Nonsense! My wife and daughter both have 24" glass iMacs. The images from those screens are by far the best Apple ever offered. Neither has reflection problems.
In fact, both look much better than the Samsung and Viewsonic monitors these replaced from their old Mac towers. My wife has the room light just where reflections would be seen by her from the glass, but it does't. My daughter has a window that reflected badly from her Viewsonic, but not from the iMac.
There's a big knee jerk reflex from some of you guys on this.
Recycling isn't the expensive part here, aluminum is very cheap to recycle, and very easily gathered. The issues are the amount of machining needed, man-hours, tools, very high production costs.
That's what I thought too. Maybe this is what that shareholder conference call was about, reducing margins because of something that noone else can compete with. This isn't like the old metal cases which can be stamped, probably in one hit, with very little scrap or chips, or plastic which can be injected in seconds with only a tiny bit of scrap. It would seem that the extra machining cost is more expensive than the savings due to parts reductions.
That's what I thought too. Maybe this is what that shareholder conference call was about, reducing margins because of something that noone else can compete with. This isn't like the old metal cases which can be stamped, probably in one hit, with very little scrap or chips, or plastic which can be injected in seconds. It would seem that the extra machining cost is more expensive than the savings due to parts reductions.
This is exactly that. Profit margins are smaller on these machines, do doubt.
(1) Apple made only minor incremental improvements to the laptops. Once you get past the manufacturing process and physical changes, the processor speeds, disk and memory sizes, battery life, and weight are nearly identical.
(2) Apple will be revving these laptops slightly sooner than usual (summer 2009) with the mobile version of Nehalem (Gilo?) and otherwise focusing on the internals.
(3) Jobs comments on the Netbook market were revealing. I suspect the rise of this market has caught them slightly off guard. In combination with the comment that they invested so heavily in their new manufacturing process, I doubt they had the bandwidth to tackle the R&D required.
(4) The memory change from 667 MHz DDR2 to 1066 DDR3 suggests a similar upgrade for the Pros in the near future.
(5) The 24" monitor signals that Apple sees a large population of users for whom the monitor IS the dock.
(6) The inclusion of two GPUs and stated support for OpenCL in Snow Leopard will make the MBP an attractive platform for many engineers.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about here.
While it's true that most people prefer glossy, (and Apple is probably smart to go that way for that reason alone), glossy displays don't give true colour reproduction.
The pictures "look better" because they appear over-saturated. For the segment of the Pro market that needs true colour reproduction (and this segment basically comprised of graphic designers and pro photographers), glossy is just not going to do it. They are a minority segment, but still, if you want truly accurate colour, you need a non glossy screen.
Sorry, but you're wrong here.
Matte displays cut down on the possible saturation and contrast the monitor is natively capable of. They also out a hard limit on the blacks which is below what the display is again itself capable of delivering.
If you really want to, you can always lower these numbers yourself numerous ways. PS offers mucho options to do this on your monitor all by itself.
But, you can never bring it back properly on your monitor when it's cut down by the matte screen.
When you raise saturation, you're always in danger of losing a few levels in that color. That simply lowers the quality even further.
Try raising saturation in a single color in PS. If it's already well saturated, you'll notice that detail in that color begins to disappear as the saturation is raised. That's because you're artificially moving the entire gamma structure out of range on the high side.
That's no solution. It gives us even more reasons for doing graphics work in a darkened room. That's less of a problem with glossy.
Matte displays cut down on the possible saturation and contrast the monitor is natively capable of. They also out a hard limit on the blacks which is below what the display is again itself capable of delivering.
If you really want to, you can always lower these numbers yourself numerous ways. PS offers mucho options to do this on your monitor all by itself.
But, you can never bring it back properly on your monitor when it's cut down by the matte screen.
When you raise saturation, you're always in danger of losing a few levels in that color. That simply lowers the quality even further.
Try raising saturation in a single color in PS. If it's already well saturated, you'll notice that detail in that color begins to disappear as the saturation is raised. That's because you're artificially moving the entire gamma structure out of range on the high side.
That's no solution. It gives us even more reasons for doing graphics work in a darkened room. That's less of a problem with glossy.
Exactly. If you're doing graphics work in a room with lighting so bad that glare is an issue to begin with, you're in the wrong line of work.
Very close, although it looks like a tablet of any kind won't be arriving anytime soon either going by what Jobs said about touch screens...
You should no better than to listen to the words coming out of Job's mouth, he's a master of the art of bullshit. He constantly lies about their future plans, constantly.
Although I would agree it's not coming soon as there's a huge amount of touch cocoa OS-work to be done before the thing could be ready, including getting the hardware just right. Earliest I'd say is a demo at WWDC next year, with a late year release. Or no demo and a Macworld 2009 release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis
I think your TV was just the new display though.
No way. That displays is for the office, this TV will be shot like a bullet directly at the living room market. It's coming. These things take time, especially considering they way Apple's stretched lately. And it's also a content play, so that's another roadblock for this to really work. I'm betting on late 2009- mid 2010 release with an iTunes TV Show iPTV subscription model, as an option.
If the subscription model is optional we'll see a mid 2009, or possibly even (but doubtful) a Macworld 2009 release.
Do you guys think that the next 10.5.6 combo update will unify all the new MacBook trackpad software and drivers? Im about to revise my core MacBook deployment image, but I might wait if Apple will include all the required software into the next major OS update.
Anyone know if the MacBooks ship with 10.5.5 or not?
I wasn't quite sure what to make of the monitor, but as I considered it, if I didn't already have a kick-ass desktop computer and high-end desktop computer needs, it sure would be awesome to get a new MBP and that screen for stupid simple and painless integration. It is the perfect way to eliminate a desktop computer from your routine/expenses while still enjoying many benefits of a desktop computer with minimal effort.
If I get anything announced, though, it will be a new MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rune66
I don't want a notebook I have to "reposition" to avoid something that shouldn't have been there from the start. "Ah if your notebook stops accepting key strokes, just move it a little ...". And you can never get rid of reflections entirely on the whole screen.
As said before, it is apparent that you haven't really tried it out. I avoided gloss like the plague until Apple released the re-designed Macbook. I wanted one and didn't feel like paying for the MBP upgrade so I picked one up. I expected it to be a pain but within days it didn't even register in my mind. More to the point, I was able to use it in environments where a matte screen would have been a nightmare due to light conditions. And it will be even less an issue with these new laptops. That is not my concern. Not sure what to make of a glossy desktop screen, though... but I'm a graphics/web designer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Venier
(1) Apple made only minor incremental improvements to the laptops. Once you get past the manufacturing process and physical changes, the processor speeds, disk and memory sizes, battery life, and weight are nearly identical.
The video upgrade alone is a massive upgrade. Integrated Intel graphics was the biggest problem with the MacBook. The new MacBook will be perfectly capable of handing some of the more advanced graphics tasks now, and that is huge--especially at that price point. And quality of manufacturing, higher quality screens, improved battery life--I'm happy about those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Venier
(6) The inclusion of two GPUs and stated support for OpenCL in Snow Leopard will make the MBP an attractive platform for many engineers.
It the new GPU-related capabilities in Snow Leopard are leveraged properly this makes it a huge boon for everyone using the laptop.
Good: New trackpad, new casing style//process, price drop.
Neutral: Only glossy screens. I have a matte, and I wish I had glossy. That said, I think keeping it as an option would have been good.
Bad: No speed increase. $500 more for step up model which gets to .153 GHZ and 3 additional MB of cache. Not sure this will make any performance difference at all. Better HDDs should have been introduced.
Oh, and the black keyboard is terrible.
-------
This would seem to be as one poster said...a whole new line, so to speak. It's obviously not a compelling upgrade for existings MBP owners. I bought mine two years ago and have 2GB, 2.33GHZ that still runs well. No reason to upgrade here.
Exactly. If you're doing graphics work in a room with lighting so bad that glare is an issue to begin with, you're in the wrong line of work.
I guess if you spend your entire day in an office or something... but if you do, then you've got no trouble, because you can easily position your tools. I do some of my work in a florescent-illuminated office and I've never had trouble with my glossy MacBook. But if you think a professional has such control over their environment you are dead wrong. Sometimes you've got to do work on the road, in any manner of moving vehicle, in any manner of building, indoors or outdoors...
That's strange because a friend of mine recently got an Imac and that reflects to a very offputting amount in comparison to her old matte screen. The mac is practically like a mirror it's that bad!
There will always be some person who has a problem with something.
What I find is that if you are looking for reflections, you will find them. Once you find them, they become more annoying. But I've seen this with matte displays as well as with glossy displays.
As I said, the matte makes the glare lower, but moves it across much more of the screen. Both can be equally problematic. Glare from matte screens may not be as obvious, but can be more damaging, even if the person doesn't realize it. Matte glare puts a haze across most of the screen, cutting down on the saturation, detail, contrast, and blacks, even more than the matte itself does.
Matte even causes the light from the screen itself to spread into neighboring pixels. This is why it cuts down on the quality of the image.
It may not be seen, but it is causing a problem.
You can think of a plastic cylinder. If you pass light through one end to the other, and look at the side of the cylinder, you will see very little illumination. What you do see is mostly from defects in the material, and dirt on the surface. This is why optical fiber can work. The index of refraction is very high at the air/material boundary.
But, if the surface of the cylinder is matte, the light will move out of the side, and it will shine a bright white (or whatever color you're using). Fiber optic cable would never work.
People aren't thinking about these problems.
So while there will be a few problems for a few, it's not really a problem for most.
Comments
Nonsense! My wife and daughter both have 24" glass iMacs. The images from those screens are by far the best Apple ever offered. Neither has reflection problems.
In fact, both look much better than the Samsung and Viewsonic monitors these replaced from their old Mac towers. My wife has the room light just where reflections would be seen by her from the glass, but it does't. My daughter has a window that reflected badly from her Viewsonic, but not from the iMac.
There's a big knee jerk reflex from some of you guys on this.
I totally agree.
Recycling isn't the expensive part here, aluminum is very cheap to recycle, and very easily gathered. The issues are the amount of machining needed, man-hours, tools, very high production costs.
That's what I thought too. Maybe this is what that shareholder conference call was about, reducing margins because of something that noone else can compete with. This isn't like the old metal cases which can be stamped, probably in one hit, with very little scrap or chips, or plastic which can be injected in seconds with only a tiny bit of scrap. It would seem that the extra machining cost is more expensive than the savings due to parts reductions.
Also, no firewire on the 13" laptop? I am saddened.
Amorya
That's what I thought too. Maybe this is what that shareholder conference call was about, reducing margins because of something that noone else can compete with. This isn't like the old metal cases which can be stamped, probably in one hit, with very little scrap or chips, or plastic which can be injected in seconds. It would seem that the extra machining cost is more expensive than the savings due to parts reductions.
This is exactly that. Profit margins are smaller on these machines, do doubt.
I enjoy my none-gloss first gen intel macbook pro just fine. these new ones do look very nice.
(2) Apple will be revving these laptops slightly sooner than usual (summer 2009) with the mobile version of Nehalem (Gilo?) and otherwise focusing on the internals.
(3) Jobs comments on the Netbook market were revealing. I suspect the rise of this market has caught them slightly off guard. In combination with the comment that they invested so heavily in their new manufacturing process, I doubt they had the bandwidth to tackle the R&D required.
(4) The memory change from 667 MHz DDR2 to 1066 DDR3 suggests a similar upgrade for the Pros in the near future.
(5) The 24" monitor signals that Apple sees a large population of users for whom the monitor IS the dock.
(6) The inclusion of two GPUs and stated support for OpenCL in Snow Leopard will make the MBP an attractive platform for many engineers.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about here.
While it's true that most people prefer glossy, (and Apple is probably smart to go that way for that reason alone), glossy displays don't give true colour reproduction.
The pictures "look better" because they appear over-saturated. For the segment of the Pro market that needs true colour reproduction (and this segment basically comprised of graphic designers and pro photographers), glossy is just not going to do it. They are a minority segment, but still, if you want truly accurate colour, you need a non glossy screen.
Sorry, but you're wrong here.
Matte displays cut down on the possible saturation and contrast the monitor is natively capable of. They also out a hard limit on the blacks which is below what the display is again itself capable of delivering.
If you really want to, you can always lower these numbers yourself numerous ways. PS offers mucho options to do this on your monitor all by itself.
But, you can never bring it back properly on your monitor when it's cut down by the matte screen.
When you raise saturation, you're always in danger of losing a few levels in that color. That simply lowers the quality even further.
Try raising saturation in a single color in PS. If it's already well saturated, you'll notice that detail in that color begins to disappear as the saturation is raised. That's because you're artificially moving the entire gamma structure out of range on the high side.
That's no solution. It gives us even more reasons for doing graphics work in a darkened room. That's less of a problem with glossy.
Wah... have you ever really used one?
Positioning it to avoid glare is so easy that you do it subconsciously.
I agree. for laptops, you just need to open the display at 90 degrees while facing you to avoid glare. Always worked for me.
Sorry, but you're wrong here.
Matte displays cut down on the possible saturation and contrast the monitor is natively capable of. They also out a hard limit on the blacks which is below what the display is again itself capable of delivering.
If you really want to, you can always lower these numbers yourself numerous ways. PS offers mucho options to do this on your monitor all by itself.
But, you can never bring it back properly on your monitor when it's cut down by the matte screen.
When you raise saturation, you're always in danger of losing a few levels in that color. That simply lowers the quality even further.
Try raising saturation in a single color in PS. If it's already well saturated, you'll notice that detail in that color begins to disappear as the saturation is raised. That's because you're artificially moving the entire gamma structure out of range on the high side.
That's no solution. It gives us even more reasons for doing graphics work in a darkened room. That's less of a problem with glossy.
Exactly. If you're doing graphics work in a room with lighting so bad that glare is an issue to begin with, you're in the wrong line of work.
Very close, although it looks like a tablet of any kind won't be arriving anytime soon either going by what Jobs said about touch screens...
You should no better than to listen to the words coming out of Job's mouth, he's a master of the art of bullshit. He constantly lies about their future plans, constantly.
Although I would agree it's not coming soon as there's a huge amount of touch cocoa OS-work to be done before the thing could be ready, including getting the hardware just right. Earliest I'd say is a demo at WWDC next year, with a late year release. Or no demo and a Macworld 2009 release.
I think your TV was just the new display though.
No way. That displays is for the office, this TV will be shot like a bullet directly at the living room market. It's coming. These things take time, especially considering they way Apple's stretched lately. And it's also a content play, so that's another roadblock for this to really work. I'm betting on late 2009- mid 2010 release with an iTunes TV Show iPTV subscription model, as an option.
If the subscription model is optional we'll see a mid 2009, or possibly even (but doubtful) a Macworld 2009 release.
This is my worst nightmare come true. As soon as I stopped using my two glassy-glossy iMacs my migraine incidence rate went right back down again.
I'll be looking for stocks of a high res. matte screen 17-inch MBP tomorrow...
Anyone know if the MacBooks ship with 10.5.5 or not?
Exactly. If you're doing graphics work in a room with lighting so bad that glare is an issue to begin with, you're in the wrong line of work.
I love how you think that everyone can control the environment that they work in... back in the real world...
If I get anything announced, though, it will be a new MBP.
I don't want a notebook I have to "reposition" to avoid something that shouldn't have been there from the start. "Ah if your notebook stops accepting key strokes, just move it a little ...". And you can never get rid of reflections entirely on the whole screen.
As said before, it is apparent that you haven't really tried it out. I avoided gloss like the plague until Apple released the re-designed Macbook. I wanted one and didn't feel like paying for the MBP upgrade so I picked one up. I expected it to be a pain but within days it didn't even register in my mind. More to the point, I was able to use it in environments where a matte screen would have been a nightmare due to light conditions. And it will be even less an issue with these new laptops. That is not my concern. Not sure what to make of a glossy desktop screen, though... but I'm a graphics/web designer.
(1) Apple made only minor incremental improvements to the laptops. Once you get past the manufacturing process and physical changes, the processor speeds, disk and memory sizes, battery life, and weight are nearly identical.
The video upgrade alone is a massive upgrade. Integrated Intel graphics was the biggest problem with the MacBook. The new MacBook will be perfectly capable of handing some of the more advanced graphics tasks now, and that is huge--especially at that price point. And quality of manufacturing, higher quality screens, improved battery life--I'm happy about those things.
(6) The inclusion of two GPUs and stated support for OpenCL in Snow Leopard will make the MBP an attractive platform for many engineers.
It the new GPU-related capabilities in Snow Leopard are leveraged properly this makes it a huge boon for everyone using the laptop.
I'm not in the market, but I would say this:
Good: New trackpad, new casing style//process, price drop.
Neutral: Only glossy screens. I have a matte, and I wish I had glossy. That said, I think keeping it as an option would have been good.
Bad: No speed increase. $500 more for step up model which gets to .153 GHZ and 3 additional MB of cache. Not sure this will make any performance difference at all. Better HDDs should have been introduced.
Oh, and the black keyboard is terrible.
-------
This would seem to be as one poster said...a whole new line, so to speak. It's obviously not a compelling upgrade for existings MBP owners. I bought mine two years ago and have 2GB, 2.33GHZ that still runs well. No reason to upgrade here.
Exactly. If you're doing graphics work in a room with lighting so bad that glare is an issue to begin with, you're in the wrong line of work.
I guess if you spend your entire day in an office or something... but if you do, then you've got no trouble, because you can easily position your tools. I do some of my work in a florescent-illuminated office and I've never had trouble with my glossy MacBook. But if you think a professional has such control over their environment you are dead wrong. Sometimes you've got to do work on the road, in any manner of moving vehicle, in any manner of building, indoors or outdoors...
That's strange because a friend of mine recently got an Imac and that reflects to a very offputting amount in comparison to her old matte screen. The mac is practically like a mirror it's that bad!
There will always be some person who has a problem with something.
What I find is that if you are looking for reflections, you will find them. Once you find them, they become more annoying. But I've seen this with matte displays as well as with glossy displays.
As I said, the matte makes the glare lower, but moves it across much more of the screen. Both can be equally problematic. Glare from matte screens may not be as obvious, but can be more damaging, even if the person doesn't realize it. Matte glare puts a haze across most of the screen, cutting down on the saturation, detail, contrast, and blacks, even more than the matte itself does.
Matte even causes the light from the screen itself to spread into neighboring pixels. This is why it cuts down on the quality of the image.
It may not be seen, but it is causing a problem.
You can think of a plastic cylinder. If you pass light through one end to the other, and look at the side of the cylinder, you will see very little illumination. What you do see is mostly from defects in the material, and dirt on the surface. This is why optical fiber can work. The index of refraction is very high at the air/material boundary.
But, if the surface of the cylinder is matte, the light will move out of the side, and it will shine a bright white (or whatever color you're using). Fiber optic cable would never work.
People aren't thinking about these problems.
So while there will be a few problems for a few, it's not really a problem for most.
I love how you think that everyone can control the environment that they work in... back in the real world...
I don't know about you, but the environment I work in has lights with "ON" AND "OFF" switches!