."
Of course, I have no way of testing this again and taking pictures of it or anything as my laptop has been stolen. Shit.
Bad Screen
Absolutely pathetic. So fanboys, get a life. Apple ships crap sometimes. Those too stupid to know the difference live with it. At least Apple is fixing the problem in my case. Gotta give them credit for that.
The human eye can distinguish between over 200,000 colors, but not millions.
AFAIK, the human eye can distinguish 256 seperate shades of grey (or shades of any single colour for that matter). On a three channel display device like RGB, that equals 16,777,216 separate colours (which is where the 16.7m comes in).
When I saw the MacBooks and MBPs at the official Apple press meeting on the MB launch day here in Switzerland, the displays were superb. And my Dad's Rev 2 MB has crystal clear colors as well.
Anyway, Americans would sue the shoe company after slipping out on an icy stairstep, that's got nothing to do with rights or lawfulness, that's simply a new industry branch for losers to quickly squeeze some money out of big companies.
1- Apple is not using sub-par panels... they're just using the same ones as the competitors... the only difference could be in the dithering software to make it look like it's displaying millions of colour (and then what's the problem if it works...)
2- other competitors are also sometimes advertising millions of colour, so should we sue them too?
But then, what would the marketing say: "capable of millions of colour through an advanced software solution"?
The Chi Mei displays used are in the N154C series, HERE, which you can see are all 262k color displays also.
I don't know what is in my MBP as I haven't taken it apart to find out. I also don't know whats in the MacBooks.
If that's what causes the grainy texture (I'm not convinced it is, since it really appears to change depending on what viewing angle I'm at. Seems like its part of the screen finish.) then that kinda torques me off. I really doubt that that's the case though, as the human eye, I've been told, has a lot of trouble distinguishing the difference between 262k and millions.
And yet, if you advertise it, it aught to be the real deal. Dithering or not. I'm an amateur photographer, and was rather irritated when I discovered that this grainy texture made my MBP unsuitable for fine editing. In spite of that, though, it seems to still be true that if you want really high grade color accuracy, you still have to go with CRT monitors. LCD tech just isn't there yet. Guess we'll see how this plays out.
Celemourn
As others have said, if any self-proclaim "Professional" needs to rely on a laptop to "display" colors accurately really needs to get out of whatever they are doing. I'm in publishing and I have yet to meet anyone in my profession that doesn't know desktop monitors and laptops are not color accurate... that's why companies spent thousands of dollars to get color calibrated monitors and softwares.
Everyone will have different experience with Apple products, I have been a Apple user since their B/W models and OS 6. My Powermac 7600 lasted over 7+ yrs and went from OS7.6 to OS9. My 2001 white iBook just died last month because I'm still using the original battery. Perhaps I should sue Apple for not making battery lasting forever?
My point is, if every disappoint consumer goes to sue a company when does it end? In this case of suing over false-advertising on laptop display... I would chalk this one up as ignorant end user's fault for not knowing the limits of their own tool and unrealistic expectations.
My 2001 white iBook just died last month because I'm still using the original battery. Perhaps I should sue Apple for not making battery lasting forever?
I don't know how that's an argument, Apple never said that their battery lasts forever.
Apple does say that their panel quality is better than anything you can currently find in any other competing product, which isn't true as other competitors do use the same panel.
I don't know how that's an argument, Apple never said that their battery lasts forever.
Apple does say that their panel quality is better than anything you can currently find in any other competing product, which isn't true as other competitors do use the same panel.
LOL Jeff, you don't get the sarcasm in my post do you eh? If end user isn't "smart" enough to distinguish the difference between false advertising and their own lack of research and unrealistic expectations.... pointing fingers at the maker doesn't help solve their work problem does it? Which company you know doesn't false advertise and claim at any point their products are better over competitors?
LOL Jeff, you don't get the sarcasm in my post do you eh? If end user isn't "smart" enough to distinguish the difference between false advertising and their own lack of research and unrealistic expectations.... pointing fingers at the maker doesn't help solve their work problem does it?
OK, then, my mistake, but Apple did make some pretty clear claims. Not meeting those claims isn't a cause to say "well, everyone else does it too, so STFU". With respect to the screen quality, there were several examples given where the competitors don't try to make the same outlandish claims for the same display panel.
Which company you know doesn't false advertise and claim at any point their products are better over competitors?
I don't really don't think that's an excuse on any company's part, but I don't remember any major company stretching the truth as thin as Apple has in many instances.
If everytime I get a penny when a weather station that claims to forecast "accurate" weather report but fails every other day, then I would be a rich man right now. Better yet, I can boycott that station or accept the simple fact most thing in life isn't as people claim them to be.
Beyond that, am I the only person here that thinks suing these gaint companies over such trivial matters doesn't make them stop from "stretching the truth" in advertising? Take some personally responsibility for not doing enough product research ok? With so much information available out there, I'm really surprised we have so many "victims" here.
If everytime I get a penny when a weather station that claims to forecast "accurate" weather report but fails every other day, then I would be a rich man right now. Better yet, I can boycott that station or accept the simple fact most thing in life isn't as people claim them to be.
That is a bad analogy. The weather station does not make weather. Apple specifies the products and can control the marketing, and is thus responsible for the product if it is not as advertised.
Beyond that, am I the only person here that thinks suing these gaint companies over such trivial matters doesn't make them stop from "stretching the truth" in advertising?
I would agree, but you also apparently haven't read much of this thread because you'll find more agreement. A lot of people mentioned that lawsuits don't solve problems, and class action lawsuits are even worse. If you aren't going to research what's in this thread, I don't see how you have a moral high ground to denounce others for not doing their own research.
That is a bad analogy. The weather station does not make weather. Apple specifies the products and can control the marketing, and is thus responsible for the product if it is not as advertised.
I would agree, but you also apparently haven't read much of this thread because you'll find more agreement. A lot of people mentioned that lawsuits don't solve problems, and class action lawsuits are even worse. If you aren't going to research what's in this thread, I don't see how you have a moral high ground to denounce others for not doing their own research.
You are right weather is a natural event, however, who gave News stations to the right call themselves "Accurate Weather Station/report"? Who says you have to believe/trust their forecast? You DO! You, the end user. They don't hold a gun to your head. Likewise, Apple isn't holding anyone hostage on buying their products. If you are sooooo unhappy with Apple products return them, report them and move on with your life. Really just boycott them, stop reading Appleinsider ok?
If these falsely advertised Apple laptops/products are only $1 from the dollar store would anyone here complaint or even file lawsuits? Hack no, because there would be no incentives, nor refunds. This is never about seeking "justice" and punishing Apple or any company that practice false advertising. Punishment is putting these companies out of business, not slapping them in the hand, ask for refunds and "rephrase" their advertisements. Who are we kidding here?
You make me laugh with your comebacks and this isn't the first time. Apparently, I'm not allow to "repeat" what has been said? Apparently, repeating = not reading the entire thread? LOL!
Listen/read carefully, I'm not here to "denounce" anyone. I'm voicing my opinion on the subject just like everyone else. However, you can't handle what I have to say.