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.
Well, I never was arguing that matte was a perfect solution either, just that it alleviated the known problems with over saturation and contrast associated with glossy and that it was strongly preferred by graphics professionals. You raise some interesting problems with matte screens that I had not heard of before, but I have known and talked to a lot of graphics professionals over the years and you are the first I have ever heard argue *for* a glossy screen.
Your comments are not clear though. Are you just gain-saying my argument by pointing out possible problems with matte screens (which is what it appears like), or are you actually arguing that glossy is "better than matte?" Secondary to that point, are you actually arguing that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards over-saturation and contrast? I'm asking because it seems from your wording that you are very carefully not arguing anything at all and really just trying to be clever.
In the end a professional uses calibration, which alleviates a lot of these issues, and the screen part is of much greater importance than the cover or the coating. As I have said though, I have known a lot of people in the field and if you are arguing that glossy is better for professional work, you are in a real minority it seems to me.
no one has mentioend the LIE about HDMI...it can drive a 58" Plasma but not a 30" display - sham! Then they charge you for the industry standard (DVI) adapter
Can you find for us any Tv display that goes higher than 1080p? Size of the display doesn't matter.
Quote:
Where's the eSATA? Nobody uses freaking Firewire any more
That I agree with. I hope they're just waiting for the new e-sata standard to come out. That's the one with power over e-sata, which the current versions don't offer.
Quote:
Where's the GD docking connector - time for another POS Book Enz dock - and another $300
?
Quote:
WTF with the case - who cares that you're making a more expensive case - it not LIGHTER
I thought these are lighter.
Quote:
Where's the longer battery life!!!!
That sucks. Saved a few bucks and a few ounces by not going there.
Quote:
It's the same size, same weight, same CPU, same battery life, with a constantly glared screen!!!!
I agree with you for the most part. I'm impressed by the MBP manufacturing process but don't care for the black keyboard and LED bezel. The Macbook is a mini Pro now but its lack of Firewire concerns me. The price points seem high. Apple could drop them like they discounted the original iPhone if they don't sell. Who knows? The Nvidia graphics will be a good move unless Nvidia blows it as they normally do! I prefer glossy screens so that's no biggy.
Trouble with that is to get the glossy screen to an angle where it doesn't reflect the light means putting it at a totally unsuable angle and/or contorting my sitting position to fit in with it, which is far from ideal if you are sitting for extended periods.
It was simply the angle the photo was taken at that meant the glossy screen has no flash reflection.
What the glossy screen gives you is a more focussed reflection of any light source, but also reflects a lot more than the matte screen to begin with.
They're actually both at about the same angle with the notebook held up in front of the TFT to take its photo.
But that's not true!
Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.
Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.
ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.
The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.
Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.
Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.
You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.
I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.
Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.
Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.
ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.
The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.
Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.
Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.
You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.
I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.
Well to be honest, I'm not trying to get studio level quality photography, I'm just giving a general usage comparison of a matter and glossy screen.
You're right, the flash isn't any sort of indication of real world usage since few people work with xenon flashes going off behind them constantly. Mind, it was you who raised the point about the original photo showing the glossy screen not reflecting the flash at all, which I was simply correcting since it does.
They're both as unusable as each other in this scenario anyway.
Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!
Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.
Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.
ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.
The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.
Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.
Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.
You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.
I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.
A camera can never do this, especially when it focuses on the background. Having used a glossy display for a while I can tell you the human eye forgets about the background.
Yes, because your brain is working at erasing that background... As for myself, I would rather have my brain focussing on the work at hand rather than doing real-time reality editing...
Well, like my bro said, it's the 80/20 rule. Our loud mouth 20% is not paying the bills, so it's obvious after changing the entire iMac line and now the MBP to the glossy screens that this is what the consumers want. I will have to check it out at the store to see what I think of it. I hope it's nice. I am glad I bought the older model in June, with the education discount and the free iPod make it well worth it. Now the discount is only $100, with no iPod.
I also think the 4 gig upgrade is worth it, as is the increase to 7,200 rpm, unless battery life is a huge issue for you.
Well, I never was arguing that matte was a perfect solution either, just that it alleviated the known problems with over saturation and contrast associated with glossy and that it was strongly preferred by graphics professionals. You raise some interesting problems with matte screens that I had not heard of before, but I have known and talked to a lot of graphics professionals over the years and you are the first I have ever heard argue *for* a glossy screen.
Back in the "old" days we used to work in dark rooms wearing black clothing. A small part of that was to prevent reflections, but the rest was to increase the saturation, and apparent blacks to as high a level as possible.
As monitors began to use better phosphors, capable of brighter output, the requirements for those dark rooms began to wane.
All of the top graphics monitors were glossy though. Only the cheaper models were matte. The reason was that matte cut down on stauration and blacks.
When companies stopped making those very high quality monitors, we began to see matte in everything else.
Now, most people are used to matte, and the idea of glossy is odd to them, even for professionals. Unfortunately, because of competitiveness, standards have also gone down in the graphics field.
It used to be that only shops with the experience and money to do it "right" did commercial work. But Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc. brought that down to a much lower level. The cost difference made it difficult for the high end shops to compete on most of the business, and even they reduced their spending. The $10,000 Barco monitors saw fewer sales, and eventually, Barco, and others, dropped out of the graphics business entirely, remaining in the medical, military, and other free spending industries more suited to their products.
What we seem to have now are lower end monitors that are spruced up to graphics levels rather than the other way around. And they are matte.
Quote:
Your comments are not clear though. Are you just gain-saying my argument by pointing out possible problems with matte screens (which is what it appears like), or are you actually arguing that glossy is "better than matte?" Secondary to that point, are you actually arguing that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards over-saturation and contrast? I'm asking because it seems from your wording that you are very carefully not arguing anything at all and really just trying to be clever.
I tried to be as clear as I could, but possibly not clear enough.
First, I'm not trying to be clever. I can't see how you think that. I gave the reasons that exist. That's not trying to be clever.
I don't see you disputing what I said, point by point. You just seem to be dissing what I did say, without saying anything that I can show to be wrong here.
I pointed out that there are benefits to glossy screens for graphics work, as there are. I also pointed out what they were, clearly, I thought.
I am saying that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards to over saturation and contrast. You are correct in saying that.
If you ever look at reviews for monitors, you will see several things that are thought to be of supreme importance, though there are others. You don't even have to know anything about them to see where the reviews are going:
1. sharpness
2. contrast
3. color
4. saturation
The more of all of those (though color accuracy rather than "more" is meant) the better the monitor.
As you say down below, agreeing mostly with I've also been saying:
Quote:
In the end a professional uses calibration, which alleviates a lot of these issues, and the screen part is of much greater importance than the cover or the coating. As I have said though, I have known a lot of people in the field and if you are arguing that glossy is better for professional work, you are in a real minority it seems to me.
I may be in the minority today, because people are used to matte. The one thing it seems to do better, is often considered to be more important than what it does worse. Many professionals today have never seen a high quality glossy graphics display, and what they compare their matte displays to aren't comparable.
As I'm sure you know, its much better to be able to turn saturation, and contrast, down in the calibration process than turning it up. Glossy displays allow that to happen with more regularity than do matte displays, depending on the overall quality of the display, of course.
Not to deflect the conversation from the glossy screens, but I have a question about the dual video cards. In terms of outright effectiveness (when plugged in), is a 256 mb dual video card setup going to be the same as a 256 mb single video card, or a 512 mb single video card?
For example, for the upcoming game Starcraft II, specifications are a 256 mb NVidia card as "minimum," and a 512 mb as "recommended." These ratings are for a single video card. Would the base MacBookPro with dual cards rated at 256 mb be "minimum" or "recommended"?
Sometimes I forget how ignorant most of you apple geeks are about hardware. This update was AMAZING technology-wise, and most of you missed it because of your anal-retentive gawkings over the glossy screen.
HUGE tech innovations:
1) The processor speed is pegged at 2.53Ghz. Why is this significant? Because the only mathematical way this works out is if the quad-pumped front side bus runs at 1066 Mhz. (i.e. 1066/4 = 266. 266 * 9.5 = 2533 = 2.53Ghz). THIS IS THE FIRST MASS PRODUCED NOTEBOOK WITH A 1066 FSB!
2) THIS IS THE FIRST MASS PRODUCED NOTEBOOK WITH DDR3 MEMORY! And not just any DDR3, but DDR3 1066 (more evidence of the 1066 FSB)
3) This is the first mass produced notebook, and Nvidia's first release of, a combined discrete GPU (the 9400m) and integrated chipset. This provides the power of a mid-level graphics card with the energy efficiency of integrated graphics.
4) This (might) incorporate multi-platform SLI between with the 9400 and 9600GT. The hardware is there, it's only a matter of whether Apple will provide the drivers to do it.
5) ALL the new latops have LED screens, standard, for the first time.
In short, what we saw today was a hardware revolution.
Yet, most of you people can't get over glossy screens.
LIVE IN THE NOW. GET OVER IT.
I don't even like Mac O/S, but I may buy a new Macbook Pro to run Windows on once the drivers are finalized.
P.S. I do realize that some of the creative professionals have a real need for matte screens.
Well to be honest, I'm not trying to get studio level quality photography, I'm just giving a general usage comparison of a matter and glossy screen.
You're right, the flash isn't any sort of indication of real world usage since few people work with xenon flashes going off behind them constantly. Mind, it was you who raised the point about the original photo showing the glossy screen not reflecting the flash at all, which I was simply correcting since it does.
They're both as unusable as each other in this scenario anyway.
Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!
That's better. however, the laptop is still in a different position, and much lower.
Comparing a large separate monitor and a small laptop screen isn't a fair comparison, if you need to position the angle of the displays differently.
You can't do a really fair test because of that.
That's why I said you need two photos, with the screens in the exact position. That would mean moving the laptop so that the center of its screen is where the center of the monitors screen is, at the same distance from the wall, and taking the pictures from the exact same spot, requiring a tripod, as a few inches would make a big difference.
So, while the big monitor is positioned so that the reflection is positioned fowards, or down, the laptop has its display faced upwards, which naturally makes the reflection also face upwards.
Do you see why this is difficult?
Sometimes, unless you want to think the parameters through all the way to get it right, there's no point in doing it at all.
Sorry for being so critical, as I know you are trying to be helpful, but there must be NO variables other than the surface of the screens.
I can't believe it. The most important message of the whole event seemed to be how exciting it is to cut out a notebook shell from a single block of metal.
You know what? I don't care for that sh**. What I care for is having a timeless, state of the art which SUPPORTS my work by adding superior functionality, like apple's macbook pros did. So far.
This design doesn't support a professional. And stripping some ports, not-much increasing speed, leaving weight and battery power the same doesn't really help, too.
I'll probably grab one of the last generations MBPs. They will soon cost a fortune!!!
I admit I'm really surprised to see the "block" machined cases after all. They do seem to be using a water/slurry technique though, as I said they might.
I don't think they are using a water/slurry technique. Based on the video on the MacBook page on apple's site it looks like they are just using a milling machine. That white watery liquid is just the cutting lubricant for the milling bit.
Apple made a nice incremental improvements and some substantial ones, and lagged elsewhere.
I won't be upgrading because of
1- Glossy Screen
2- Blu-Ray
3- not sold on new trackpad lack of buttons, will need to try it out.
honestly, apple is only coming up with lame excuses for not supporting Blu-Ray, even as an option, at this time.
on MBP, the price is there and so are the interested consumers. Apple ought to stop stifling new technology that competes with their itunes movie store.
pretty damn lame.
This is great for me. do tons of photo work... would like a blu ray burner.. watching blu-ray on a laptop is over kill its a 15 inch montor Beta will look good on it..
I am not sure why people want blu-ray so much.. I needed it for HD video work but never have found the need to use a computer to watch a HD movie. I have a 50inch tv for that stuff..
Yeah I'm never gonna be able to get it perfect, but this is as close as I can get to that. The back of the laptop screen is completely flat against the face of the monitor, so they are both at exactly the same angle.
To me the more diffused light reflection of the matte screen is a better solution than the less diffused but perfect reflection of the glossy. It is *much* easier to notice the background distractions in the glossy screen than in the matte.
Comments
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.
Well, I never was arguing that matte was a perfect solution either, just that it alleviated the known problems with over saturation and contrast associated with glossy and that it was strongly preferred by graphics professionals. You raise some interesting problems with matte screens that I had not heard of before, but I have known and talked to a lot of graphics professionals over the years and you are the first I have ever heard argue *for* a glossy screen.
Your comments are not clear though. Are you just gain-saying my argument by pointing out possible problems with matte screens (which is what it appears like), or are you actually arguing that glossy is "better than matte?" Secondary to that point, are you actually arguing that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards over-saturation and contrast? I'm asking because it seems from your wording that you are very carefully not arguing anything at all and really just trying to be clever.
In the end a professional uses calibration, which alleviates a lot of these issues, and the screen part is of much greater importance than the cover or the coating. As I have said though, I have known a lot of people in the field and if you are arguing that glossy is better for professional work, you are in a real minority it seems to me.
where to start...
no one has mentioend the LIE about HDMI...it can drive a 58" Plasma but not a 30" display - sham! Then they charge you for the industry standard (DVI) adapter
Can you find for us any Tv display that goes higher than 1080p? Size of the display doesn't matter.
Where's the eSATA? Nobody uses freaking Firewire any more
That I agree with. I hope they're just waiting for the new e-sata standard to come out. That's the one with power over e-sata, which the current versions don't offer.
Where's the GD docking connector - time for another POS Book Enz dock - and another $300
?
WTF with the case - who cares that you're making a more expensive case - it not LIGHTER
I thought these are lighter.
Where's the longer battery life!!!!
That sucks. Saved a few bucks and a few ounces by not going there.
It's the same size, same weight, same CPU, same battery life, with a constantly glared screen!!!!
Not really.
___________________
I agree with you for the most part. I'm impressed by the MBP manufacturing process but don't care for the black keyboard and LED bezel. The Macbook is a mini Pro now but its lack of Firewire concerns me. The price points seem high. Apple could drop them like they discounted the original iPhone if they don't sell. Who knows? The Nvidia graphics will be a good move unless Nvidia blows it as they normally do! I prefer glossy screens so that's no biggy.
Trouble with that is to get the glossy screen to an angle where it doesn't reflect the light means putting it at a totally unsuable angle and/or contorting my sitting position to fit in with it, which is far from ideal if you are sitting for extended periods.
It was simply the angle the photo was taken at that meant the glossy screen has no flash reflection.
What the glossy screen gives you is a more focussed reflection of any light source, but also reflects a lot more than the matte screen to begin with.
They're actually both at about the same angle with the notebook held up in front of the TFT to take its photo.
But that's not true!
Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.
Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.
ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.
The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.
Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.
Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.
You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.
I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.
But that's not true!
Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.
Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.
ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.
The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.
Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.
Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.
You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.
I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.
Well to be honest, I'm not trying to get studio level quality photography, I'm just giving a general usage comparison of a matter and glossy screen.
You're right, the flash isn't any sort of indication of real world usage since few people work with xenon flashes going off behind them constantly. Mind, it was you who raised the point about the original photo showing the glossy screen not reflecting the flash at all, which I was simply correcting since it does.
They're both as unusable as each other in this scenario anyway.
Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!
But that's not true!
Just look at your new photo. If you didn't conceal the matte monitor behind the glossy one, you could see that much more of the screen is blotted out from the flash.
Besides, the flash is a couple of hundred times as bright as any normal lighting.
ven though the flash is reflected more strongly from a smaller area of the monitor, the matte screen isn't any more usable. If anything, it's less usable.
The flash is also not at a realistic angle for lighting, so it doesn't do either screen any good.
Put the flaxh up where your room light is, and then stand back and take the picture.
Or better yet, use a tripod, and position each monitor for the best looking screen under the lighting you can muster, and then take each picture separately, without the flash.
You also have a very movable floor light. You can reposition it a bit as well. Or better yet, if you have other room lighting, turn it off.
I'm only saying this as you seem to insist on taking pictures.
This may help: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/r.../12/08.1.shtml
A camera can never do this, especially when it focuses on the background. Having used a glossy display for a while I can tell you the human eye forgets about the background.
Yes, because your brain is working at erasing that background... As for myself, I would rather have my brain focussing on the work at hand rather than doing real-time reality editing...
I also think the 4 gig upgrade is worth it, as is the increase to 7,200 rpm, unless battery life is a huge issue for you.
Well, I never was arguing that matte was a perfect solution either, just that it alleviated the known problems with over saturation and contrast associated with glossy and that it was strongly preferred by graphics professionals. You raise some interesting problems with matte screens that I had not heard of before, but I have known and talked to a lot of graphics professionals over the years and you are the first I have ever heard argue *for* a glossy screen.
Back in the "old" days we used to work in dark rooms wearing black clothing. A small part of that was to prevent reflections, but the rest was to increase the saturation, and apparent blacks to as high a level as possible.
As monitors began to use better phosphors, capable of brighter output, the requirements for those dark rooms began to wane.
All of the top graphics monitors were glossy though. Only the cheaper models were matte. The reason was that matte cut down on stauration and blacks.
When companies stopped making those very high quality monitors, we began to see matte in everything else.
Now, most people are used to matte, and the idea of glossy is odd to them, even for professionals. Unfortunately, because of competitiveness, standards have also gone down in the graphics field.
It used to be that only shops with the experience and money to do it "right" did commercial work. But Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc. brought that down to a much lower level. The cost difference made it difficult for the high end shops to compete on most of the business, and even they reduced their spending. The $10,000 Barco monitors saw fewer sales, and eventually, Barco, and others, dropped out of the graphics business entirely, remaining in the medical, military, and other free spending industries more suited to their products.
What we seem to have now are lower end monitors that are spruced up to graphics levels rather than the other way around. And they are matte.
Your comments are not clear though. Are you just gain-saying my argument by pointing out possible problems with matte screens (which is what it appears like), or are you actually arguing that glossy is "better than matte?" Secondary to that point, are you actually arguing that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards over-saturation and contrast? I'm asking because it seems from your wording that you are very carefully not arguing anything at all and really just trying to be clever.
I tried to be as clear as I could, but possibly not clear enough.
First, I'm not trying to be clever. I can't see how you think that. I gave the reasons that exist. That's not trying to be clever.
I don't see you disputing what I said, point by point. You just seem to be dissing what I did say, without saying anything that I can show to be wrong here.
I pointed out that there are benefits to glossy screens for graphics work, as there are. I also pointed out what they were, clearly, I thought.
I am saying that there are no problems with glossy screens in regards to over saturation and contrast. You are correct in saying that.
If you ever look at reviews for monitors, you will see several things that are thought to be of supreme importance, though there are others. You don't even have to know anything about them to see where the reviews are going:
1. sharpness
2. contrast
3. color
4. saturation
The more of all of those (though color accuracy rather than "more" is meant) the better the monitor.
As you say down below, agreeing mostly with I've also been saying:
In the end a professional uses calibration, which alleviates a lot of these issues, and the screen part is of much greater importance than the cover or the coating. As I have said though, I have known a lot of people in the field and if you are arguing that glossy is better for professional work, you are in a real minority it seems to me.
I may be in the minority today, because people are used to matte. The one thing it seems to do better, is often considered to be more important than what it does worse. Many professionals today have never seen a high quality glossy graphics display, and what they compare their matte displays to aren't comparable.
As I'm sure you know, its much better to be able to turn saturation, and contrast, down in the calibration process than turning it up. Glossy displays allow that to happen with more regularity than do matte displays, depending on the overall quality of the display, of course.
For example, for the upcoming game Starcraft II, specifications are a 256 mb NVidia card as "minimum," and a 512 mb as "recommended." These ratings are for a single video card. Would the base MacBookPro with dual cards rated at 256 mb be "minimum" or "recommended"?
HUGE tech innovations:
1) The processor speed is pegged at 2.53Ghz. Why is this significant? Because the only mathematical way this works out is if the quad-pumped front side bus runs at 1066 Mhz. (i.e. 1066/4 = 266. 266 * 9.5 = 2533 = 2.53Ghz). THIS IS THE FIRST MASS PRODUCED NOTEBOOK WITH A 1066 FSB!
2) THIS IS THE FIRST MASS PRODUCED NOTEBOOK WITH DDR3 MEMORY! And not just any DDR3, but DDR3 1066 (more evidence of the 1066 FSB)
3) This is the first mass produced notebook, and Nvidia's first release of, a combined discrete GPU (the 9400m) and integrated chipset. This provides the power of a mid-level graphics card with the energy efficiency of integrated graphics.
4) This (might) incorporate multi-platform SLI between with the 9400 and 9600GT. The hardware is there, it's only a matter of whether Apple will provide the drivers to do it.
5) ALL the new latops have LED screens, standard, for the first time.
In short, what we saw today was a hardware revolution.
Yet, most of you people can't get over glossy screens.
LIVE IN THE NOW. GET OVER IT.
I don't even like Mac O/S, but I may buy a new Macbook Pro to run Windows on once the drivers are finalized.
P.S. I do realize that some of the creative professionals have a real need for matte screens.
Well to be honest, I'm not trying to get studio level quality photography, I'm just giving a general usage comparison of a matter and glossy screen.
You're right, the flash isn't any sort of indication of real world usage since few people work with xenon flashes going off behind them constantly. Mind, it was you who raised the point about the original photo showing the glossy screen not reflecting the flash at all, which I was simply correcting since it does.
They're both as unusable as each other in this scenario anyway.
Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!
That's better. however, the laptop is still in a different position, and much lower.
Comparing a large separate monitor and a small laptop screen isn't a fair comparison, if you need to position the angle of the displays differently.
You can't do a really fair test because of that.
That's why I said you need two photos, with the screens in the exact position. That would mean moving the laptop so that the center of its screen is where the center of the monitors screen is, at the same distance from the wall, and taking the pictures from the exact same spot, requiring a tripod, as a few inches would make a big difference.
So, while the big monitor is positioned so that the reflection is positioned fowards, or down, the laptop has its display faced upwards, which naturally makes the reflection also face upwards.
Do you see why this is difficult?
Sometimes, unless you want to think the parameters through all the way to get it right, there's no point in doing it at all.
Sorry for being so critical, as I know you are trying to be helpful, but there must be NO variables other than the surface of the screens.
You know what? I don't care for that sh**. What I care for is having a timeless, state of the art which SUPPORTS my work by adding superior functionality, like apple's macbook pros did. So far.
This design doesn't support a professional. And stripping some ports, not-much increasing speed, leaving weight and battery power the same doesn't really help, too.
I'll probably grab one of the last generations MBPs. They will soon cost a fortune!!!
I admit I'm really surprised to see the "block" machined cases after all. They do seem to be using a water/slurry technique though, as I said they might.
I don't think they are using a water/slurry technique. Based on the video on the MacBook page on apple's site it looks like they are just using a milling machine. That white watery liquid is just the cutting lubricant for the milling bit.
This may help: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/r.../12/08.1.shtml
That's interesting. Most people I've spoken to about this have gone with glossy.
Apple made a nice incremental improvements and some substantial ones, and lagged elsewhere.
I won't be upgrading because of
1- Glossy Screen
2- Blu-Ray
3- not sold on new trackpad lack of buttons, will need to try it out.
honestly, apple is only coming up with lame excuses for not supporting Blu-Ray, even as an option, at this time.
on MBP, the price is there and so are the interested consumers. Apple ought to stop stifling new technology that competes with their itunes movie store.
pretty damn lame.
This is great for me. do tons of photo work... would like a blu ray burner.. watching blu-ray on a laptop is over kill its a 15 inch montor Beta will look good on it..
I am not sure why people want blu-ray so much.. I needed it for HD video work but never have found the need to use a computer to watch a HD movie. I have a 50inch tv for that stuff..
To me the more diffused light reflection of the matte screen is a better solution than the less diffused but perfect reflection of the glossy. It is *much* easier to notice the background distractions in the glossy screen than in the matte.