That is good to know, I am in the Market for one, waiting until October or so for a refresh + Snow Leopard as it will scream on that machine but it's still pricey (and this coming from a guy who own's XServes, XServe RAID, G5 Dual, iMac's, & MBP)
I'm very pleased with mine. I love the construction. The cpu/memory slide out board is great. This could lead to some interesting upgrades if third parties are willing to work with it.
Quite frankly, Gloss/Glare is horrible. I know because I have a new 2009 iMac 3.06GHz sitting on my desk at work, and I've done my darndest to cut light sources from behind me. I use this Mac for at least 9 hours each day, M-F. It's wicked fast and according to MacWorld it bests even a Harpertown Mac Pro with 3GB of RAM. And I love how colors pop and how sharp the IPS screen is. But oh the glare!
Thank you JDW, perhaps you would like to leave a comment that will be forwarded to Apple.
Just click the glossy link in my signature and thanks in advance if you have already.
I want Apple to solve the glare issue for everyone.
For me the problem is the 20" iMac isn't quite as well spec'd as I'd like. I prefer a monitor that's 22" and up. So thus I think a 20" iMac should be a single model and priced at roughly
It always seems bizarre to me that Apple updates their 'school' line (namely iMac's) in late September or October.
imacs are not their 'school' machine. laptops are. imacs are more the family computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchelljd
me... im hoping for this and ... apple finally adding blu-ray integration.
don't count on it. Even with Apple on the development board, the licensing fees are huge. and it would cut into their HD downloads on itunes, need for the apple tv etc.
they MIGHT make it a configure option (and it won't be cheap) but it isn't likely to go into the standard retail models. especially when you consider that there are viable 3rd party options for that same percent that feel they really really must be able to work with blu-ray
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
It's not a moment too soon. Apple doesn't licence Mac OS X (and why not?) or iPhone OS (again, why not?),
why not? easy, because the law is on their side and the courts have validated that due to their low market share they can tie hardware and software all they want. until the courts give a new opinion on the matter they will keep the tying and restrictions.
Wow I guess that person was right when he said you really must believe you're in the majority who care about matte over glossy when you're obviously in the minority. However, I got to give you A+ for effort on this piece of misinformation. A lot of people happy is, the case, still means just you.
New beta I got, take any post thread and place who you want to ignore and you never see their posts again.
I myself... refuse to if there is no matte screen... I must have a glossy screen.
He he. I know what you meant to say, but your mistype is funny nevertheless!
As to the poll data, I would like to say that the numbers would be very different if they asked the "correct" question. To simply ask if we "prefer glossy" is incomplete at best, misleading at worst. Why? Because I myself love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop and those screens are very sharp. So I like most people, love that aspect. But I hate the glare. And when most people say they don't like glossy screens, they are referring to the glare, not the good parts like better saturation, deeper blacks and sharper pixels.
So I am curious to see the poll results for more appropriate questions like this:
* When you say you prefer glossy, do you mean you also prefer the glare too?
* Do you love glossy screens enough to look past glare and strong reflections?
* Would you prefer all the benefits of a glossy screen but WITHOUT the glare?
* For those who prefer glossy, can you control your environmental lighting?
And so on.
But again, glare is only one problem with the iMac's screen. The other is the uneven backlight. I've heard that the 30" doesn't have this problem and it is also matte too. But it's too large for some people. It truly, even though it would work with the iMac, a 30" display is really better for Mac Pro users. For many iMac users, a second display, especially an 30" one is rather a waste of resources.
UPDATE: MacTripper, thanks for alerting me to your page. I had seen it before when Googling one day. But I just posted a comment now (awaiting moderation). I've also given Apple my feedback, of course. But it's all about numbers. The more people who raise hell with Apple, the more incentive Apple has to give greater thought to the issue. And to glossy lovers, I wish to add this. I am not saying that the "pop" and sharpness and rich blacks of glossy screens are bad. I love that part. I just wish Apple could use museum glass or some other means to retain many of the benefits of glossy, but without the major down side of the glare. And as to the uneven backlight, I can only hope that Apple will address the issue with an LED version.
Agreed, only it will be a 30" iMac Extreme and also introduce the new 30" monitor!
You heard it here first!
I would wager that its starting price would be $2800 USD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
Wow I guess that person was right when he said you really must believe you're in the majority who care about matte over glossy when you're obviously in the minority. However, I got to give you A+ for effort on this piece of misinformation. A lot of people happy is, the case, still means just you.
Wow, that's incredibly snide.
I think the discussion is a false dilemma, and that both sides are mostly ignorant of better possibilities. But do go on thinking that your preference is the best that it can possibly be.
I don't say all this to in any way slam the iMac. Again, there are many, many things I absolutely love about it. But at the same time, I feel it only proper to bring attention to legitimate iMac caveats so that some won't be let down after they purchase one. And perhaps some of you iMac owners may be further compelled to even write Apple about the screen issues, especially the backlight. It seems like Apple doesn't improve things sometimes UNTIL there is an outcry among its user base.
I don't think Apple considers the iMac anything other than a consumer level machine.
Thanks for bringing this flaw out into the open, I now know what to look for in case someone or myself is considering buying one.
I think the discussion is a false dilemma, and that both sides are mostly ignorant of better possibilities. But do go on thinking that your preference is the best that it can possibly be.
Thank you Jeff.
Just to let you know, I have tried the glossy screens.
I don't think Apple considers the iMac anything other than a consumer level machine.
Indeed. And I am sure you will agree that such thinking on Apple's part is flawed.
I posted about the "consumer grade" mentality (which many staunch defenders of glossy/glare screens often use against matte lovers) on Apple's forum here.
I can only add that the G4 towers used to be Apple's premium machine. And certain G4 tower models were priced under $2,000. Now consider that the highest end iMac is priced at well over $2,000. I think this in some small way can show that although some models of the iMac (e.g., the 20") could properly be classified as a "consumer grade" or "low cost" or "entry level" machine, the highest end iMac really doesn't fall into any of those categories. Hence, it makes logical sense for Apple to consider the quality of the screen on the iMac, if not but for the high end model. But they are presently not doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll
Well, at the moment it's MacTripper, teckstud and you, so 3.
Ignorance certainly does appear to be bliss for some.
I think the discussion is a false dilemma, and that both sides are mostly ignorant of better possibilities. But do go on thinking that your preference is the best that it can possibly be.
He was responding to mactrippers continuous glossy complaint. He went easy on mactripper considering how dead the glossy horse is .
So, what you are saying is that if one happens to like Apple's "glossy" displays, then they must be ignorant.
You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And seeing that Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
Thank you JDW, perhaps you would like to leave a comment that will be forwarded to Apple.
Just click the glossy link in my signature and thanks in advance if you have already.
I want Apple to solve the glare issue for everyone.
Everyone who plays movies,works with iphoto or plays games loves the glossy screen, every thing is brighter the colors are sharper. Look dude after your almost mental case crusade against glossy I did a test for the third time. I streamed hulu TV show, the DOLLS on my three macs at the same time .<THAT WAS COOL >
a 2007 glossy imac
a mid 2997 black mac book and
a silver g4 powerbook matte
me and my 2 kids agreed the matte screen sucks
Later that day I went to the staten island apple store to buy some SW fro my kids. I found math grade 1-8. Good find both my kids can use it .
My eight year old is a wise ass. He went over to the 17 matte MBP and played the trailer for STAR TREK. Wow the playback looked fantastic in matte.
The sales guy says ,HEY BRUCE COME see this and plays the same STAR TREK TRAILER on a 17 glossy or reg screen MBP
wow .The matte looked very very good .The glossy screamed out at me .
Dude you then say you get neck aches from glare avoidance, right . The same glare we get from TV's .Its all the same glare my friend.
Mactripper you are so cool with many great posts with links and wild but cool idea's. i fail to see how somw one as smart as you can become stalker like about a single issue. your actions are scary .
DUDE i am from NYC its filled with nuts, me included.so i speak to you witha great depth of understanding of inner demons that you have. You need to talk to someone about this issue. You need to resolve it in some way, so you can be happy about things Its unfair to the board here and un-fair to you , that all you do is moan about glossy . And too boot your really wrong about what glossy is all about.
Apple is selling a ton of glossy machines . People from 20 feet away stand behind me and watch my movies from my 2 yr old mac. IT is for every day joe sixpack smoes who just wanta HD like playback
LET GLOSSY GO .
If you keep this up you will show yourself to be a classic troll . Sorry to say my friend
9
PS mactripper dude your public campaign will never change apple's minds. Apple is moving towards High end gaming and HD media playback . THEY are doing things that like the GCS and the OPENcl
AND THE 3 CHIP MBP that will take us to a powerful high energy media world. All of this stuff is for one thing only VISUALS. All the apple computer's right now are powerful ENOUGH TO DO WHAT WE DO RIGHT NOW . surf the web and typing and bix stuff .
so why does apple increase and increase its visual power.
FOR GAMES
FOR PHOTO PLAYBACK
FOR PHOTO SHOP
FOR 3D RENDERING
FOR 1080P HD MOVIE PLAYBACK
FOR THE FUTURE THAT WE CANT YET SEE BUT ONCE APPLE MAKES IT WE WONDER HOW WE EVER LIVED WITHOUT IT .
AND GLOSSY IMPROVES THAT VISUAL PLAYBACK 1000 PERCENT,
apple has toned down the glare already . ALAS glass is reflective .
SO join me in celebrating the coming incredible mind blowing MBP'S coming soon.
Apple will never go back to all matte. NEVER
i hope you can buy an old matte machine or maybe buy a dell .I don't know what you could do .
You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes,! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And since Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
If you had to re write your post in 25 lines would it still be clear to get you point across.
The gist of your post I think is glossy is great but glare sucks. The MBP right now have already toned down the glare a touch. And it is glass so there will be reflection of some kind . Short of sitting in a blackened room what steps could you take to reduce YOUR glare ?
Apple has some small things to reduce glare But it is also increasing the screen power and brightness to show off 1080p quality movies . The inherent nature of a glass screen precludes any no glare measures .
A trade off that may work for you and mactripp ??
Remember dolby b and c ?
They took great hissy analog music and muffled the sound but cured the tape hiss. MAYBE apple could put in a similar type reduction <<picture /glare /gamma/ reducing control >>next to the brightness control button in sys prefs. Your glare would go away.The picture quality will be less. A trade off with the glass screen.
I don't care about a price reduction in this current iMac at all. I prefer an complete overhaul with a matte screen, an option for blu-ray perhaps, and of course a new mouse.
I suppose for others a price reduction is great.
I'd like to see more graphics options and quad cores...
Comments
That is good to know, I am in the Market for one, waiting until October or so for a refresh + Snow Leopard as it will scream on that machine but it's still pricey (and this coming from a guy who own's XServes, XServe RAID, G5 Dual, iMac's, & MBP)
I'm very pleased with mine. I love the construction. The cpu/memory slide out board is great. This could lead to some interesting upgrades if third parties are willing to work with it.
Quite frankly, Gloss/Glare is horrible. I know because I have a new 2009 iMac 3.06GHz sitting on my desk at work, and I've done my darndest to cut light sources from behind me. I use this Mac for at least 9 hours each day, M-F. It's wicked fast and according to MacWorld it bests even a Harpertown Mac Pro with 3GB of RAM. And I love how colors pop and how sharp the IPS screen is. But oh the glare!
Thank you JDW, perhaps you would like to leave a comment that will be forwarded to Apple.
Just click the glossy link in my signature and thanks in advance if you have already.
I want Apple to solve the glare issue for everyone.
For me the problem is the 20" iMac isn't quite as well spec'd as I'd like. I prefer a monitor that's 22" and up. So thus I think a 20" iMac should be a single model and priced at roughly
---------------------------------------------------------------
$899 20"
That way you can bring the 24" model down to
$1299 24" entry
$1499 24" discrete graphics faster CPU
$1999-2299 26" Hero Config iMac in dual-core and quad-core
Dovetails nicely into what will become a
$2499 6-core Mac Pro in 2010
I'd like to see that, but I'm not sure they can bring the prices down that much for those configs.
Can we get that in English, please?
Yeah.
They want to sell more during the bad recession.
It always seems bizarre to me that Apple updates their 'school' line (namely iMac's) in late September or October.
imacs are not their 'school' machine. laptops are. imacs are more the family computer.
me... im hoping for this and ... apple finally adding blu-ray integration.
don't count on it. Even with Apple on the development board, the licensing fees are huge. and it would cut into their HD downloads on itunes, need for the apple tv etc.
they MIGHT make it a configure option (and it won't be cheap) but it isn't likely to go into the standard retail models. especially when you consider that there are viable 3rd party options for that same percent that feel they really really must be able to work with blu-ray
It's not a moment too soon. Apple doesn't licence Mac OS X (and why not?) or iPhone OS (again, why not?),
why not? easy, because the law is on their side and the courts have validated that due to their low market share they can tie hardware and software all they want. until the courts give a new opinion on the matter they will keep the tying and restrictions.
Wow I guess that person was right when he said you really must believe you're in the majority who care about matte over glossy when you're obviously in the minority. However, I got to give you A+ for effort on this piece of misinformation. A lot of people happy is, the case, still means just you.
New beta I got, take any post thread and place who you want to ignore and you never see their posts again.
Guess what?
I myself... refuse to if there is no matte screen... I must have a glossy screen.
He he. I know what you meant to say, but your mistype is funny nevertheless!
As to the poll data, I would like to say that the numbers would be very different if they asked the "correct" question. To simply ask if we "prefer glossy" is incomplete at best, misleading at worst. Why? Because I myself love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop and those screens are very sharp. So I like most people, love that aspect. But I hate the glare. And when most people say they don't like glossy screens, they are referring to the glare, not the good parts like better saturation, deeper blacks and sharper pixels.
So I am curious to see the poll results for more appropriate questions like this:
* When you say you prefer glossy, do you mean you also prefer the glare too?
* Do you love glossy screens enough to look past glare and strong reflections?
* Would you prefer all the benefits of a glossy screen but WITHOUT the glare?
* For those who prefer glossy, can you control your environmental lighting?
And so on.
But again, glare is only one problem with the iMac's screen. The other is the uneven backlight. I've heard that the 30" doesn't have this problem and it is also matte too. But it's too large for some people. It truly, even though it would work with the iMac, a 30" display is really better for Mac Pro users. For many iMac users, a second display, especially an 30" one is rather a waste of resources.
UPDATE: MacTripper, thanks for alerting me to your page. I had seen it before when Googling one day. But I just posted a comment now (awaiting moderation). I've also given Apple my feedback, of course. But it's all about numbers. The more people who raise hell with Apple, the more incentive Apple has to give greater thought to the issue. And to glossy lovers, I wish to add this. I am not saying that the "pop" and sharpness and rich blacks of glossy screens are bad. I love that part. I just wish Apple could use museum glass or some other means to retain many of the benefits of glossy, but without the major down side of the glare. And as to the uneven backlight, I can only hope that Apple will address the issue with an LED version.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity to announce the
iMac Extreme
26" IPS monitor
Is there a 26" IPS?
Agreed, only it will be a 30" iMac Extreme and also introduce the new 30" monitor!
You heard it here first!
I would wager that its starting price would be $2800 USD.
Wow I guess that person was right when he said you really must believe you're in the majority who care about matte over glossy when you're obviously in the minority. However, I got to give you A+ for effort on this piece of misinformation. A lot of people happy is, the case, still means just you.
Wow, that's incredibly snide.
I think the discussion is a false dilemma, and that both sides are mostly ignorant of better possibilities. But do go on thinking that your preference is the best that it can possibly be.
http://www.doublesight.com/shop/product.asp?
http://www.hazro.co.uk/products/hazro_hz26w.html
http://www.amazon.com/NEC-Computers-...dp/B000MT4L1S/
http://www.planaronline.com/product/?id=997-3497-00
http://www.lge.com/products/model/de...00hp_1_6.jhtml
I don't say all this to in any way slam the iMac. Again, there are many, many things I absolutely love about it. But at the same time, I feel it only proper to bring attention to legitimate iMac caveats so that some won't be let down after they purchase one. And perhaps some of you iMac owners may be further compelled to even write Apple about the screen issues, especially the backlight. It seems like Apple doesn't improve things sometimes UNTIL there is an outcry among its user base.
I don't think Apple considers the iMac anything other than a consumer level machine.
Thanks for bringing this flaw out into the open, I now know what to look for in case someone or myself is considering buying one.
Wow, that's incredibly snide.
I think the discussion is a false dilemma, and that both sides are mostly ignorant of better possibilities. But do go on thinking that your preference is the best that it can possibly be.
Thank you Jeff.
Just to let you know, I have tried the glossy screens.
The more people who raise hell with Apple, the more incentive Apple has to give greater thought to the issue.
Well, at the moment it's MacTripper, teckstud and you, so 3.
I don't think Apple considers the iMac anything other than a consumer level machine.
Indeed. And I am sure you will agree that such thinking on Apple's part is flawed.
I posted about the "consumer grade" mentality (which many staunch defenders of glossy/glare screens often use against matte lovers) on Apple's forum here.
I can only add that the G4 towers used to be Apple's premium machine. And certain G4 tower models were priced under $2,000. Now consider that the highest end iMac is priced at well over $2,000. I think this in some small way can show that although some models of the iMac (e.g., the 20") could properly be classified as a "consumer grade" or "low cost" or "entry level" machine, the highest end iMac really doesn't fall into any of those categories. Hence, it makes logical sense for Apple to consider the quality of the screen on the iMac, if not but for the high end model. But they are presently not doing that.
Well, at the moment it's MacTripper, teckstud and you, so 3.
Ignorance certainly does appear to be bliss for some.
Is there a 26" IPS?
Wow, that's incredibly snide.
I think the discussion is a false dilemma, and that both sides are mostly ignorant of better possibilities. But do go on thinking that your preference is the best that it can possibly be.
He was responding to mactrippers continuous glossy complaint. He went easy on mactripper considering how dead the glossy horse is .
Well, at the moment it's MacTripper, teckstud and you, so 3.
Ignorance certainly does appear to be bliss for some.
So, what you are saying is that if one happens to like Apple's "glossy" displays, then they must be ignorant.
So, what you are saying is that if one happens to like Apple's "glossy" displays, then they must be ignorant.
You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And seeing that Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
Thank you JDW, perhaps you would like to leave a comment that will be forwarded to Apple.
Just click the glossy link in my signature and thanks in advance if you have already.
I want Apple to solve the glare issue for everyone.
Everyone who plays movies,works with iphoto or plays games loves the glossy screen, every thing is brighter the colors are sharper. Look dude after your almost mental case crusade against glossy I did a test for the third time. I streamed hulu TV show, the DOLLS on my three macs at the same time .<THAT WAS COOL >
a 2007 glossy imac
a mid 2997 black mac book and
a silver g4 powerbook matte
me and my 2 kids agreed the matte screen sucks
Later that day I went to the staten island apple store to buy some SW fro my kids. I found math grade 1-8. Good find both my kids can use it .
My eight year old is a wise ass. He went over to the 17 matte MBP and played the trailer for STAR TREK. Wow the playback looked fantastic in matte.
The sales guy says ,HEY BRUCE COME see this and plays the same STAR TREK TRAILER on a 17 glossy or reg screen MBP
wow .The matte looked very very good .The glossy screamed out at me .
Dude you then say you get neck aches from glare avoidance, right . The same glare we get from TV's .Its all the same glare my friend.
Mactripper you are so cool with many great posts with links and wild but cool idea's. i fail to see how somw one as smart as you can become stalker like about a single issue. your actions are scary .
DUDE i am from NYC its filled with nuts, me included.so i speak to you witha great depth of understanding of inner demons that you have. You need to talk to someone about this issue. You need to resolve it in some way, so you can be happy about things Its unfair to the board here and un-fair to you , that all you do is moan about glossy . And too boot your really wrong about what glossy is all about.
Apple is selling a ton of glossy machines . People from 20 feet away stand behind me and watch my movies from my 2 yr old mac. IT is for every day joe sixpack smoes who just wanta HD like playback
LET GLOSSY GO .
If you keep this up you will show yourself to be a classic troll . Sorry to say my friend
9
PS mactripper dude your public campaign will never change apple's minds. Apple is moving towards High end gaming and HD media playback . THEY are doing things that like the GCS and the OPENcl
AND THE 3 CHIP MBP that will take us to a powerful high energy media world. All of this stuff is for one thing only VISUALS. All the apple computer's right now are powerful ENOUGH TO DO WHAT WE DO RIGHT NOW . surf the web and typing and bix stuff .
so why does apple increase and increase its visual power.
FOR GAMES
FOR PHOTO PLAYBACK
FOR PHOTO SHOP
FOR 3D RENDERING
FOR 1080P HD MOVIE PLAYBACK
FOR THE FUTURE THAT WE CANT YET SEE BUT ONCE APPLE MAKES IT WE WONDER HOW WE EVER LIVED WITHOUT IT .
AND GLOSSY IMPROVES THAT VISUAL PLAYBACK 1000 PERCENT,
apple has toned down the glare already . ALAS glass is reflective .
SO join me in celebrating the coming incredible mind blowing MBP'S coming soon.
Apple will never go back to all matte. NEVER
i hope you can buy an old matte machine or maybe buy a dell .I don't know what you could do .
You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes,! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And since Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
If you had to re write your post in 25 lines would it still be clear to get you point across.
The gist of your post I think is glossy is great but glare sucks. The MBP right now have already toned down the glare a touch. And it is glass so there will be reflection of some kind . Short of sitting in a blackened room what steps could you take to reduce YOUR glare ?
Apple has some small things to reduce glare But it is also increasing the screen power and brightness to show off 1080p quality movies . The inherent nature of a glass screen precludes any no glare measures .
A trade off that may work for you and mactripp ??
Remember dolby b and c ?
They took great hissy analog music and muffled the sound but cured the tape hiss. MAYBE apple could put in a similar type reduction <<picture /glare /gamma/ reducing control >>next to the brightness control button in sys prefs. Your glare would go away.The picture quality will be less. A trade off with the glass screen.
just saying
9
I don't care about a price reduction in this current iMac at all. I prefer an complete overhaul with a matte screen, an option for blu-ray perhaps, and of course a new mouse.
I suppose for others a price reduction is great.
I'd like to see more graphics options and quad cores...