In the Fifth Ave Store they teach classes using the old Matte cinema display. Why- NO GLARE!!!
You can?t think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Can?t even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the ?troll? label so easily gets placed.
I had a cracked tooth and needed to see the dentist first thing this morning. So I'm very late to this party to say the least.
It's going to take me some time to read through all the posts here, but let me state my position.
1: I'm for CHOICE! If you like glossy, good for you! I can't use a glossy display at all, it seriously hurts my eyes and I'm not alone on the subject. So all I ask is glossy people respect mine and others need for a matte screen option alongside glossy choices. Everyone wins, there is no "what is better debate", it's subject to variable environmental conditions.
2: Many many polls taken, and more people prefer matte screens than glossy. But it's something like 60% matte 40% glossy on average. Even if it was 40% matte and 60% glossy, the large market share being denied is way too much to ignore.
3: Apple is the only legal provider of OS X as it's tied to their hardware. When Apple makes a computer that 60% of people can't use, what are they supposed to do with thousands of dollars of invested software/files etc?
Right now Apple is losing a sale with me, because I need a new 15" matte MacBook Pro and I can't get it, without having to spend an additional $200 and void my AppleCare/warranty by having TechRestore replace the glossy with a matte screen. And then, what about the next versions of Mac's?, will there be a option to switch the screen? Perhaps not.
Multiply my case by 60% of Mac users out there and you see there is a problem.
Peal and stick anti-glare films totally suck. They trap display heat, bubble and peel, collect dirt. Not good for a top of the line computer system. So that's not a solution.
The first PC company to introduce glossy screens was HP, who has had their eye on the consumer market since the cozy HP/Apple iPod breakup.
It costs MORE to make a glossy screen than a matte one. So why do we have to pay more for a matte screen 17" MacBook Pro? And why no matte screen MacBook Air?
When Phil said "Our customers love glossy screens" does he really mean "We only want to have customers who love glossy screens"??
There are tons of poll results, people's opinions and vital information on this subject if you click on the link "glossy bah humbug" in my signature.
Please take the time and review the information and evaluate. I will then welcome any intelligent responses to the subject.
You can?t think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Can?t even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the ?troll? label so easily gets placed.
Just because you are ignorant and accept glossy/glare gives you no reason for a hissy fit. Now that Apple finally offers matte on the 17 inch Pro you state no one wants matte? And if that's not an ABOSULTE stamentent - than what is?
Pifffft!! So sad... this is what they do at university?! Higher learning my @zz!
You are an idiot of the highest caliber. This is not something to be taken lightly. Poor posture can have severe long term health effects on a person. I think that does fall into reasonable research and for you to just blow it off is very telling regarding your level of education.
You can’t think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Can’t even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the ‘troll’ label so easily gets placed.
Just because you are ignorant and accept glossy/glare gives you no reason for a hissy fit. Now that Apple finally offers matte on the 17 inch Pro you state no one wants matte? And if that's not an ABSOLUTE statement - than what is?
You are an idiot of the highest caliber. This is not something to be taken lightly. Poor posture can have severe long term health effects on a person. I think that does fall into reasonable research and for you to just blow it off is very telling regarding your level of education.
it's totally understandable- these Fanboyz would be willing to get spinal degeneration for Apple if they had to.
How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
No- the logic is that you simply can't view Glossy en masse.
I am not sure that you can dismiss someone's opinion or conjecture and replace it with your own arbitrary conjecture by just shouting "no". If you worked at the Apple store and knew for a fact that the old displays were used because of glare issues with the new ones, things would be different. As things stand, I stick to the explanation that seems more reasonable - to me at least. Apple is extremely successful financially and demonstrates time and again that it understands the market (public information). It seems implausible that they would risk their financial success by marketing a product which their own staff consider unfit for its intended use. I therefore conclude that the more likely scenario is that Apple, being a well-run company, is "sweating its assets", i.e. uses the old displays for training instead of selling them at half price or putting them in the bin.
Having said that, if you explain in a logical way how you got to your conclusion, we should all be prepared to listen and consider your point of view. Are you able to do that?
I had a cracked tooth and needed to see the dentist first thing this morning. So I'm very late to this party to say the least.
It's going to take me some time to read through all the posts here, but let me state my position.
1: I'm for CHOICE! If you like glossy, good for you! I can't use a glossy display at all, it seriously hurts my eyes and I'm not alone on the subject. So all I ask is glossy people respect mine and others need for a matte screen option alongside glossy choices. Everyone wins, there is no "what is better debate", it's subject to variable environmental conditions.
2: Many many polls taken, and more people prefer matte screens than glossy. But it's something like 60% matte 40% glossy on average. Even if it was 40% matte and 60% glossy, the large market share being denied is way too much to ignore.
3: Apple is the only legal provider of OS X as it's tied to their hardware. When Apple makes a computer that 60% of people can't use, what are they supposed to do with thousands of dollars of invested software/files etc?
Right now Apple is losing a sale with me, because I need a new 15" matte MacBook Pro and I can't get it, without having to spend an additional $200 and void my AppleCare/warranty by having TechRestore replace the glossy with a matte screen. And then, what about the next versions of Mac's?, will there be a option to switch the screen? Perhaps not.
Multiply my case by 60% of Mac users out there and you see there is a problem.
Peal and stick anti-glare films totally suck. They trap display heat, bubble and peel, collect dirt. Not good for a top of the line computer system. So that's not a solution.
The first PC company to introduce glossy screens was HP, who has had their eye on the consumer market since the cozy HP/Apple iPod breakup.
It costs MORE to make a glossy screen than a matte one. So why do we have to pay more for a matte screen 17" MacBook Pro? And why no matte screen MacBook Air?
When Phil said "Our customers love glossy screens" does he really mean "We only want to have customers who love glossy screens"??
There are tons of poll results, people's opinions and vital information on this subject if you click on the link "glossy bah humbug" in my signature.
Please take the time and review the information and evaluate. I will then welcome any intelligent responses to the subject.
Thank you.
I was wondering if the glass in the 17" is removable like it is on the new iMacs. If it was, couldn't someone make a replacement that is non-glare? You could keep your glass and put it back if you needed to take it in for service.
Apple would move more Macbooks if they could license Sony's technology or create their own non gloss (no glass) option instead of what they are selling now. It's not the same screen as the glossy and unless I'm mistaken, it wouldn't be too hard to offer the same screen without the glass on it.
Dam people! Stop whining so much. Grow a pair. Only a bunch of pussies will complain about their back hurting because of a shiny computer screen. This school should be putting their resources into more important things then a back ache because someone up there has a vendetta with Apple for not offering matte LCDs.
There are starving children out there, we are destroying our earth..... Nope let's waist money on trying to shame Apple into offering an anti-glair option on their portable computers...
And if you get a back ache that's fine just make one of your girlfriends rub your back.. Thats what their there for.
Such enlightened views around here. What happened to the metrosexual "I'm a Mac" types?
Anyway, I'm at the age where years of pouring over laptops has given me back problems. Using a laptop brings it back. Not using it makes it go. If I was smart I'd get a job that didn't involve computers.
I used to think all this posture stuff was nonsense. I was wrong, painfully wrong. Chronic back pain is something that everyone should avoid. The sleepless nights give you lots of time to reflect on the mistake if you don't take steps to look after yourself.
I guess the University, like my first University, mainly runs Macs. Hence the Apple angle.
Such enlightened views around here. What happened to the metrosexual "I'm a Mac" types?
Anyway, I'm at the age where years of pouring over laptops has given me back problems. Using a laptop brings it back. Not using it makes it go. If I was smart I'd get a job that didn't involve computers.
I used to think all this posture stuff was nonsense. I was wrong, painfully wrong. Chronic back pain is something that everyone should avoid. The sleepless nights give you lots of time to reflect on the mistake if you don't take steps to look after yourself.
I guess the University, like my first University, mainly runs Macs. Hence the Apple angle.
Well, it sounds like your problem is that you didn't setup your work area correctly, but to be fair, there wasn't a lot of info in the early 90's about proper posture, how high the surface you put your laptop/keyboard is, how far and at what angle you should view the screen, and the use of lighting.
Almost twenty years later and STILL there are a lot of people who don't know these things. OSHA finally made some guidlines:
For a lot of people though, the news is too late, the damage has been done. Kind of like the early days of TV when we sat too close to it and now we have to wear glasses and have weird cases of cancer.
Yes really. The salespeople told me that they don't calibrate the screens with colorsync at all, they just use the default profile. The default profile is waay too purple. Mine was out of the box and it scared me until I hooked up my spyder to it and ran the software. You do have a point about it being to low and the lights may affect the reflection and or glare, but if they took the time to setup the machines correctly, they would look a hell of a lot better.
My reference to calibration was to your use of Spyder. ColorSync, yes. Spyder, never had much use of it, even though my agency had up to 24 Macs running at one time.
Problem in the stores is that it is not layout to setup the machines. Somebody at headoffice has to reorder the furnishings.
If you want to run Mac OS X, it's the only choice. I'm not interested in Linux or any flavor of Windows.
When it came time for me to buy a new external display, I bought a ViewSonic VP2650wb. 26", better specs than the new Apple display and a matte display.
The hostility in regard to people's display preference is idiotic.
There ya go! You bought what best suites your needs. The way it should be done.
If someone else doesn't like the glossy display of the iMac or whatever...go buy a MacMini with the display if your choice and be done with it. Don't sit here and bitch and complain about something that isn't going to change and then call people idiots because they like glossy or matte displays. I'm not buying the computer for you...I'm buying it for myself!
Sometimes it cracks me up how some people on this forum think they can run Apple better than Apple.
My reference to calibration was to your use of Spyder. ColorSync, yes. Spyder, never had much use of it, even though my agency had up to 24 Macs running at one time.
Problem in the stores is that it is not layout to setup the machines. Somebody at headoffice has to reorder the furnishings.
I used to think the same thing, but these new glossy screens are hinted to be wide gamut, even though Apple WON'T say one way or another. Just running Colorsync did little to remove the purple cast on it. Running the Spyder took it away and gave everything a natural look, just like the older screens used to. I used to hate calibrators and support several commercial printers, production houses and two television stations. Only one of them used calibrators, and they hated it.
I came across this thread in Apple's discussion groups and it changed my mind:
The user "15" had some very good info on the new glossy screens and their technology, and explained why now it is important to buy and use a calibrator, since "eyeballing" it with Colorsync doesn't remove the purple cast, it just made it less purple. He also goes on to say that a lot of the issues are with Nvidia's driver which is what PC users used to have to muddle thru back in the 90's. This is one reason why it's bad to rely on another company to show off your product, another is AT&T.
You said that most are ignorant. To backpeddle to state that you not referring to purchase decisions of glossy screens is not going to go well for you. You made the comment numerous times without ever stating any objective stance that many matte screen purchasers are also ignorant.
I said that many, if not most, consumers are ignorant and I can say that as many times as you want. So... does that mean I said "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant"? Man... you're really cracking me up.
Other people's rationale of choosing matte or glossy is not in my interest at all, so why do I need to state that matte screen purchasers are also ignorant? Just because I need to guard people like you who like to draw conclusions based on your own deduction? Even if I said that "matte screen purchasers are also ignorant" is not going to change anything because you are interpreting people's word based on your own deduction anyway. From all my quotes you took earlier, none of them means "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant". It's more than obvious that the "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" statement is based on your own deduction and now you're accusing me of backpeddling. Backpeddling? Why should I backpeddling from something I've never said. You're so pathetic, though not as nearly pathetic as someone who not only does not want to be opened for discussion and does not give any rational responses, but also keeps back stabbing people on other posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
As for the "anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen” is simply not true. If the glare issue was the issue then why did not they opt for the cheaper matte display on all there machines? Why have the glossy option at all if they are acknowledging that glare is an issue.
Let me put your foot into your own month... because glossy screen does have its advantage. "Why did Apple choose not to use a better glossy screens out there that have much lower glare" is the question. Is that a preference matter for some people who happened to like glare? Hopefully not. Giving a matte screen option limited to the 17" high-end model rather than increasing the cost to have a better glossy screen across all models is obviously a much cheaper option to solve the glare issue, especially the group that buy the highest-end model have a higher portion of people that are more aware and intelligible about screen quality.
PLEASE... cut the crap of making your deductions like for example... "oh... so you mean whoever that buys a smaller screen is necessarily less intelligible about their screen than those who buy a bigger screen" You did something like that and I have enough of that already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
They’ve just done a sweeping Mac notebook change and the 17” MBP is still the only one with that option. What you may have meant to say, but didn’t, is that Apple has acknowledged that some customers prefer matter displays over glossy. Like myself and others have stated numerous times, even ones that prefer matte, we’d like to see Apple offer these options to all their displays and that the choosing of glossy in no way signifys that the preference is ill-informed or foolishly derived.
Still, why the lower end models don't have such options to choose from? Just because 17” MBP is still the only one with that option since the sweeping change? I don't see that as a valid answer.
Well, it sounds like your problem is that you didn't setup your work area correctly, but to be fair, there wasn't a lot of info in the early 90's about proper posture, how high the surface you put your laptop/keyboard is, how far and at what angle you should view the screen, and the use of lighting.
Almost twenty years later and STILL there are a lot of people who don't know these things. OSHA finally made some guidlines:
For a lot of people though, the news is too late, the damage has been done. Kind of like the early days of TV when we sat too close to it and now we have to wear glasses and have weird cases of cancer.
We had the option of "workstation assessments" and I thought that was for softies. I was wrong... we are all more fragile than I realised as a young man. All my fault. I guess the point I'm making is do as I say not as I did, and that I can see where the Uni is coming from even though it sounds to many people like interfering. Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for.
Personally I prefer Matte screens however I've never owned a glossy just used other peoples. More choice would be nice.
We had the option of "workstation assessments" and I thought that was for softies. I was wrong... we are all more fragile than I realised as a young man. All my fault. I guess the point I'm making is do as I say not as I did, and that I can see where the Uni is coming from even though it sounds to many people like interfering. Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for.
Personally I prefer Matte screens however I've never owned a glossy just used other peoples. More choice would be nice.
Sorry if my post seemed like an attack, it wasn't. I too suffer from a bad back from improper workstation setups, and like you I and most of my colleagues didn't think that it was important to follow the guidelines once they were established.
"Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for."
You said that most are ignorant. To backpeddle to state that you not referring to purchase decisions of glossy screens is not going to go well for you. You made the comment numerous times without ever stating any objective stance that many matte screen purchasers are also ignorant.
Yes, I said many, if not most, consumers are ignorant and I can say that as many times as you want. So... does that mean "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant"? Man... you are really cracking me up.
Other people's rationale of choosing matte between glossy is not in my interest, so why do I need to state that matte screen purchasers are also ignorant? Just because I need to guard people like you who like to draw conclusions based on your own deduction? Even if I said that "matte screen purchasers are also ignorant" is not going to change anything because you are interpreting people's word based on your own deduction anyway. From all my quotes you took earlier, none of them are saying that "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant". It's more than obvious that the "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" statement is based on your own deduction and now you're accusing me of backpeddling. You're so pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
As for the "anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen” is simply not true. If the glare issue was the issue then why did not they opt for the cheaper matte display on all there machines? Why have the glossy option at all if they are acknowledging that glare is an issue.
Let me put your foot into your own month... because glossy screen does have its advantage. "Why did Apple choose not to use a better glossy screens out there that have much lower glare" is the question. Is that a preference matter for some people who happened to like glare? Hopefully not. Giving a matte screen option limited to the high-end model rather than increasing the cost to fix glare across all models which few people care about is obviously a much cheaper option to solve the glare issue, especially the group that buy the highest-end model have a higher portion of people that are more aware and intelligible about screen quality.
PLEASE... cut the crap of making your deductions like for example... "oh... so you mean whoever that buys a smaller screen is necessarily less intelligible about their screen than those who buy a bigger screen" You did something like that and I have enough of that already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
They’ve just done a sweeping Mac notebook change and the 17” MBP is still the only one with that option. What you may have meant to say, but didn’t, is that Apple has acknowledged that some customers prefer matter displays over glossy. Like myself and others have stated numerous times, even ones that prefer matte, we’d like to see Apple offer these options to all their displays and that the choosing of glossy in no way signifys that the preference is ill-informed or foolishly derived.
Still, why the lower end models don't have such options to choose from? Just because 17” MBP is still the only one with that option since the sweeping change? I don't see that as a valid answer.
Comments
In the Fifth Ave Store they teach classes using the old Matte cinema display. Why- NO GLARE!!!
You can?t think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Can?t even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the ?troll? label so easily gets placed.
In the Fifth Ave Store they teach classes using the old Matte cinema display. Why- NO GLARE!!!
How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.
I had a cracked tooth and needed to see the dentist first thing this morning. So I'm very late to this party to say the least.
It's going to take me some time to read through all the posts here, but let me state my position.
1: I'm for CHOICE! If you like glossy, good for you! I can't use a glossy display at all, it seriously hurts my eyes and I'm not alone on the subject. So all I ask is glossy people respect mine and others need for a matte screen option alongside glossy choices. Everyone wins, there is no "what is better debate", it's subject to variable environmental conditions.
2: Many many polls taken, and more people prefer matte screens than glossy. But it's something like 60% matte 40% glossy on average. Even if it was 40% matte and 60% glossy, the large market share being denied is way too much to ignore.
3: Apple is the only legal provider of OS X as it's tied to their hardware. When Apple makes a computer that 60% of people can't use, what are they supposed to do with thousands of dollars of invested software/files etc?
Right now Apple is losing a sale with me, because I need a new 15" matte MacBook Pro and I can't get it, without having to spend an additional $200 and void my AppleCare/warranty by having TechRestore replace the glossy with a matte screen. And then, what about the next versions of Mac's?, will there be a option to switch the screen? Perhaps not.
Multiply my case by 60% of Mac users out there and you see there is a problem.
Peal and stick anti-glare films totally suck. They trap display heat, bubble and peel, collect dirt. Not good for a top of the line computer system. So that's not a solution.
The first PC company to introduce glossy screens was HP, who has had their eye on the consumer market since the cozy HP/Apple iPod breakup.
It costs MORE to make a glossy screen than a matte one. So why do we have to pay more for a matte screen 17" MacBook Pro? And why no matte screen MacBook Air?
When Phil said "Our customers love glossy screens" does he really mean "We only want to have customers who love glossy screens"??
There are tons of poll results, people's opinions and vital information on this subject if you click on the link "glossy bah humbug" in my signature.
Please take the time and review the information and evaluate. I will then welcome any intelligent responses to the subject.
http://macmatte.wordpress.com/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=2417
Thank you.
You can?t think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Can?t even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the ?troll? label so easily gets placed.
Just because you are ignorant and accept glossy/glare gives you no reason for a hissy fit. Now that Apple finally offers matte on the 17 inch Pro you state no one wants matte? And if that's not an ABOSULTE stamentent - than what is?
Pifffft!! So sad... this is what they do at university?
You are an idiot of the highest caliber. This is not something to be taken lightly. Poor posture can have severe long term health effects on a person. I think that does fall into reasonable research and for you to just blow it off is very telling regarding your level of education.
You can’t think of another reason before making an absolute statement? Can’t even word it as conjecture or even begins to try for an objective statement that leads to civil discourse about potential reasons? And you wonder why the ‘troll’ label so easily gets placed.
Just because you are ignorant and accept glossy/glare gives you no reason for a hissy fit. Now that Apple finally offers matte on the 17 inch Pro you state no one wants matte? And if that's not an ABSOLUTE statement - than what is?
How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.
No- the logic is that you simply can't view Glossy en masse.
You are an idiot of the highest caliber. This is not something to be taken lightly. Poor posture can have severe long term health effects on a person. I think that does fall into reasonable research and for you to just blow it off is very telling regarding your level of education.
it's totally understandable- these Fanboyz would be willing to get spinal degeneration for Apple if they had to.
How about the financial incentive of making good use of perfectly usable but less desirable, older-generation monitors? This seems more logical to me.
No- the logic is that you simply can't view Glossy en masse.
I am not sure that you can dismiss someone's opinion or conjecture and replace it with your own arbitrary conjecture by just shouting "no". If you worked at the Apple store and knew for a fact that the old displays were used because of glare issues with the new ones, things would be different. As things stand, I stick to the explanation that seems more reasonable - to me at least. Apple is extremely successful financially and demonstrates time and again that it understands the market (public information). It seems implausible that they would risk their financial success by marketing a product which their own staff consider unfit for its intended use. I therefore conclude that the more likely scenario is that Apple, being a well-run company, is "sweating its assets", i.e. uses the old displays for training instead of selling them at half price or putting them in the bin.
Having said that, if you explain in a logical way how you got to your conclusion, we should all be prepared to listen and consider your point of view. Are you able to do that?
WELL WELL WELL!!!
I had a cracked tooth and needed to see the dentist first thing this morning. So I'm very late to this party to say the least.
It's going to take me some time to read through all the posts here, but let me state my position.
1: I'm for CHOICE! If you like glossy, good for you! I can't use a glossy display at all, it seriously hurts my eyes and I'm not alone on the subject. So all I ask is glossy people respect mine and others need for a matte screen option alongside glossy choices. Everyone wins, there is no "what is better debate", it's subject to variable environmental conditions.
2: Many many polls taken, and more people prefer matte screens than glossy. But it's something like 60% matte 40% glossy on average. Even if it was 40% matte and 60% glossy, the large market share being denied is way too much to ignore.
3: Apple is the only legal provider of OS X as it's tied to their hardware. When Apple makes a computer that 60% of people can't use, what are they supposed to do with thousands of dollars of invested software/files etc?
Right now Apple is losing a sale with me, because I need a new 15" matte MacBook Pro and I can't get it, without having to spend an additional $200 and void my AppleCare/warranty by having TechRestore replace the glossy with a matte screen. And then, what about the next versions of Mac's?, will there be a option to switch the screen? Perhaps not.
Multiply my case by 60% of Mac users out there and you see there is a problem.
Peal and stick anti-glare films totally suck. They trap display heat, bubble and peel, collect dirt. Not good for a top of the line computer system. So that's not a solution.
The first PC company to introduce glossy screens was HP, who has had their eye on the consumer market since the cozy HP/Apple iPod breakup.
It costs MORE to make a glossy screen than a matte one. So why do we have to pay more for a matte screen 17" MacBook Pro? And why no matte screen MacBook Air?
When Phil said "Our customers love glossy screens" does he really mean "We only want to have customers who love glossy screens"??
There are tons of poll results, people's opinions and vital information on this subject if you click on the link "glossy bah humbug" in my signature.
Please take the time and review the information and evaluate. I will then welcome any intelligent responses to the subject.
Thank you.
I was wondering if the glass in the 17" is removable like it is on the new iMacs. If it was, couldn't someone make a replacement that is non-glare? You could keep your glass and put it back if you needed to take it in for service.
Apple would move more Macbooks if they could license Sony's technology or create their own non gloss (no glass) option instead of what they are selling now. It's not the same screen as the glossy and unless I'm mistaken, it wouldn't be too hard to offer the same screen without the glass on it.
Dam people! Stop whining so much. Grow a pair. Only a bunch of pussies will complain about their back hurting because of a shiny computer screen. This school should be putting their resources into more important things then a back ache because someone up there has a vendetta with Apple for not offering matte LCDs.
There are starving children out there, we are destroying our earth..... Nope let's waist money on trying to shame Apple into offering an anti-glair option on their portable computers...
And if you get a back ache that's fine just make one of your girlfriends rub your back.. Thats what their there for.
Such enlightened views around here. What happened to the metrosexual "I'm a Mac" types?
Anyway, I'm at the age where years of pouring over laptops has given me back problems. Using a laptop brings it back. Not using it makes it go. If I was smart I'd get a job that didn't involve computers.
I used to think all this posture stuff was nonsense. I was wrong, painfully wrong. Chronic back pain is something that everyone should avoid. The sleepless nights give you lots of time to reflect on the mistake if you don't take steps to look after yourself.
I guess the University, like my first University, mainly runs Macs. Hence the Apple angle.
Such enlightened views around here. What happened to the metrosexual "I'm a Mac" types?
Anyway, I'm at the age where years of pouring over laptops has given me back problems. Using a laptop brings it back. Not using it makes it go. If I was smart I'd get a job that didn't involve computers.
I used to think all this posture stuff was nonsense. I was wrong, painfully wrong. Chronic back pain is something that everyone should avoid. The sleepless nights give you lots of time to reflect on the mistake if you don't take steps to look after yourself.
I guess the University, like my first University, mainly runs Macs. Hence the Apple angle.
Well, it sounds like your problem is that you didn't setup your work area correctly, but to be fair, there wasn't a lot of info in the early 90's about proper posture, how high the surface you put your laptop/keyboard is, how far and at what angle you should view the screen, and the use of lighting.
Almost twenty years later and STILL there are a lot of people who don't know these things. OSHA finally made some guidlines:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/comp...ons/index.html
For a lot of people though, the news is too late, the damage has been done. Kind of like the early days of TV when we sat too close to it and now we have to wear glasses and have weird cases of cancer.
Yes really. The salespeople told me that they don't calibrate the screens with colorsync at all, they just use the default profile. The default profile is waay too purple. Mine was out of the box and it scared me until I hooked up my spyder to it and ran the software. You do have a point about it being to low and the lights may affect the reflection and or glare, but if they took the time to setup the machines correctly, they would look a hell of a lot better.
My reference to calibration was to your use of Spyder. ColorSync, yes. Spyder, never had much use of it, even though my agency had up to 24 Macs running at one time.
Problem in the stores is that it is not layout to setup the machines. Somebody at headoffice has to reorder the furnishings.
If you want to run Mac OS X, it's the only choice. I'm not interested in Linux or any flavor of Windows.
When it came time for me to buy a new external display, I bought a ViewSonic VP2650wb. 26", better specs than the new Apple display and a matte display.
The hostility in regard to people's display preference is idiotic.
There ya go! You bought what best suites your needs. The way it should be done.
If someone else doesn't like the glossy display of the iMac or whatever...go buy a MacMini with the display if your choice and be done with it. Don't sit here and bitch and complain about something that isn't going to change and then call people idiots because they like glossy or matte displays. I'm not buying the computer for you...I'm buying it for myself!
Sometimes it cracks me up how some people on this forum think they can run Apple better than Apple.
My reference to calibration was to your use of Spyder. ColorSync, yes. Spyder, never had much use of it, even though my agency had up to 24 Macs running at one time.
Problem in the stores is that it is not layout to setup the machines. Somebody at headoffice has to reorder the furnishings.
I used to think the same thing, but these new glossy screens are hinted to be wide gamut, even though Apple WON'T say one way or another. Just running Colorsync did little to remove the purple cast on it. Running the Spyder took it away and gave everything a natural look, just like the older screens used to. I used to hate calibrators and support several commercial printers, production houses and two television stations. Only one of them used calibrators, and they hated it.
I came across this thread in Apple's discussion groups and it changed my mind:
http://discussions.apple.com/message...617476#9617476
The user "15" had some very good info on the new glossy screens and their technology, and explained why now it is important to buy and use a calibrator, since "eyeballing" it with Colorsync doesn't remove the purple cast, it just made it less purple. He also goes on to say that a lot of the issues are with Nvidia's driver which is what PC users used to have to muddle thru back in the 90's. This is one reason why it's bad to rely on another company to show off your product, another is AT&T.
You said that most are ignorant. To backpeddle to state that you not referring to purchase decisions of glossy screens is not going to go well for you. You made the comment numerous times without ever stating any objective stance that many matte screen purchasers are also ignorant.
I said that many, if not most, consumers are ignorant and I can say that as many times as you want. So... does that mean I said "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant"? Man... you're really cracking me up.
Other people's rationale of choosing matte or glossy is not in my interest at all, so why do I need to state that matte screen purchasers are also ignorant? Just because I need to guard people like you who like to draw conclusions based on your own deduction? Even if I said that "matte screen purchasers are also ignorant" is not going to change anything because you are interpreting people's word based on your own deduction anyway. From all my quotes you took earlier, none of them means "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant". It's more than obvious that the "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" statement is based on your own deduction and now you're accusing me of backpeddling. Backpeddling? Why should I backpeddling from something I've never said. You're so pathetic, though not as nearly pathetic as someone who not only does not want to be opened for discussion and does not give any rational responses, but also keeps back stabbing people on other posts.
As for the "anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen” is simply not true. If the glare issue was the issue then why did not they opt for the cheaper matte display on all there machines? Why have the glossy option at all if they are acknowledging that glare is an issue.
Let me put your foot into your own month... because glossy screen does have its advantage. "Why did Apple choose not to use a better glossy screens out there that have much lower glare" is the question. Is that a preference matter for some people who happened to like glare? Hopefully not. Giving a matte screen option limited to the 17" high-end model rather than increasing the cost to have a better glossy screen across all models is obviously a much cheaper option to solve the glare issue, especially the group that buy the highest-end model have a higher portion of people that are more aware and intelligible about screen quality.
PLEASE... cut the crap of making your deductions like for example... "oh... so you mean whoever that buys a smaller screen is necessarily less intelligible about their screen than those who buy a bigger screen" You did something like that and I have enough of that already.
They’ve just done a sweeping Mac notebook change and the 17” MBP is still the only one with that option. What you may have meant to say, but didn’t, is that Apple has acknowledged that some customers prefer matter displays over glossy. Like myself and others have stated numerous times, even ones that prefer matte, we’d like to see Apple offer these options to all their displays and that the choosing of glossy in no way signifys that the preference is ill-informed or foolishly derived.
Still, why the lower end models don't have such options to choose from? Just because 17” MBP is still the only one with that option since the sweeping change? I don't see that as a valid answer.
Well, it sounds like your problem is that you didn't setup your work area correctly, but to be fair, there wasn't a lot of info in the early 90's about proper posture, how high the surface you put your laptop/keyboard is, how far and at what angle you should view the screen, and the use of lighting.
Almost twenty years later and STILL there are a lot of people who don't know these things. OSHA finally made some guidlines:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/comp...ons/index.html
For a lot of people though, the news is too late, the damage has been done. Kind of like the early days of TV when we sat too close to it and now we have to wear glasses and have weird cases of cancer.
We had the option of "workstation assessments" and I thought that was for softies. I was wrong... we are all more fragile than I realised as a young man. All my fault. I guess the point I'm making is do as I say not as I did, and that I can see where the Uni is coming from even though it sounds to many people like interfering. Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for.
Personally I prefer Matte screens however I've never owned a glossy just used other peoples. More choice would be nice.
Other people's rationale of choosing matte or glossy is not in my interest at all...
Now if only you had a glossy display you could use the reflection to help you with all that backpedaling you?re doing.
We had the option of "workstation assessments" and I thought that was for softies. I was wrong... we are all more fragile than I realised as a young man. All my fault. I guess the point I'm making is do as I say not as I did, and that I can see where the Uni is coming from even though it sounds to many people like interfering. Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for.
Personally I prefer Matte screens however I've never owned a glossy just used other peoples. More choice would be nice.
Sorry if my post seemed like an attack, it wasn't. I too suffer from a bad back from improper workstation setups, and like you I and most of my colleagues didn't think that it was important to follow the guidelines once they were established.
"Sometimes it's good to listen to advice we didn't ask for."
AMEN to that.
You said that most are ignorant. To backpeddle to state that you not referring to purchase decisions of glossy screens is not going to go well for you. You made the comment numerous times without ever stating any objective stance that many matte screen purchasers are also ignorant.
Yes, I said many, if not most, consumers are ignorant and I can say that as many times as you want. So... does that mean "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant"? Man... you are really cracking me up.
Other people's rationale of choosing matte between glossy is not in my interest, so why do I need to state that matte screen purchasers are also ignorant? Just because I need to guard people like you who like to draw conclusions based on your own deduction? Even if I said that "matte screen purchasers are also ignorant" is not going to change anything because you are interpreting people's word based on your own deduction anyway. From all my quotes you took earlier, none of them are saying that "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant". It's more than obvious that the "whoever uses glossy screen are ignorant" statement is based on your own deduction and now you're accusing me of backpeddling. You're so pathetic.
As for the "anti-glare option of the 17" Macbook Pro is to show that Apple acknowledge the glare issue on the glossy screen” is simply not true. If the glare issue was the issue then why did not they opt for the cheaper matte display on all there machines? Why have the glossy option at all if they are acknowledging that glare is an issue.
Let me put your foot into your own month... because glossy screen does have its advantage. "Why did Apple choose not to use a better glossy screens out there that have much lower glare" is the question. Is that a preference matter for some people who happened to like glare? Hopefully not. Giving a matte screen option limited to the high-end model rather than increasing the cost to fix glare across all models which few people care about is obviously a much cheaper option to solve the glare issue, especially the group that buy the highest-end model have a higher portion of people that are more aware and intelligible about screen quality.
PLEASE... cut the crap of making your deductions like for example... "oh... so you mean whoever that buys a smaller screen is necessarily less intelligible about their screen than those who buy a bigger screen" You did something like that and I have enough of that already.
They’ve just done a sweeping Mac notebook change and the 17” MBP is still the only one with that option. What you may have meant to say, but didn’t, is that Apple has acknowledged that some customers prefer matter displays over glossy. Like myself and others have stated numerous times, even ones that prefer matte, we’d like to see Apple offer these options to all their displays and that the choosing of glossy in no way signifys that the preference is ill-informed or foolishly derived.
Still, why the lower end models don't have such options to choose from? Just because 17” MBP is still the only one with that option since the sweeping change? I don't see that as a valid answer.