Sorry- environmentally friendly is not necessarily state-of -the art. What's good for Al Gore is not particularly good in the real world- especially those Leopard folders that look like recycled paper- whatever!
If you think 'environmentalism' = 'Al Gore,' all you are doing is displaying your ignorance.
If you think 'environmentalism' = 'Al Gore,' all you are doing is displaying your ignorance.
Please educate yourself a bit more.
I don't think that at all. But someone has misguided Apple on this fanatical quest for a higher green rating- and guess who sits on their board of Directors? It's also a known fact that environmentalists have push him to make "a Greener Apple".
Diesel is already a much more efficient source of fuel than petroleum gas. That is the reason its used for heavy duty vehicles. Newer diesel engines, new refinement and blends of diesel fuel make it a lot more cleaner than gas also.
Their is a movement for municipal state and city vehicles to use natural gas, which is even more fuel efficient and cleaner than diesel. Already city's are using natural gas in their mass transit bus lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontlookleft
.
It is important to recycle, I guess, but think about those gas guzzling diesel piles of crap that pick up your recyclable material. The machines that run to get your crap recycled. OH and the part where you put your recyclables in a PLASTIC bin. I laughed a little there.
To again explain with critical color and visual work.
Matte LCD screens have never really been considered great for critical color work. CRT screens are still considered the best medium for critical color work. CRT screens use reflective glass. To use them effectively they need to be used in a darkened room where ambient light is not able to corrupt the image.
Not working in the proper environment is bad for critical color work. Reflection is reflection whether its glossy or matte. Glossy and matte handle the reflection in different ways, either way you still corrupt the image with reflection.
Primarily the reason why their isn't much talk of CRT screens anymore is that mass production of them are winding down and will soon stop. But matte LCD screens have never been considered as good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeksdigital
then you totally don't use your computer for any sort of professional visual arts work. the glass/glossy screens are an absolute abomination, and while I commend apple for their move towards "green," they need to think twice about taking away matte screens from us professionals who NEED them. the move to all-glass notebook screens is complete bullshit, and that's why I bought a refurbished 2.6ghz 15" macbook pro to hold me over for the next few years until they bring back the damn matte screens.
I'd rather have a matte or semi-matte screen laptop any day over a glossy glare reflecting laptop -and I don't care how environmentally unfriendly it is. I mean really- how more dangerous could that be over a car, boat or spaceship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anilsudhakaran
I totally disagree about the glossy screen. It is beautiful. You hardly notice any reflection or glare, even when there is any.
No, YOU hardly notice any reflection or glare.
How is it that people can be so friggin' blind to the overpowering reflections on these screens?! Are you guys blind, or can you just selectively turn off certain receptors in your eyes and brain?
You: Hey, aren't you going to clean up the graffiti all over the walls before I move in?
Landlord: Nah, you'll hardly notice it. Just pretend it's not there. Really, you won't see it.
You: Uh, okay.
Crap, I am so tired of people saying "you won't notice, blah blah blah". Bullshit. These machines are UNUSABLE to me. And apparently I'm not the only one.
With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy. Even accounting for a bias due to the recent change, that's bad news. Note that 30% hate it so bad they (at least say they) won't buy one. That is something Apple needs to pay attention to. If only 1/2 of those folks are true to their word (I certainly am), then they have lost an enormous amount of sales. Or at the very least, delayed until they fix the problem. Fortunately, I have a 2.2 C2D, so I can hold out for a while.
Matte LCD screens have never really been considered great for critical color work. CRT screens are still considered the best medium for critical color work. CRT screens use reflective glass. To use them effectively they need to be used in a darkened room where ambient light is not able to corrupt the image.
Not working in the proper environment is bad for critical color work. Reflection is reflection whether its glossy or matte. Glossy and matte handle the reflection in different ways, either way you still corrupt the image with reflection....
This is of course true. If you are working in a proper, light-controlled environment, and have need for critical color work, then you want a CRT, or glass LCD.
But for the other 99% of the world, that's mostly irrelevant and/or infeasible. And for those of us using laptops (i.e. most people now), we buy them so we are free to move around and use in all kinds of different locations and environments, therefore making the notion of an ideal lighting environment totally moot.
I have no problem with people wanting glass for certain work, but why the hell put it on laptops. No, that isn't even right.... go ahead and make it available on laptops, but matte needs to be available, and should probably be the default choice for most people.
How is it that people can be so friggin' blind to the overpowering reflections on these screens?! Are you guys blind, or can you just selectively turn off certain receptors in your eyes and brain?
Crap, I am so tired of people saying "you won't notice, blah blah blah". Bullshit. These machines are UNUSABLE to me. And apparently I'm not the only one.
The reflection you speak of is called a specular highlight. Matte screens don't eliminate specular highlights, matte screen diffuse specular highlights. If their is a bright light source a specular highlight is always there, laws of physics and all. Matte screens cause a specular highlight to bloom into a wider softer spot. Instead of reflecting a more defined specular highlight the way glossy does.
A bright blooming reflection is still distracting. You do tilt the screen to eliminate it as much as possible. Its just softer and not quite as harsh as a defined reflection. Mentally you decide a softer reflection is more tolerable than a defined reflection.
Quote:
With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy.
6,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.
6,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.
Apple would be selling more units irrespective of the kind of screen. They have a superior OS, favorable media (finally), iPod/iPhone halo, etc.
A valid question to ask would be: could they be selling even -more- units if they used matte instead of glossy? Or better yet, if they sold both? It's clear that user preference is fairly evenly split, with a pretty strong bias to the extreme on the dislike side of the equation. And allowing for matte does not entail significant hardware design effort, etc. Basically one BTO option on a couple models of laptops. It's baffling.
Also, while 6,000 is statistically small compared to the number of units sold/year, it is by far large enough to get a good measure, provided there isn't a significant bias to the population. MacOSXHints serves a wide cross section of Mac users, and the only bias I can imagine would be users who are pissed off about the change might be slightly more likely to vote. But this isn't the only poll around, just a well-trafficked one.
Apple would be selling more units irrespective of the kind of screen. They have a superior OS, favorable media (finally), iPod/iPhone halo, etc.
When you make a statement like this, do you fully understand how Apple has grown its computer sales?
Quote:
A valid question to ask would be: could they be selling even -more- units if they used matte instead of glossy? Or better yet, if they sold both? It's clear that user preference is fairly evenly split, with a pretty strong bias to the extreme on the dislike side of the equation. And allowing for matte does not entail significant hardware design effort, etc. Basically one BTO option on a couple models of laptops. It's baffling.
Last year Apple did offer both in the pro line. Steve Jobs said that people overwhelming chose glossy over matte. Sales of MacBooks without the option of matte have significantly increased every quarter for the past two years. So no, their is little evidence that Apple would sell many more with matte as an option.
Quote:
Also, while 6,000 is statistically small compared to the number of units sold/year, it is by far large enough to get a good measure, provided there isn't a significant bias to the population. MacOSXHints serves a wide cross section of Mac users, and the only bias I can imagine would be users who are pissed off about the change might be slightly more likely to vote. But this isn't the only poll around, just a well-trafficked one.
MacOSXHints only represents the people who care enough to go on MacOSXHints to complain. That is not a good measure of Mac users. Most Mac users don't go on these internet lists and post opinions one way or the other.
With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy. Even accounting for a bias due to the recent change, that's bad news. Note that 30% hate it so bad they (at least say they) won't buy one. That is something Apple needs to pay attention to. If only 1/2 of those folks are true to their word (I certainly am), then they have lost an enormous amount of sales. Or at the very least, delayed until they fix the problem. Fortunately, I have a 2.2 C2D, so I can hold out for a while.
Like or dislike doesn't matter. What matter is if people will not buy it because of the glossy display and that percent is only ~30%! There are ~14% undecided and ~54% like the glossy display or will buy it regardless of the display. I consider this to be a majority, don't you?
Apple isn't going back to matte screens. Your continued complaining about it isn't changing their minds, its only annoying us.
NO- Your belligerence to the fact that glossy is inferior is annoying me and many others on here. Keep your FUGLY green Glossy screen and I'll stay with my fantastic matte iMac and MacBookPro. The Old G3 iMacs needed Scotch glare screens to compensate for all that headache inducing, glossy glareness- ENJOY!
Like or dislike doesn't matter. What matter is if people will not buy it because of the glossy display and that percent is only ~30%! There are ~14% undecided and ~54% like the glossy display or will buy it regardless of the display. I consider this to be a majority, don't you?
The reflection you speak of is called a specular highlight. Matte screens don't eliminate specular highlights, matte screen diffuse specular highlights. If their is a bright light source a specular highlight is always there, laws of physics and all. Matte screens cause a specular highlight to bloom into a wider softer spot. Instead of reflecting a more defined specular highlight the way glossy does.
A bright blooming reflection is still distracting. You do tilt the screen to eliminate it as much as possible. Its just softer and not quite as harsh as a defined reflection. Mentally you decide a softer reflection is more tolerable than a defined reflection.
,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.
Stop trying to convince people (and not just me mind you) that glossy is better- it's NOT working.
Stop trying to convince people (and not just me mind you) that glossy is better- it's NOT working.
It looked to me that he was explaining what was going on, not that it was better or worse. The explanation is correct.
Personally, I think both methods are less than ideal. I would prefer to see Rayleigh coatings applied like it was for many late model CRTs, the surface was smooth but it canceled out reflections.
It looked to me that he was explaining what was going on, not that it was better or worse. The explanation is correct.
Personally, I think both methods are less than ideal. I would prefer to see Rayleigh coatings applied like it was for many late model CRTs, the surface was smooth but it canceled out reflections.
No- he is specifically shooting down matte. Glossy gives me and many others headaches besides the problems with color rendering. If I wanted glossy I would have bought an HP -like 2 years ago.
Question - For HDTVs - why do you think that 90% of LCDs are matte and sell better than glossy Plasmas? Answer - Glare annoys.
I like the hybrid SONY laptop screens- too bad they have a patent.
Comments
Sorry- environmentally friendly is not necessarily state-of -the art. What's good for Al Gore is not particularly good in the real world- especially those Leopard folders that look like recycled paper- whatever!
If you think 'environmentalism' = 'Al Gore,' all you are doing is displaying your ignorance.
Please educate yourself a bit more.
So I take it you don't recycle? All your cardboard boxes, beer cans, plastic bottles, grocery bags, magazines, and glass bottles go in the trash?
Of course I recycle- but I do not wear Earth Shoes.
If you think 'environmentalism' = 'Al Gore,' all you are doing is displaying your ignorance.
Please educate yourself a bit more.
I don't think that at all. But someone has misguided Apple on this fanatical quest for a higher green rating- and guess who sits on their board of Directors? It's also a known fact that environmentalists have push him to make "a Greener Apple".
Well then please, buy one of those light dispersing anti reflection films to cover your screen and quit whining. Or move to Dell, whatever.
No-I'd rather Apple just make a matte screen with animal fur exterior, thank you.
Their is a movement for municipal state and city vehicles to use natural gas, which is even more fuel efficient and cleaner than diesel. Already city's are using natural gas in their mass transit bus lines.
.
It is important to recycle, I guess, but think about those gas guzzling diesel piles of crap that pick up your recyclable material. The machines that run to get your crap recycled. OH and the part where you put your recyclables in a PLASTIC bin. I laughed a little there.
Matte LCD screens have never really been considered great for critical color work. CRT screens are still considered the best medium for critical color work. CRT screens use reflective glass. To use them effectively they need to be used in a darkened room where ambient light is not able to corrupt the image.
Not working in the proper environment is bad for critical color work. Reflection is reflection whether its glossy or matte. Glossy and matte handle the reflection in different ways, either way you still corrupt the image with reflection.
Primarily the reason why their isn't much talk of CRT screens anymore is that mass production of them are winding down and will soon stop. But matte LCD screens have never been considered as good.
then you totally don't use your computer for any sort of professional visual arts work. the glass/glossy screens are an absolute abomination, and while I commend apple for their move towards "green," they need to think twice about taking away matte screens from us professionals who NEED them. the move to all-glass notebook screens is complete bullshit, and that's why I bought a refurbished 2.6ghz 15" macbook pro to hold me over for the next few years until they bring back the damn matte screens.
[/rant]
No-I'd rather Apple just make a matte screen with animal fur exterior, thank you.
I'd rather have a matte or semi-matte screen laptop any day over a glossy glare reflecting laptop -and I don't care how environmentally unfriendly it is. I mean really- how more dangerous could that be over a car, boat or spaceship?
I totally disagree about the glossy screen. It is beautiful. You hardly notice any reflection or glare, even when there is any.
No, YOU hardly notice any reflection or glare.
How is it that people can be so friggin' blind to the overpowering reflections on these screens?! Are you guys blind, or can you just selectively turn off certain receptors in your eyes and brain? Crap, I am so tired of people saying "you won't notice, blah blah blah". Bullshit. These machines are UNUSABLE to me. And apparently I'm not the only one.
http://www.macosxhints.com/polls/ind...8glossy&aid=-1
With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy. Even accounting for a bias due to the recent change, that's bad news. Note that 30% hate it so bad they (at least say they) won't buy one. That is something Apple needs to pay attention to. If only 1/2 of those folks are true to their word (I certainly am), then they have lost an enormous amount of sales. Or at the very least, delayed until they fix the problem. Fortunately, I have a 2.2 C2D, so I can hold out for a while.
Matte LCD screens have never really been considered great for critical color work. CRT screens are still considered the best medium for critical color work. CRT screens use reflective glass. To use them effectively they need to be used in a darkened room where ambient light is not able to corrupt the image.
Not working in the proper environment is bad for critical color work. Reflection is reflection whether its glossy or matte. Glossy and matte handle the reflection in different ways, either way you still corrupt the image with reflection....
This is of course true. If you are working in a proper, light-controlled environment, and have need for critical color work, then you want a CRT, or glass LCD.
But for the other 99% of the world, that's mostly irrelevant and/or infeasible. And for those of us using laptops (i.e. most people now), we buy them so we are free to move around and use in all kinds of different locations and environments, therefore making the notion of an ideal lighting environment totally moot.
I have no problem with people wanting glass for certain work, but why the hell put it on laptops. No, that isn't even right.... go ahead and make it available on laptops, but matte needs to be available, and should probably be the default choice for most people.
How is it that people can be so friggin' blind to the overpowering reflections on these screens?! Are you guys blind, or can you just selectively turn off certain receptors in your eyes and brain?
Crap, I am so tired of people saying "you won't notice, blah blah blah". Bullshit. These machines are UNUSABLE to me. And apparently I'm not the only one.
The reflection you speak of is called a specular highlight. Matte screens don't eliminate specular highlights, matte screen diffuse specular highlights. If their is a bright light source a specular highlight is always there, laws of physics and all. Matte screens cause a specular highlight to bloom into a wider softer spot. Instead of reflecting a more defined specular highlight the way glossy does.
A bright blooming reflection is still distracting. You do tilt the screen to eliminate it as much as possible. Its just softer and not quite as harsh as a defined reflection. Mentally you decide a softer reflection is more tolerable than a defined reflection.
With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy.
6,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.
6,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.
Apple would be selling more units irrespective of the kind of screen. They have a superior OS, favorable media (finally), iPod/iPhone halo, etc.
A valid question to ask would be: could they be selling even -more- units if they used matte instead of glossy? Or better yet, if they sold both? It's clear that user preference is fairly evenly split, with a pretty strong bias to the extreme on the dislike side of the equation. And allowing for matte does not entail significant hardware design effort, etc. Basically one BTO option on a couple models of laptops. It's baffling.
Also, while 6,000 is statistically small compared to the number of units sold/year, it is by far large enough to get a good measure, provided there isn't a significant bias to the population. MacOSXHints serves a wide cross section of Mac users, and the only bias I can imagine would be users who are pissed off about the change might be slightly more likely to vote. But this isn't the only poll around, just a well-trafficked one.
Apple would be selling more units irrespective of the kind of screen. They have a superior OS, favorable media (finally), iPod/iPhone halo, etc.
When you make a statement like this, do you fully understand how Apple has grown its computer sales?
A valid question to ask would be: could they be selling even -more- units if they used matte instead of glossy? Or better yet, if they sold both? It's clear that user preference is fairly evenly split, with a pretty strong bias to the extreme on the dislike side of the equation. And allowing for matte does not entail significant hardware design effort, etc. Basically one BTO option on a couple models of laptops. It's baffling.
Last year Apple did offer both in the pro line. Steve Jobs said that people overwhelming chose glossy over matte. Sales of MacBooks without the option of matte have significantly increased every quarter for the past two years. So no, their is little evidence that Apple would sell many more with matte as an option.
Also, while 6,000 is statistically small compared to the number of units sold/year, it is by far large enough to get a good measure, provided there isn't a significant bias to the population. MacOSXHints serves a wide cross section of Mac users, and the only bias I can imagine would be users who are pissed off about the change might be slightly more likely to vote. But this isn't the only poll around, just a well-trafficked one.
MacOSXHints only represents the people who care enough to go on MacOSXHints to complain. That is not a good measure of Mac users. Most Mac users don't go on these internet lists and post opinions one way or the other.
With nearly 6,000 people voting so far, ~44% do NOT like glossy, ~39% do like glossy. Even accounting for a bias due to the recent change, that's bad news. Note that 30% hate it so bad they (at least say they) won't buy one. That is something Apple needs to pay attention to. If only 1/2 of those folks are true to their word (I certainly am), then they have lost an enormous amount of sales. Or at the very least, delayed until they fix the problem. Fortunately, I have a 2.2 C2D, so I can hold out for a while.
Like or dislike doesn't matter. What matter is if people will not buy it because of the glossy display and that percent is only ~30%! There are ~14% undecided and ~54% like the glossy display or will buy it regardless of the display. I consider this to be a majority, don't you?
Note: Ignoring the ~2 others
Apple isn't going back to matte screens. Your continued complaining about it isn't changing their minds, its only annoying us.
NO- Your belligerence to the fact that glossy is inferior is annoying me and many others on here. Keep your FUGLY green Glossy screen and I'll stay with my fantastic matte iMac and MacBookPro. The Old G3 iMacs needed Scotch glare screens to compensate for all that headache inducing, glossy glareness- ENJOY!
Like or dislike doesn't matter. What matter is if people will not buy it because of the glossy display and that percent is only ~30%! There are ~14% undecided and ~54% like the glossy display or will buy it regardless of the display. I consider this to be a majority, don't you?
Not if 80% are uneducated.
Last year Apple did offer both in the pro line. Steve Jobs said that people overwhelming chose glossy over matte.
PCs were glossy long before Macs so I guess you agree that we should follow the PC route?
Dont believe everything you read or hear- this is all about being GREEN.
No, YOU hardly notice any reflection or glare.
That's crazy . Compare it next to a SONY semi- matte Vaio laptop screen -big difference. Too bad Sony has a patent on it.
The reflection you speak of is called a specular highlight. Matte screens don't eliminate specular highlights, matte screen diffuse specular highlights. If their is a bright light source a specular highlight is always there, laws of physics and all. Matte screens cause a specular highlight to bloom into a wider softer spot. Instead of reflecting a more defined specular highlight the way glossy does.
A bright blooming reflection is still distracting. You do tilt the screen to eliminate it as much as possible. Its just softer and not quite as harsh as a defined reflection. Mentally you decide a softer reflection is more tolerable than a defined reflection.
,000 is statistically insignificant to the millions of MacBooks Apple sells every quarter. Apple sells more notebooks with glossy screens per quarter than it sold when it only offered matte screens.
Stop trying to convince people (and not just me mind you) that glossy is better- it's NOT working.
Stop trying to convince people (and not just me mind you) that glossy is better- it's NOT working.
It looked to me that he was explaining what was going on, not that it was better or worse. The explanation is correct.
Personally, I think both methods are less than ideal. I would prefer to see Rayleigh coatings applied like it was for many late model CRTs, the surface was smooth but it canceled out reflections.
It looked to me that he was explaining what was going on, not that it was better or worse. The explanation is correct.
Personally, I think both methods are less than ideal. I would prefer to see Rayleigh coatings applied like it was for many late model CRTs, the surface was smooth but it canceled out reflections.
No- he is specifically shooting down matte. Glossy gives me and many others headaches besides the problems with color rendering. If I wanted glossy I would have bought an HP -like 2 years ago.
Question - For HDTVs - why do you think that 90% of LCDs are matte and sell better than glossy Plasmas? Answer - Glare annoys.
I like the hybrid SONY laptop screens- too bad they have a patent.