This is what I do with my HDTV. Blinds are on the windows that can reflect light onto the screen. When needed we close the blinds if the refection is too much. I don't think that home computer set up should be any different. You take these things into consideration IMO.
I will agree that they probably should have given consumers a choice on the screen type though as some certainly do not like glossy screens.
But wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to worry about that?
Or, better still, to have the choice, so that if the trade off between the upside of glossy and upside of matte came out matte, for you, you could go ahead and get that?
Which is the case in the HDTV market: people who want the best possible picture and are willing to sit in a darkened room (where the gains in color saturation and contrast are at their best advantage) can go with glossy , and people who want a more forgiving screen surface and aren't too worried about extracting every last bit of PQ can get what they need.
For the people that are checking out iMacs and concluding that "glare doesn't seem to be much of a problem": are you shopping at semi-darkened Apple Stores or Best Buys?
First, it's not "glare" it's "reflections", as in "mirror like".
At the Apple Store in Emeryville, CA, I can tell you without a doubt that the iMacs on display reflect a great deal of what's behind them, and it's incredibly distracting.
I know I may just be a cat, but I dont find the iMac's screen to be overly-reflective. They just kind of pop. Movies look particularly good, and I wouldn't mind a 60" iMac to put on the wall and use for computer, TV, movies, music production, and cats. As the computer aimed at the middle, I think the iMac looks great!
I know I may just be a cat, but I dont find the iMac's screen to be overly-reflective. They just kind of pop. Movies look particularly good, and I wouldn't mind a 60" iMac to put on the wall and use for computer, TV, movies, music production, and cats. As the computer aimed at the middle, I think the iMac looks great!
Far be it from me to second guess a cat, but that's exactly the sentiment that baffles me. Not the preferring the glossy screen, of course, that's entirely up to you, but the idea that the screens are not "overly reflective"-- I honestly don't see how they could be any more reflective.
I guess I could understand something like "reflective though they may be, it doesn't bother me", but, man, at least in the Apple Store, most angles where pretty much mirror like, and there didn't seem to be any viewing angles that didn't include quite a bit of the store behind me.
Are there actually screens out there that are more reflective than the ones on the new iMacs, so that the iMacs screens seem "not too bad"? Because that I gotta see.
Apple can't rebuild its market share (35% U.S. market share in the 1987-1990 period) unless it is willing to address every segment of the market and sell its computers for a competitive price (by reducing its fat 36% profit margin and cutting corporate perks to Steve Jobs and friends).
Look if you are trolling then do not get too excited dude, i am not one of the 'defend Apple to the death' type of posters so you aint gonna get too much of a rise from me. I do however want to just correct a misunderstanding you seem to have about Apples financial situation before you end up looking foolish!
Apple does not make 36% profit, wherever you got that idea from you should go back and re-read. Apple last quarter may well have made 36% Gross Margin on their product sales but that has absolutely nothing to do with profit, Gross Margin is simply the difference in price between what something cost to make and what it sold to the customer for, it does not include the cost to the business of sales & marketing and TAX among other things.
Maybe someone else here will help me out but i seem to remember that Apples net profit is around the 17 - 18% mark? i think thats right anyway, yes by any standards a healthy one, but is no way too much to be immoral or profiteering in any way as you seem to suggest. And no more than what some other companies make, some of whom still manage to sell to Government with no problems.
Again i am not one to blindly defend Apple (am sure mel gross would back me up there!) but this time dude you have got it very wrong.
I went to my local BestDenki (like Circuit City) yesterday and was very happily surprised to see he new 20" iMac standing proudly in the center of the main entrance. It was gorgeous.
The screen was sharp and was fine even in a very brightly lit sales hall. The mirror effect, as Addabox had correctly corrected us, was not as bad as I had thought. In fact, I was not bothered by it once I started playing with the machine.
For me, the keyboard, while nice, was too small, but then I have huge hands (I can palm a basketball with ease), but his was also likely a subconscious comparison to what I consider a keyboard to be. I'm sure, however, that I could get used to it, just like I can type away on my MBP.. using three fingers.
The machine had been on all day (about eight hours) and had been running PhotoBooth. The top of the computer on the left was rather hot, but the staff said it was about the same as all the other iMacs to date; maybe the aluminum felt a little hotter than plastic.
It was thin, and the color combo was good. Yeah, it looks like a pro machine but also like a consumer machine, which means both groups will not hesitate buying it. The black border actually made Keynote presentations very vivid.
I want one, but don't really need one until a new major project starts in January, so I will wait until the first speed bump and Leopard, or four months.
However, I could not have bought yesterday, anyway: they had sold out of the 5~10 machines they had received, which for our town is a big deal.
Which brings me to another topic: Apple really prepared for this release. My shop usually gets their display device somewhere one to two months after an apple announcement, with stock a per-order thing. This time they had stock within a day of the release, pamphlets in Japanese, iLife 08 in stock in Japanese. It was great.
I went to my local BestDenki (like Circuit City) yesterday and was very happily surprised to see he new 20" iMac standing proudly in the center of the main entrance. It was gorgeous.
The screen was sharp and was fine even in a very brightly lit sales hall. The mirror effect, as Addabox had correctly corrected us, was not as bad as I had thought. In fact, I was not bothered by it once I started playing with the machine.
For me, the keyboard, while nice, was too small, but then I have huge hands (I can palm a basketball with ease), but his was also likely a subconscious comparison to what I consider a keyboard to be. I'm sure, however, that I could get used to it, just like I can type away on my MBP.. using three fingers.
The machine had been on all day (about eight hours) and had been running PhotoBooth. The top of the computer on the left was rather hot, but the staff said it was about the same as all the other iMacs to date; maybe the aluminum felt a little hotter than plastic.
It was thin, and the color combo was good. Yeah, it looks like a pro machine but also like a consumer machine, which means both groups will not hesitate buying it. The black border actually made Keynote presentations very vivid.
I want one, but don't really need one until a new major project starts in January, so I will wait until the first speed bump and Leopard, or four months.
However, I could not have bought yesterday, anyway: they had sold out of the 5~10 machines they had received, which for our town is a big deal.
Which brings me to another topic: Apple really prepared for this release. My shop usually gets their display device somewhere one to two months after an apple announcement, with stock a per-order thing. This time they had stock within a day of the release, pamphlets in Japanese, iLife 08 in stock in Japanese. It was great.
You know, given the general tenor of the responses to the glossy screen, I'm just going to have to assume I have reverse polarized eyes or something, which makes reflections stand out.
Which is good for Apple, since most folks don't seem to mind the screen at all, but very sad for me, since I'm in the market for a new machine.
On the other hand, I'm very intrigued by the idea that the glass is held in by magnets and can be removed just by lifting straight up with a suction cup.
Is that actually true? If so, it's another Apple design coup, since it makes it easy to repair any damage to the front surface (I expect to see third party "iMac screen replacement kits" including special suction cup to appear shortly).
Now, if someone would just make poor old reflection intensifying Addabox a replacement screen with a wee bit of anti-reflective coating.....
Have you tried a glossy screen? I had major reservations about them until my wife bought her MB and I got to see it from time to time and slowly realized the "glare" or reflections were not as bad as I thought. Once your eyes start focusing on the screen, you don't notice the reflections that much. If I adjust my focus now, yeah, I can see the TV behind me (on my MBP glossy), but I have been working for an hour and had not noticed until right now that it was on (my wife uses headphones).
Have you tried a glossy screen? I had major reservations about them until my wife bought her MB and I got to see it from time to time and slowly realized the "glare" or reflections were not as bad as I thought. Once your eyes start focusing on the screen, you don't notice the reflections that much. If I adjust my focus now, yeah, I can see the TV behind me (on my MBP glossy), but I have been working for an hour and had not noticed until right now that it was on (my wife uses headphones).
It's true, I don't have one in my house. I've spent an hour or two at the Apple Store trying to figure out how I could make it work for me. I guess the psychological phenomena of learning to ignore the reflections is a possibility.
I went back to that tear-down site, and as far as can make out, yes, there are four locator pins on top and other than that just a ring of magnets on the inside of the inset where the glass sits.
Which makes me think this: given the almost seamless fit of the glass into the aluminum, and given that it can be removed, so that it can't be too tight, how on earth is Apple able to achieve such incredibly fine tolerances on a mass market item?
On the other hand, I'm very intrigued by the idea that the glass is held in by magnets and can be removed just by lifting straight up with a suction cup.
Is that actually true?
From the tear-downs that have been posted, it does seem like a highly plausible and realistic course of action to buy the iMac and then remove the glass if the reflections are a real problem for you.
If you wanted the glass back in to protect the screen, I wouldn't be surprised if you can get anti-reflective coatings applied to the glass first.
how on earth is Apple able to achieve such incredibly fine tolerances on a mass market item?
A good question that I'm sure their competitors would love to know. Isn't it odd how no one has been able to compete with the Aluminium PowerBook/MacBook Pro enclosure after all this time? Or even the iPod enclosures, for that matter.
A good question that I'm sure their competitors would love to know. Isn't it odd how no one has been able to compete with the Aluminium PowerBook/MacBook Pro enclosure after all this time? Or even the iPod enclosures, for that matter.
Possibly, or it could be that other manufacturers have realised that Mac Book Pro design is flawed and their customers may not want a notebook with a warped lid or a screen that does not open far enough to use comfortably while standing up!
Possibly, or it could be that other manufacturers have realised that Mac Book Pro design is flawed and their customers may not want a notebook with a warped lid or a screen that does not open far enough to use comfortably while standing up!
I wasn't aware of lid warping. The hinging can be adjusted. The concept of exposed metal can be taken and done without actually copying the designs, it's probably better do that than just rip off everything.
Compaq does have a line that looks like the Titanium books, but I don't know if there's any metal in them. I think IBM/Lenovo uses magnesum in their casing, but they don't expose the metal. My old Compaq business notebook seems to have a metal lid and chassis, but it appears to be powder coated black.
I wasn't aware of lid warping. The hinging can be adjusted. The concept of exposed metal can be taken and done without actually copying the designs, it's probably better do that than just rip off everything.
My point really was just don't confuse perfect design with good design, the way the previous post talked about the MBP was as though it is a beacon to perfect design and wondering why no-one had managed to compete with it. My MBP is a little over a month old and when the lid is closed the right side is around 3mm off the base while the left side is flush, nothing too major but does ruin the lines and makes it look cheap. I did think about returning it but after reading a few forums i realised this seems to be a common issue and one which does not warrant a replacement by all accounts.
While it does not ruin the enjoyment of the otherwise great notebook (forgetting of course the stupidity of a screen that does not open far enough to be viewed while standing) it does kind of ruin the work that Apple put into designing a great notebook with some great features (the little screws on the sides that make it feel solidly built for example) when the lid does not even close properly and thus when in a bag is begging for objects to slip into the gap and possibly do damage to the screen.
But that does seem to be a fault with Apple design as a whole, sometimes i get the impression that more time is spent on making something look good rather than making it good to use.
My point really was just don't confuse perfect design with good design, the way the previous post talked about the MBP was as though it is a beacon to perfect design and wondering why no-one had managed to compete with it. My MBP is a little over a month old and when the lid is closed the right side is around 3mm off the base while the left side is flush, nothing too major but does ruin the lines and makes it look cheap. I did think about returning it but after reading a few forums i realised this seems to be a common issue and one which does not warrant a replacement by all accounts.
While it does not ruin the enjoyment of the otherwise great notebook (forgetting of course the stupidity of a screen that does not open far enough to be viewed while standing) it does kind of ruin the work that Apple put into designing a great notebook with some great features (the little screws on the sides that make it feel solidly built for example) when the lid does not even close properly and thus when in a bag is begging for objects to slip into the gap and possibly do damage to the screen.
But that does seem to be a fault with Apple design as a whole, sometimes i get the impression that more time is spent on making something look good rather than making it good to use.
Sure, but it's not a cause and effect thing. That is, Apple products don't have flaws because they try to hard to make them perfect-- just look at the competition, which can have annoying flaws on top of generally shoddy construction.
I agree that the closure mechanism on the MacBook Pro could use some rethinking-- the latch breaks far too often, for one thing. I really wish they'd go with the MacBook magnetic closures, or something else more robust.
But it doesn't seem to me that that latch has anything to do, positive or negative, with the general fit and finish of the machine, which is excellent. It's just a so-so mechanism that is overdue for revision, something that almost any manufacturer can produce examples of, whether they sweat the details or not.
Sure, but it's not a cause and effect thing. That is, Apple products don't have flaws because they try to hard to make them perfect-- just look at the competition, which can have annoying flaws on top of generally shoddy construction.
I agree that the closure mechanism on the MacBook Pro could use some rethinking-- the latch breaks far too often, for one thing. I really wish they'd go with the MacBook magnetic closures, or something else more robust.
But it doesn't seem to me that that latch has anything to do, positive or negative, with the general fit and finish of the machine, which is excellent. It's just a so-so mechanism that is overdue for revision, something that almost any manufacturer can produce examples of, whether they sweat the details or not.
Addabox, i am not sure i agree with you there, i actually do think it is a cause and effect thing. I really believe that much of Apples design philosophy is based on form over function. I think they come up with a great design and then work out good excuses as to why somebody cannot do something they could on their previous product.
The lid on a MBP is actually a great point in hand, there are plenty of PC manufacturers who have managed to perfect the design of a notebok lid, the Dell that sits here on my desk (my work computer) is an example. Magnetic latch, strong hinges that allow you to open the lid flat back the other way (for easy viewing from above) and when closed it sites flush against the base. Apple could have easily have implimented this great design principle or a version of but instead they decided to go with a completely different design that means the operation and quality of the MBP lid is inferior in every way to the dell. This was not an accident or even a bad side effect of great deisgn, Apple purposfully chose this design purely through looks (It does look much neater with no hinges showing).
Far be it from me to second guess a cat, but that's exactly the sentiment that baffles me. Not the preferring the glossy screen, of course, that's entirely up to you, but the idea that the screens are not "overly reflective"-- I honestly don't see how they could be any more reflective.
The Hubble Space Telescope uses a highly polished mirror to focus trace amounts of ancient light into meaningful images. I have not done a side by side comparison, but I will step out on a limb and speculate that the Hubble?s mirror may be more reflective than the new iMac?s screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I guess I could understand something like "reflective though they may be, it doesn't bother me", but, man, at least in the Apple Store, most angles where pretty much mirror like, and there didn't seem to be any viewing angles that didn't include quite a bit of the store behind me.
On looking at the new iMac, I did not think ?reflective though they may be, it doesn?t bother me." That didn't cross my mind because I wasn?t thinking of them as reflective.
I suppose you could make a similar argument that because the CPU has a bitter taste if you let it sit in your mouth for awhile, anyone who evaluates an iMac must state ?bitter-tasting though they may be, it doesn?t bother me.? But since I didn't pop out the CPU and suck on it for taste, this too didn't cross my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Are there actually screens out there that are more reflective than the ones on the new iMacs, so that the iMacs screens seem "not too bad"? Because that I gotta see.
I can?t speak for others, and I am just a cat. But I honestly haven?t been bothered by reflections on the new iMac. When I get my own to play with I may arrive at a different conclusion, but for now, this has been a non-issue for me.
I was irritated that we weren't given a choice of matte or glossy displays until someone pointed out that I shouldn't be. She pointed out that I have a reading lamp on next to me while watching TV (being, ahem, multi talented I read and watch TV at the same time). The reflection of the lamp is bright on the TV screen, but I am unaware of it until I think about it. Our eyes or brain must compensate - or something. Maybe it's equivalent to focusing on a near object or a distant object. Our eyes adjust to that. That may not be a good analogy, but it shows the possibility of focusing on the display rather than the glare. Another analogy would be how we tune out ambient sound while we talk to another person.
MY REAL GRIPE about TV is that dam__d Channel logo, the ads, and the banners that appear on the screen bottom. Sometimes they cover up something I want to see. I notice that they don't appear during commercials. Sorry, I know that doesn't conform to the current thread. Maybe I'll carry it over to another thread. I can't imagine anyone being happy with it.
I was irritated that we weren't given a choice of matte or glossy displays until someone pointed out that I shouldn't be. She pointed out that I have a reading lamp on next to me while watching TV (being, ahem, multi talented I read and watch TV at the same time). The reflection of the lamp is bright on the TV screen, but I am unaware of it until I think about it. Our eyes or brain must compensate - or something. Maybe it's equivalent to focusing on a near object or a distant object. Our eyes adjust to that. That may not be a good analogy, but it shows the possibility of focusing on the display rather than the glare. Another analogy would be how we tune out ambient sound while we talk to another person.
MY REAL GRIPE about TV is that dam__d Channel logo, the ads, and the banners that appear on the screen bottom. Sometimes they cover up something I want to see. I notice that they don't appear during commercials. Sorry, I know that doesn't conform to the current thread. Maybe I'll carry it over to another thread. I can't imagine anyone being happy with it.
But generally we watch TV in a different way to a monitor - distance away is more for the TV. Concentration & focusing is different.
I went to look at the iMac today & was really disappointed by the screen despite wanting to like it & buy it....
Doing ohotography work on it will be really annoying under bright lights IMHO....
I was irritated that we weren't given a choice of matte or glossy displays until someone pointed out that I shouldn't be. She pointed out that I have a reading lamp on next to me while watching TV (being, ahem, multi talented I read and watch TV at the same time). The reflection of the lamp is bright on the TV screen, but I am unaware of it until I think about it. Our eyes or brain must compensate - or something. Maybe it's equivalent to focusing on a near object or a distant object. Our eyes adjust to that. That may not be a good analogy, but it shows the possibility of focusing on the display rather than the glare. Another analogy would be how we tune out ambient sound while we talk to another person.
MY REAL GRIPE about TV is that dam__d Channel logo, the ads, and the banners that appear on the screen bottom. Sometimes they cover up something I want to see. I notice that they don't appear during commercials. Sorry, I know that doesn't conform to the current thread. Maybe I'll carry it over to another thread. I can't imagine anyone being happy with it.
Now there you have a grievance on which all right thinking people can agree, and I think it does deserve its own thread. I will say that since FX has started using jets of flame to remind you to watch "Rescue Me", it has lead to some humorous moments of fire shooting out of unknowing thespians asses.
Comments
maybe u misunderstood my original statement of apple wanting to make money from the film. it was meant as a joke but it was surely lost on you.
No, it wasn't lost on me. It didn't make any sense, so it wasn't funny.
This is what I do with my HDTV. Blinds are on the windows that can reflect light onto the screen. When needed we close the blinds if the refection is too much. I don't think that home computer set up should be any different. You take these things into consideration IMO.
I will agree that they probably should have given consumers a choice on the screen type though as some certainly do not like glossy screens.
But wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to worry about that?
Or, better still, to have the choice, so that if the trade off between the upside of glossy and upside of matte came out matte, for you, you could go ahead and get that?
Which is the case in the HDTV market: people who want the best possible picture and are willing to sit in a darkened room (where the gains in color saturation and contrast are at their best advantage) can go with glossy , and people who want a more forgiving screen surface and aren't too worried about extracting every last bit of PQ can get what they need.
For the people that are checking out iMacs and concluding that "glare doesn't seem to be much of a problem": are you shopping at semi-darkened Apple Stores or Best Buys?
First, it's not "glare" it's "reflections", as in "mirror like".
At the Apple Store in Emeryville, CA, I can tell you without a doubt that the iMacs on display reflect a great deal of what's behind them, and it's incredibly distracting.
I know I may just be a cat, but I dont find the iMac's screen to be overly-reflective. They just kind of pop. Movies look particularly good, and I wouldn't mind a 60" iMac to put on the wall and use for computer, TV, movies, music production, and cats. As the computer aimed at the middle, I think the iMac looks great!
I know I may just be a cat, but I dont find the iMac's screen to be overly-reflective. They just kind of pop. Movies look particularly good, and I wouldn't mind a 60" iMac to put on the wall and use for computer, TV, movies, music production, and cats. As the computer aimed at the middle, I think the iMac looks great!
Far be it from me to second guess a cat, but that's exactly the sentiment that baffles me. Not the preferring the glossy screen, of course, that's entirely up to you, but the idea that the screens are not "overly reflective"-- I honestly don't see how they could be any more reflective.
I guess I could understand something like "reflective though they may be, it doesn't bother me", but, man, at least in the Apple Store, most angles where pretty much mirror like, and there didn't seem to be any viewing angles that didn't include quite a bit of the store behind me.
Are there actually screens out there that are more reflective than the ones on the new iMacs, so that the iMacs screens seem "not too bad"? Because that I gotta see.
Apple can't rebuild its market share (35% U.S. market share in the 1987-1990 period) unless it is willing to address every segment of the market and sell its computers for a competitive price (by reducing its fat 36% profit margin and cutting corporate perks to Steve Jobs and friends).
Look if you are trolling then do not get too excited dude, i am not one of the 'defend Apple to the death' type of posters so you aint gonna get too much of a rise from me. I do however want to just correct a misunderstanding you seem to have about Apples financial situation before you end up looking foolish!
Apple does not make 36% profit, wherever you got that idea from you should go back and re-read. Apple last quarter may well have made 36% Gross Margin on their product sales but that has absolutely nothing to do with profit, Gross Margin is simply the difference in price between what something cost to make and what it sold to the customer for, it does not include the cost to the business of sales & marketing and TAX among other things.
Maybe someone else here will help me out but i seem to remember that Apples net profit is around the 17 - 18% mark? i think thats right anyway, yes by any standards a healthy one, but is no way too much to be immoral or profiteering in any way as you seem to suggest. And no more than what some other companies make, some of whom still manage to sell to Government with no problems.
Again i am not one to blindly defend Apple (am sure mel gross would back me up there!) but this time dude you have got it very wrong.
The screen was sharp and was fine even in a very brightly lit sales hall. The mirror effect, as Addabox had correctly corrected us, was not as bad as I had thought. In fact, I was not bothered by it once I started playing with the machine.
For me, the keyboard, while nice, was too small, but then I have huge hands (I can palm a basketball with ease), but his was also likely a subconscious comparison to what I consider a keyboard to be. I'm sure, however, that I could get used to it, just like I can type away on my MBP.. using three fingers.
The machine had been on all day (about eight hours) and had been running PhotoBooth. The top of the computer on the left was rather hot, but the staff said it was about the same as all the other iMacs to date; maybe the aluminum felt a little hotter than plastic.
It was thin, and the color combo was good. Yeah, it looks like a pro machine but also like a consumer machine, which means both groups will not hesitate buying it. The black border actually made Keynote presentations very vivid.
I want one, but don't really need one until a new major project starts in January, so I will wait until the first speed bump and Leopard, or four months.
However, I could not have bought yesterday, anyway: they had sold out of the 5~10 machines they had received, which for our town is a big deal.
Which brings me to another topic: Apple really prepared for this release. My shop usually gets their display device somewhere one to two months after an apple announcement, with stock a per-order thing. This time they had stock within a day of the release, pamphlets in Japanese, iLife 08 in stock in Japanese. It was great.
I went to my local BestDenki (like Circuit City) yesterday and was very happily surprised to see he new 20" iMac standing proudly in the center of the main entrance. It was gorgeous.
The screen was sharp and was fine even in a very brightly lit sales hall. The mirror effect, as Addabox had correctly corrected us, was not as bad as I had thought. In fact, I was not bothered by it once I started playing with the machine.
For me, the keyboard, while nice, was too small, but then I have huge hands (I can palm a basketball with ease), but his was also likely a subconscious comparison to what I consider a keyboard to be. I'm sure, however, that I could get used to it, just like I can type away on my MBP.. using three fingers.
The machine had been on all day (about eight hours) and had been running PhotoBooth. The top of the computer on the left was rather hot, but the staff said it was about the same as all the other iMacs to date; maybe the aluminum felt a little hotter than plastic.
It was thin, and the color combo was good. Yeah, it looks like a pro machine but also like a consumer machine, which means both groups will not hesitate buying it. The black border actually made Keynote presentations very vivid.
I want one, but don't really need one until a new major project starts in January, so I will wait until the first speed bump and Leopard, or four months.
However, I could not have bought yesterday, anyway: they had sold out of the 5~10 machines they had received, which for our town is a big deal.
Which brings me to another topic: Apple really prepared for this release. My shop usually gets their display device somewhere one to two months after an apple announcement, with stock a per-order thing. This time they had stock within a day of the release, pamphlets in Japanese, iLife 08 in stock in Japanese. It was great.
You know, given the general tenor of the responses to the glossy screen, I'm just going to have to assume I have reverse polarized eyes or something, which makes reflections stand out.
Which is good for Apple, since most folks don't seem to mind the screen at all, but very sad for me, since I'm in the market for a new machine.
On the other hand, I'm very intrigued by the idea that the glass is held in by magnets and can be removed just by lifting straight up with a suction cup.
Is that actually true? If so, it's another Apple design coup, since it makes it easy to repair any damage to the front surface (I expect to see third party "iMac screen replacement kits" including special suction cup to appear shortly).
Now, if someone would just make poor old reflection intensifying Addabox a replacement screen with a wee bit of anti-reflective coating.....
Have you tried a glossy screen? I had major reservations about them until my wife bought her MB and I got to see it from time to time and slowly realized the "glare" or reflections were not as bad as I thought. Once your eyes start focusing on the screen, you don't notice the reflections that much. If I adjust my focus now, yeah, I can see the TV behind me (on my MBP glossy), but I have been working for an hour and had not noticed until right now that it was on (my wife uses headphones).
You could try a hood:
Have you tried a glossy screen? I had major reservations about them until my wife bought her MB and I got to see it from time to time and slowly realized the "glare" or reflections were not as bad as I thought. Once your eyes start focusing on the screen, you don't notice the reflections that much. If I adjust my focus now, yeah, I can see the TV behind me (on my MBP glossy), but I have been working for an hour and had not noticed until right now that it was on (my wife uses headphones).
It's true, I don't have one in my house. I've spent an hour or two at the Apple Store trying to figure out how I could make it work for me. I guess the psychological phenomena of learning to ignore the reflections is a possibility.
I went back to that tear-down site, and as far as can make out, yes, there are four locator pins on top and other than that just a ring of magnets on the inside of the inset where the glass sits.
Which makes me think this: given the almost seamless fit of the glass into the aluminum, and given that it can be removed, so that it can't be too tight, how on earth is Apple able to achieve such incredibly fine tolerances on a mass market item?
On the other hand, I'm very intrigued by the idea that the glass is held in by magnets and can be removed just by lifting straight up with a suction cup.
Is that actually true?
From the tear-downs that have been posted, it does seem like a highly plausible and realistic course of action to buy the iMac and then remove the glass if the reflections are a real problem for you.
If you wanted the glass back in to protect the screen, I wouldn't be surprised if you can get anti-reflective coatings applied to the glass first.
how on earth is Apple able to achieve such incredibly fine tolerances on a mass market item?
A good question that I'm sure their competitors would love to know. Isn't it odd how no one has been able to compete with the Aluminium PowerBook/MacBook Pro enclosure after all this time? Or even the iPod enclosures, for that matter.
A good question that I'm sure their competitors would love to know. Isn't it odd how no one has been able to compete with the Aluminium PowerBook/MacBook Pro enclosure after all this time? Or even the iPod enclosures, for that matter.
Possibly, or it could be that other manufacturers have realised that Mac Book Pro design is flawed and their customers may not want a notebook with a warped lid or a screen that does not open far enough to use comfortably while standing up!
Possibly, or it could be that other manufacturers have realised that Mac Book Pro design is flawed and their customers may not want a notebook with a warped lid or a screen that does not open far enough to use comfortably while standing up!
I wasn't aware of lid warping. The hinging can be adjusted. The concept of exposed metal can be taken and done without actually copying the designs, it's probably better do that than just rip off everything.
Compaq does have a line that looks like the Titanium books, but I don't know if there's any metal in them. I think IBM/Lenovo uses magnesum in their casing, but they don't expose the metal. My old Compaq business notebook seems to have a metal lid and chassis, but it appears to be powder coated black.
I wasn't aware of lid warping. The hinging can be adjusted. The concept of exposed metal can be taken and done without actually copying the designs, it's probably better do that than just rip off everything.
My point really was just don't confuse perfect design with good design, the way the previous post talked about the MBP was as though it is a beacon to perfect design and wondering why no-one had managed to compete with it. My MBP is a little over a month old and when the lid is closed the right side is around 3mm off the base while the left side is flush, nothing too major but does ruin the lines and makes it look cheap. I did think about returning it but after reading a few forums i realised this seems to be a common issue and one which does not warrant a replacement by all accounts.
While it does not ruin the enjoyment of the otherwise great notebook (forgetting of course the stupidity of a screen that does not open far enough to be viewed while standing) it does kind of ruin the work that Apple put into designing a great notebook with some great features (the little screws on the sides that make it feel solidly built for example) when the lid does not even close properly and thus when in a bag is begging for objects to slip into the gap and possibly do damage to the screen.
But that does seem to be a fault with Apple design as a whole, sometimes i get the impression that more time is spent on making something look good rather than making it good to use.
My point really was just don't confuse perfect design with good design, the way the previous post talked about the MBP was as though it is a beacon to perfect design and wondering why no-one had managed to compete with it. My MBP is a little over a month old and when the lid is closed the right side is around 3mm off the base while the left side is flush, nothing too major but does ruin the lines and makes it look cheap. I did think about returning it but after reading a few forums i realised this seems to be a common issue and one which does not warrant a replacement by all accounts.
While it does not ruin the enjoyment of the otherwise great notebook (forgetting of course the stupidity of a screen that does not open far enough to be viewed while standing) it does kind of ruin the work that Apple put into designing a great notebook with some great features (the little screws on the sides that make it feel solidly built for example) when the lid does not even close properly and thus when in a bag is begging for objects to slip into the gap and possibly do damage to the screen.
But that does seem to be a fault with Apple design as a whole, sometimes i get the impression that more time is spent on making something look good rather than making it good to use.
Sure, but it's not a cause and effect thing. That is, Apple products don't have flaws because they try to hard to make them perfect-- just look at the competition, which can have annoying flaws on top of generally shoddy construction.
I agree that the closure mechanism on the MacBook Pro could use some rethinking-- the latch breaks far too often, for one thing. I really wish they'd go with the MacBook magnetic closures, or something else more robust.
But it doesn't seem to me that that latch has anything to do, positive or negative, with the general fit and finish of the machine, which is excellent. It's just a so-so mechanism that is overdue for revision, something that almost any manufacturer can produce examples of, whether they sweat the details or not.
Sure, but it's not a cause and effect thing. That is, Apple products don't have flaws because they try to hard to make them perfect-- just look at the competition, which can have annoying flaws on top of generally shoddy construction.
I agree that the closure mechanism on the MacBook Pro could use some rethinking-- the latch breaks far too often, for one thing. I really wish they'd go with the MacBook magnetic closures, or something else more robust.
But it doesn't seem to me that that latch has anything to do, positive or negative, with the general fit and finish of the machine, which is excellent. It's just a so-so mechanism that is overdue for revision, something that almost any manufacturer can produce examples of, whether they sweat the details or not.
Addabox, i am not sure i agree with you there, i actually do think it is a cause and effect thing. I really believe that much of Apples design philosophy is based on form over function. I think they come up with a great design and then work out good excuses as to why somebody cannot do something they could on their previous product.
The lid on a MBP is actually a great point in hand, there are plenty of PC manufacturers who have managed to perfect the design of a notebok lid, the Dell that sits here on my desk (my work computer) is an example. Magnetic latch, strong hinges that allow you to open the lid flat back the other way (for easy viewing from above) and when closed it sites flush against the base. Apple could have easily have implimented this great design principle or a version of but instead they decided to go with a completely different design that means the operation and quality of the MBP lid is inferior in every way to the dell. This was not an accident or even a bad side effect of great deisgn, Apple purposfully chose this design purely through looks (It does look much neater with no hinges showing).
Far be it from me to second guess a cat, but that's exactly the sentiment that baffles me. Not the preferring the glossy screen, of course, that's entirely up to you, but the idea that the screens are not "overly reflective"-- I honestly don't see how they could be any more reflective.
The Hubble Space Telescope uses a highly polished mirror to focus trace amounts of ancient light into meaningful images. I have not done a side by side comparison, but I will step out on a limb and speculate that the Hubble?s mirror may be more reflective than the new iMac?s screen.
I guess I could understand something like "reflective though they may be, it doesn't bother me", but, man, at least in the Apple Store, most angles where pretty much mirror like, and there didn't seem to be any viewing angles that didn't include quite a bit of the store behind me.
On looking at the new iMac, I did not think ?reflective though they may be, it doesn?t bother me." That didn't cross my mind because I wasn?t thinking of them as reflective.
I suppose you could make a similar argument that because the CPU has a bitter taste if you let it sit in your mouth for awhile, anyone who evaluates an iMac must state ?bitter-tasting though they may be, it doesn?t bother me.? But since I didn't pop out the CPU and suck on it for taste, this too didn't cross my mind.
Are there actually screens out there that are more reflective than the ones on the new iMacs, so that the iMacs screens seem "not too bad"? Because that I gotta see.
I can?t speak for others, and I am just a cat. But I honestly haven?t been bothered by reflections on the new iMac. When I get my own to play with I may arrive at a different conclusion, but for now, this has been a non-issue for me.
MY REAL GRIPE about TV is that dam__d Channel logo, the ads, and the banners that appear on the screen bottom. Sometimes they cover up something I want to see. I notice that they don't appear during commercials. Sorry, I know that doesn't conform to the current thread. Maybe I'll carry it over to another thread. I can't imagine anyone being happy with it.
I was irritated that we weren't given a choice of matte or glossy displays until someone pointed out that I shouldn't be. She pointed out that I have a reading lamp on next to me while watching TV (being, ahem, multi talented I read and watch TV at the same time). The reflection of the lamp is bright on the TV screen, but I am unaware of it until I think about it. Our eyes or brain must compensate - or something. Maybe it's equivalent to focusing on a near object or a distant object. Our eyes adjust to that. That may not be a good analogy, but it shows the possibility of focusing on the display rather than the glare. Another analogy would be how we tune out ambient sound while we talk to another person.
MY REAL GRIPE about TV is that dam__d Channel logo, the ads, and the banners that appear on the screen bottom. Sometimes they cover up something I want to see. I notice that they don't appear during commercials. Sorry, I know that doesn't conform to the current thread. Maybe I'll carry it over to another thread. I can't imagine anyone being happy with it.
But generally we watch TV in a different way to a monitor - distance away is more for the TV. Concentration & focusing is different.
I went to look at the iMac today & was really disappointed by the screen despite wanting to like it & buy it....
Doing ohotography work on it will be really annoying under bright lights IMHO....
I was irritated that we weren't given a choice of matte or glossy displays until someone pointed out that I shouldn't be. She pointed out that I have a reading lamp on next to me while watching TV (being, ahem, multi talented I read and watch TV at the same time). The reflection of the lamp is bright on the TV screen, but I am unaware of it until I think about it. Our eyes or brain must compensate - or something. Maybe it's equivalent to focusing on a near object or a distant object. Our eyes adjust to that. That may not be a good analogy, but it shows the possibility of focusing on the display rather than the glare. Another analogy would be how we tune out ambient sound while we talk to another person.
MY REAL GRIPE about TV is that dam__d Channel logo, the ads, and the banners that appear on the screen bottom. Sometimes they cover up something I want to see. I notice that they don't appear during commercials. Sorry, I know that doesn't conform to the current thread. Maybe I'll carry it over to another thread. I can't imagine anyone being happy with it.
Now there you have a grievance on which all right thinking people can agree, and I think it does deserve its own thread. I will say that since FX has started using jets of flame to remind you to watch "Rescue Me", it has lead to some humorous moments of fire shooting out of unknowing thespians asses.