It seems to me that that's one of the problems. Some people keep thinking about the possible reflections, and look for them, even if they don't realize it. I can see that becoming very tedious after a while.
In my experience teaching computer lessons, which I described in an earlier post, I'm not looking for reflections. I'm looking for content on my student's screen and it's almost impossible to see due to the glare. When two people are looking on the same screen, there's no screen angle or laptop position that can solve the problem, so I alternate between craning my neck uncomfortably and just giving up on reading the screen and faking it. I don't see why this is a good thing, when my matte screen is perfectly usable in the same lighting environment.
I'm glad to hear that some people enjoy their glossy screens; but it doesn't make sense for those people to deny that glossy screens could cause problems for others. I know it's hard to believe, but really, what's more plausible: some people have legitimate issue with glossies, or those people are all imagining a non-existent problem?
By the way, I'm not commenting on the new MB/MBP screens specifically, which none of us have yet used, but on glossy laptop screens in general, which most of my students have.
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.
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.
I agree with your point except for # 3. Sony did this years ago. I'm not crazy about the black bezel and keyboard, either. I have to see the new MBP in person before I can say if I like it better aesthetically than the older models.
In my experience teaching computer lessons, which I described in an earlier post, I'm not looking for reflections. I'm looking for content on my student's screen and it's almost impossible to see due to the glare. When two people are looking on the same screen, there's no screen angle or laptop position that can solve the problem, so I alternate between craning my neck uncomfortably and just giving up on reading the screen and faking it. I don't see why this is a good thing, when my matte screen is perfectly usable in the same lighting environment.
I'm glad to hear that some people enjoy their glossy screens; but it doesn't make sense for those people to deny that glossy screens could cause problems for others. I know it's hard to believe, but really, what's more plausible: some people have legitimate issue with glossies, or those people are all imagining a non-existent problem?
By the way, I'm not commenting on the new MB/MBP screens specifically, which none of us have yet used, but on glossy laptop screens in general, which most of my students have.
As I've stated over and again, I'm not denying that will be times when a few people will have a problem with a glossy screen. That's obvious.
The question is just how many people will have a problem, and how often.
Of course, the best would be to offer both. But there are likely financial reasons for not doing so. How would Apple split production?
What is the percentage who won't buy the machine because of the screen? 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%?
As the percentage comes down, it becomes more difficult to offer both. At some point, it will cost the company more money to offer it than to not get the sales. I know that sounds cold, but thats the way it is.
How Apple works with its dealers is also at stake. Many dealers won't handle options. Look at one of Apple's biggest resellers, Amazon, to see that.
Years ago, when Apple had the first colored iMacs, some colors sold very well, and others hardly sold at all. Best Buy argued with Apple that they should be able to order only the amount of colors they could sell, but Apple insisted they buy one of each, every time. That resulted in BB dropping the entire line. I can understand that.
So if retailers find that almost all of their customers buying MB and MBPs alike are asking for glossy, they won't want to carry a matte machine. Shelf space costs money, and they have to carry the cost of that non seller on their books. So they won't order them from Apple.
Most of those coming in wanting a matte machine will buy a glossy one if that's all they can get, so Apple will be producing even less of them.
It's like the 4GB iPhone. so few people were buying them that they quickly discontinued it. Same thing with other models.
Apple seems to think they've learned their lesson with matte screens, and have stopped producing them.
A few people will be unhappy, and that's sad. But they likely made the right choice. Time will tell.
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.
You're right. I seem to recall that all the Quantel boxes I saw back in the day had glossy screens in semi-dark rooms. Most of the video post production work I've been involved with used glossy screens as well. I opted for a glossy screen on my MacBook Pro, but I guess my 15 years in the business are invalidated by my choice of a glossy screen on my laptop. I wouldn't even think of doing color correction on a laptop anyway. I guess that's why I paid so much money for 2 NEC MultiSync 2690 displays and an i1 display calibrator. You people screaming at the top of your lungs about glossy screens seem like you just picked up a meme and now get to bitch about it. How can anyone complain about glare from using a screen outside while also complaining about it not be color correct. Who color corrects outdoors with a laptop?
Your brain isn't "working" on it. You just don't notice it.
I don't notice it on a conscious level, but the brain is working nevertheless.
For instance, I suffer from very slight astigmatism. I don't have to use glasses, I see just fine without them. Yet, if I have a long day and I am already slightly tired, I can get some major headaches. I don't if I use my glasses. As far as my vision go, I see little difference with or without them. But without, my brain is just straining throughout the day to correct my vision.
That's the same problem with glares. They put a constant strain on the eyes and brain. That won't prevent me from working, but that will ensure I won't enjoy a headache free evening.
Quote:
That reminds me of older microscopes. without binocular heads, you need to use one eye. You must keep both eyes open. Once you do that, it's much easier. Your eye that isn't looking into the ocular blanks itself out after a short while, and you only see what you want to see in the ocular. It isn't more work for your brain. Only id you keep thinking about it.
I know, I do the same thing with photography. It's actually some work for your brain, I know i had to train for quite some time for it. The difference is that my other eye doesn't blank, since its purpose it to be situation aware while my over eye is composition aware.
But it is training and it doesn't come naturally. For photography, it has a real purpose. Being both composition and situation aware makes it so I'm not surprised by objets getting into my composition or that I can spot something interresting going on outside of the narrow field of view. Kind of what like people with a Leica do with one eye.
But here, the training was worth it. I don't see the point of training myself to go past the drawbacks of a technology. I do believe that computing is past the day were the human was supposed to do the adaptation. I think it should be the other way around. Actually, wasn't it the selling point of Apple? Why should I be required to adapt myself to something unnatural and without benefits to me?
Quote:
It seems to me that that's one of the problems. Some people keep thinking about the possible reflections, and look for them, even if they don't realize it. I can see that becoming very tedious after a while.
The problem is that you don't have to *think*. It's part of your survival wiring : something moves outside of your active field of vision (the *very* narrow spot where you see clearly), it draws your attention. Because it might be some kind of danger.
Actually, why do you think many pro photographers put gafer on the brand logo of their camera? Because they're all into "no-logo"? Nope... Because the white letter make a high frequency moving target that is *sure* to attract attention and make your subjects less spontaneous. Hide the logo under black gafer, and the camera just becomes a black fuzzy mass.
That's also why the military slash their face with a few streaks of dark green/gray. Just a couple of lines are enough to break the face recognition patterns of the brain if it isn't looking directly at it.
That's why mirror finish is bad. It just reflects really without breaking it. So, you get plenty of lines and high frequencies moving around on your screen, and this kicks into your brain priority list way higher than low frequencies mass on a matt screen...
Right...with all the discussions about the glossy display (which sucks IMO), we all forgot to mention the other hardware specs...which are....leaving the design things aside...mor than dissapointing. I mean...there's a better graphics CPU which combines dedicated and integrated graphics (right, Sony does this for some years now)...and that's it? No real speed bump.
All in all - underwhelming...I'd been waiting for half a year to replace may MBP..but..there's simply no product to buy.
I agree with your point except for # 3. Sony did this years ago. I'm not crazy about the black bezel and keyboard, either. I have to see the new MBP in person before I can say if I like it better aesthetically than the older models.
I think people are getting out of sorts about appearance.
No matter how "bad" Apple's machines may look to some, they still look better than most all others.
While I'm not thrilled about the black keys, it really doesn't matter, and they don't look dirty as quickly as the white ones do. The bezel doesn't bother me at all.
I'm not really sure I get the big deal about these things.
I agree with your point except for # 3. Sony did this years ago. I'm not crazy about the black bezel and keyboard, either. I have to see the new MBP in person before I can say if I like it better aesthetically than the older models.
Sony's dual GPU situation wasn't a full Nvidia chipset with the integrated GPU on the same die. This is all new stuff.
As the percentage comes down, it becomes more difficult to offer both. At some point, it will cost the company more money to offer it than to not get the sales. I know that sounds cold, but thats the way it is.
I definitely understand this. The only problem is that it's not quite fair to look at sales numbers alone to determine which options to offer. Most people don't realize that on the showroom floor, the downsides of a glossy screen are less apparent, so in a side-by-side comparison in that environment, a consumer might well choose the glossy screen. That same consumer goes home and has big glare problems in their living room and just figures that's how all laptops work -- you have to pull the shades and dim the lights. Few of these people are complaining because they don't realize there's an alternative, and in a snowball effect that alternative diminishes to the point where it has now disappeared for Mac laptop users.
Apple is usually the company that offers what it believes to be the most usable solutions, despite what the majority of consumers ask for (one-button mouse anyone?). In this case it seems to have sided with the mass market, lowest common denominator user base and left a lot of experienced users with distinct preferences out in the cold.
Well, hopefully someone will get the new machine tomorrow and post "this is amazing, the colors are deep and rich and they've somehow reduced the glare problem too!" and then this will all be irrelevant.
I don't notice it on a conscious level, but the brain is working nevertheless.
For instance, I suffer from very slight astigmatism. I don't have to use glasses, I see just fine without them. Yet, if I have a long day and I am already slightly tired, I can get some major headaches. I don't if I use my glasses. As far as my vision go, I see little difference with or without them. But without, my brain is just straining throughout the day to correct my vision.
The muscles controlling your eyes, and the constant attempt of your eyes to find the proper focus is what's tiring you out. I wear glasses, and have the same problem with screens, with their brightness and fine type.
Quote:
That's the same problem with glares. They put a constant strain on the eyes and brain. That won't prevent me from working, but that will ensure I won't enjoy a headache free evening.
If glare is really bad, then you could have a problem, but usually, it's at a low level, and we do quickly ignore it. But, some people can't, and they have more problems. When I mentioned the one eyed microscope viewing, I didn't mention that there were always a few people who couldn't work with one eye. They needed t grey card in front of the other eye, and some couldn't do it at all.
Quote:
I know, I do the same thing with photography. It's actually some work for your brain, I know i had to train for quite some time for it. The difference is that my other eye doesn't blank, since its purpose it to be situation aware while my over eye is composition aware.
But it is training and it doesn't come naturally. For photography, it has a real purpose. Being both composition and situation aware makes it so I'm not surprised by objets getting into my composition or that I can spot something interresting going on outside of the narrow field of view. Kind of what like people with a Leica do with one eye.
But here, the training was worth it. I don't see the point of training myself to go past the drawbacks of a technology. I do believe that computing is past the day were the human was supposed to do the adaptation. I think it should be the other way around. Actually, wasn't it the selling point of Apple? Why should I be required to adapt myself to something unnatural and without benefits to me?
Most people do this without thinking about it. A few can't. For them, it might always be a problem.
Quote:
The problem is that you don't have to *think*. It's part of your survival wiring : something moves outside of your active field of vision (the *very* narrow spot where you see clearly), it draws your attention. Because it might be some kind of danger.
Actually, why do you think many pro photographers put gafer on the brand logo of their camera? Because they're all into "no-logo"? Nope... Because the white letter make a high frequency moving target that is *sure* to attract attention and make your subjects less spontaneous. Hide the logo under black gafer, and the camera just becomes a black fuzzy mass.
That's also why the military slash their face with a few streaks of dark green/gray. Just a couple of lines are enough to break the face recognition patterns of the brain if it isn't looking directly at it.
That's why mirror finish is bad. It just reflects really without breaking it. So, you get plenty of lines and high frequencies moving around on your screen, and this kicks into your brain priority list way higher than low frequencies mass on a matt screen...
I think that;s an exaggeration of this problem. Rarely is the reflection going to flash around the screen causing problems.
You might note that even matte graphics monitors often come with "blinders" for the screen (or offer them as accessories), to keep the reflections away, that cause saturation, color change, and contrast reduction, that all matte screens are subject to to a high degree.
I'm not totally against matte screens, but if Apple thinks they don't have enough customers who really want them, and so can't provide them, one must make do. More PC laptops are also going glossy up and down the lines. At some point, it may be impossible to find a matte model anywhere.
Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!
Except you're not sitting down, and the laptop display is angled back more than it should be, and people don't usually operate a laptop computer 3+ feet away while standing up.
Furthermore, with a camera you can take a picture with a far greater depth of field than your eyes provide under the same lighting conditions. At normal working distance (~20") and typical ambient lighting intensities (not camera flash intensities), objects that are likely to be reflected in a glossy display will be far enough away that they'll be out of focus to your eyes and, hence, interfere less than you might imagine (and less than what was captured here with a camera and flash). Reflections will interfere more as ambient light levels increase, because the iris then closes down, which increases the depth of field. Counteracting the reflections, though, when ambient light levels increase and the iris closes, anything reflected gets dimmer; and if you can boost the intensity of the display, the reflection then interferes less.
I definitely understand this. The only problem is that it's not quite fair to look at sales numbers alone to determine which options to offer. Most people don't realize that on the showroom floor, the downsides of a glossy screen are less apparent, so in a side-by-side comparison in that environment, a consumer might well choose the glossy screen. That same consumer goes home and has big glare problems in their living room and just figures that's how all laptops work -- you have to pull the shades and dim the lights. Few of these people are complaining because they don't realize there's an alternative, and in a snowball effect that alternative diminishes to the point where it has now disappeared for Mac laptop users.
Apple is usually the company that offers what it believes to be the most usable solutions, despite what the majority of consumers ask for (one-button mouse anyone?). In this case it seems to have sided with the mass market, lowest common denominator user base and left a lot of experienced users with distinct preferences out in the cold.
Well, hopefully someone will get the new machine tomorrow and post "this is amazing, the colors are deep and rich and they've somehow reduced the glare problem too!" and then this will all be irrelevant.
This is all happening because people have been selecting glossy machines over matte models. This isn't an Apple thing.
If a fair number of people weren't happy with their new glossy machines, the movement towards them would have slowed down, or stopped altogether. It hasn't. It's accelerated.
Maybe Apple is again a bit ahead of the trends, or maybe not.
Certainly, if they felt their pro market still wanted matte in any more than small numbers, they would have continued to offer it. This isn't like discontinuing the floppy drive, or serial ports. They have nothing to gain in a technology sense from this.
I am quite happy with the update, and in fact, I have just ordered my first MBP. YAY! Can't wait for it to arrive The order confirmation said it would be shipped in eight days, however, the estimated delivery date was November 3rd og 4th. Hope they aren't going to need a week to ship it from Ireland to Denmark :-|
However, one thing about the update bugs me: The Mini DisplayPort. I would so much rather have had a HDMI. But now that I haven't gotten that, what do I do, when I want to hook my MBP up to my Panasonic PZ85 plasma (42" 1080p)?
Is the Mini DisplayPort plug something Apple invented themselves? I would love to find a third-party Mini DisplayPort -> HDMI cable, instead of having to buy Apple's own Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter (grr) and a DVI-HDMI cable.
Question to those lazy gits who have enough time to wander around Central London during the day - are the new machines already on display at Regent st.? Want to go and check them for myself later on tomorrow (that is ... today ... Wednesday).
At first glance, this essentially external redesign of the new MBP 15" is somewhat disappointing as there are no improvements on the previous MBP in terms of the processor speed, weight, battery life, connectors ... I mostly surf and edit documents/presentations/spreadsheets and do no graphic work, so I don't care that much about the new NVIDIA chipset, nor do I care about the glossy screen as I am among those few 'lucky' ones being able to adapt my workplace according to the lighting - I understand the pain of the rest of you though for the lack of matte option
More importantly, this update has 1066 DDR3: the fact that very few - if any - have so far mentioned (having gone back thought the previous posts, I now see that only one person mentioned it ...). The new memory set is imho the most notable internal improvement over the old line, or any laptop for that matter.
But I still find the new line mostly appealing purely design-wise; in particular, the solution for the unique body, accommodating the screen and the tampered edges a la iPhone, and no ugly frames as per Macbook Air - albeit few aesthetic reasons can be put forward to justify the extremely annoying black keyboard
The glass touchpad also promises to be one of those things to add to the general ergonomics.
In this context, it seems that the winner may be ... the new MB 13" which has almost all the externals and internals of the 15" minus a hefty sum of money. If only they could beef-up the processor speed to at least 2.2GHz, I would have probably been a taker even at GBP 950. Yet to be seen...
Thanks. I have what is now called the i1Basic. So, can I safely assume that you do not have reflectivity issues or glass coatings "tricking" the spectrophotometer, or do you use a method to compensate for that. I have up to now avoided glossy displays.
If $$ was equal....would you prefer a new MB 2.4 or an old MBP 2.5 (with the 512MB video) ? Which would perform better graphics-wise if I wanted to play games? The newer NVIDIA card with less memory or the older one with more memory?
I know a major difference to consider is screen size as well.
The newer Nvidia card would perform slightly better. Go with the new 2.4.
I personally love the new MBP and am going to order one ASAP. The thing is that everyone on here was hoping for way too much from apple. *(Aw man, I hope it has a touch screen track pad and bluray and it can fly. That would be awesome.)* No matter what would have been released today, not everyone would have been happy. At least they didn't ditch firewire which is what everyone was crying about two days ago. Even with its flaws the new MBP is sleek, powerful, and is going to give people the quality that apple has always given.
does anyone know if there is a difference is "glossiness" level between the glass-covered iMac and the plastic covered macbook pros [previous model] ???
since the new macbook pros are covered in actual glass like the iMacs.
[ I ask because i have thought that the iMacs were much more glossy than the glossy macbook pros, is this correct, or am i smoking crack and they are the same?]
Comments
It seems to me that that's one of the problems. Some people keep thinking about the possible reflections, and look for them, even if they don't realize it. I can see that becoming very tedious after a while.
In my experience teaching computer lessons, which I described in an earlier post, I'm not looking for reflections. I'm looking for content on my student's screen and it's almost impossible to see due to the glare. When two people are looking on the same screen, there's no screen angle or laptop position that can solve the problem, so I alternate between craning my neck uncomfortably and just giving up on reading the screen and faking it. I don't see why this is a good thing, when my matte screen is perfectly usable in the same lighting environment.
I'm glad to hear that some people enjoy their glossy screens; but it doesn't make sense for those people to deny that glossy screens could cause problems for others. I know it's hard to believe, but really, what's more plausible: some people have legitimate issue with glossies, or those people are all imagining a non-existent problem?
By the way, I'm not commenting on the new MB/MBP screens specifically, which none of us have yet used, but on glossy laptop screens in general, which most of my students have.
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.
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.
I agree with your point except for # 3. Sony did this years ago. I'm not crazy about the black bezel and keyboard, either. I have to see the new MBP in person before I can say if I like it better aesthetically than the older models.
In my experience teaching computer lessons, which I described in an earlier post, I'm not looking for reflections. I'm looking for content on my student's screen and it's almost impossible to see due to the glare. When two people are looking on the same screen, there's no screen angle or laptop position that can solve the problem, so I alternate between craning my neck uncomfortably and just giving up on reading the screen and faking it. I don't see why this is a good thing, when my matte screen is perfectly usable in the same lighting environment.
I'm glad to hear that some people enjoy their glossy screens; but it doesn't make sense for those people to deny that glossy screens could cause problems for others. I know it's hard to believe, but really, what's more plausible: some people have legitimate issue with glossies, or those people are all imagining a non-existent problem?
By the way, I'm not commenting on the new MB/MBP screens specifically, which none of us have yet used, but on glossy laptop screens in general, which most of my students have.
As I've stated over and again, I'm not denying that will be times when a few people will have a problem with a glossy screen. That's obvious.
The question is just how many people will have a problem, and how often.
Of course, the best would be to offer both. But there are likely financial reasons for not doing so. How would Apple split production?
What is the percentage who won't buy the machine because of the screen? 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%?
As the percentage comes down, it becomes more difficult to offer both. At some point, it will cost the company more money to offer it than to not get the sales. I know that sounds cold, but thats the way it is.
How Apple works with its dealers is also at stake. Many dealers won't handle options. Look at one of Apple's biggest resellers, Amazon, to see that.
Years ago, when Apple had the first colored iMacs, some colors sold very well, and others hardly sold at all. Best Buy argued with Apple that they should be able to order only the amount of colors they could sell, but Apple insisted they buy one of each, every time. That resulted in BB dropping the entire line. I can understand that.
So if retailers find that almost all of their customers buying MB and MBPs alike are asking for glossy, they won't want to carry a matte machine. Shelf space costs money, and they have to carry the cost of that non seller on their books. So they won't order them from Apple.
Most of those coming in wanting a matte machine will buy a glossy one if that's all they can get, so Apple will be producing even less of them.
It's like the 4GB iPhone. so few people were buying them that they quickly discontinued it. Same thing with other models.
Apple seems to think they've learned their lesson with matte screens, and have stopped producing them.
A few people will be unhappy, and that's sad. But they likely made the right choice. Time will tell.
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.
You're right. I seem to recall that all the Quantel boxes I saw back in the day had glossy screens in semi-dark rooms. Most of the video post production work I've been involved with used glossy screens as well. I opted for a glossy screen on my MacBook Pro, but I guess my 15 years in the business are invalidated by my choice of a glossy screen on my laptop. I wouldn't even think of doing color correction on a laptop anyway. I guess that's why I paid so much money for 2 NEC MultiSync 2690 displays and an i1 display calibrator. You people screaming at the top of your lungs about glossy screens seem like you just picked up a meme and now get to bitch about it. How can anyone complain about glare from using a screen outside while also complaining about it not be color correct. Who color corrects outdoors with a laptop?
Your brain isn't "working" on it. You just don't notice it.
I don't notice it on a conscious level, but the brain is working nevertheless.
For instance, I suffer from very slight astigmatism. I don't have to use glasses, I see just fine without them. Yet, if I have a long day and I am already slightly tired, I can get some major headaches. I don't if I use my glasses. As far as my vision go, I see little difference with or without them. But without, my brain is just straining throughout the day to correct my vision.
That's the same problem with glares. They put a constant strain on the eyes and brain. That won't prevent me from working, but that will ensure I won't enjoy a headache free evening.
That reminds me of older microscopes. without binocular heads, you need to use one eye. You must keep both eyes open. Once you do that, it's much easier. Your eye that isn't looking into the ocular blanks itself out after a short while, and you only see what you want to see in the ocular. It isn't more work for your brain. Only id you keep thinking about it.
I know, I do the same thing with photography. It's actually some work for your brain, I know i had to train for quite some time for it. The difference is that my other eye doesn't blank, since its purpose it to be situation aware while my over eye is composition aware.
But it is training and it doesn't come naturally. For photography, it has a real purpose. Being both composition and situation aware makes it so I'm not surprised by objets getting into my composition or that I can spot something interresting going on outside of the narrow field of view. Kind of what like people with a Leica do with one eye.
But here, the training was worth it. I don't see the point of training myself to go past the drawbacks of a technology. I do believe that computing is past the day were the human was supposed to do the adaptation. I think it should be the other way around. Actually, wasn't it the selling point of Apple? Why should I be required to adapt myself to something unnatural and without benefits to me?
It seems to me that that's one of the problems. Some people keep thinking about the possible reflections, and look for them, even if they don't realize it. I can see that becoming very tedious after a while.
The problem is that you don't have to *think*. It's part of your survival wiring : something moves outside of your active field of vision (the *very* narrow spot where you see clearly), it draws your attention. Because it might be some kind of danger.
Actually, why do you think many pro photographers put gafer on the brand logo of their camera? Because they're all into "no-logo"? Nope... Because the white letter make a high frequency moving target that is *sure* to attract attention and make your subjects less spontaneous. Hide the logo under black gafer, and the camera just becomes a black fuzzy mass.
That's also why the military slash their face with a few streaks of dark green/gray. Just a couple of lines are enough to break the face recognition patterns of the brain if it isn't looking directly at it.
That's why mirror finish is bad. It just reflects really without breaking it. So, you get plenty of lines and high frequencies moving around on your screen, and this kicks into your brain priority list way higher than low frequencies mass on a matt screen...
All in all - underwhelming...I'd been waiting for half a year to replace may MBP..but..there's simply no product to buy.
I agree with your point except for # 3. Sony did this years ago. I'm not crazy about the black bezel and keyboard, either. I have to see the new MBP in person before I can say if I like it better aesthetically than the older models.
I think people are getting out of sorts about appearance.
No matter how "bad" Apple's machines may look to some, they still look better than most all others.
While I'm not thrilled about the black keys, it really doesn't matter, and they don't look dirty as quickly as the white ones do. The bezel doesn't bother me at all.
I'm not really sure I get the big deal about these things.
I agree with your point except for # 3. Sony did this years ago. I'm not crazy about the black bezel and keyboard, either. I have to see the new MBP in person before I can say if I like it better aesthetically than the older models.
Sony's dual GPU situation wasn't a full Nvidia chipset with the integrated GPU on the same die. This is all new stuff.
The new MBP is a bit wider and deeper in dimensions then the old one. Weight is the same. Is that progress?
The Macbook at 2 Kg lost a bit of weight. And looks like the MBP...it should be a small MBP.
So there's only the missing Firewire as a difference beteween MP and MBP. Thats stupid.
As the percentage comes down, it becomes more difficult to offer both. At some point, it will cost the company more money to offer it than to not get the sales. I know that sounds cold, but thats the way it is.
I definitely understand this. The only problem is that it's not quite fair to look at sales numbers alone to determine which options to offer. Most people don't realize that on the showroom floor, the downsides of a glossy screen are less apparent, so in a side-by-side comparison in that environment, a consumer might well choose the glossy screen. That same consumer goes home and has big glare problems in their living room and just figures that's how all laptops work -- you have to pull the shades and dim the lights. Few of these people are complaining because they don't realize there's an alternative, and in a snowball effect that alternative diminishes to the point where it has now disappeared for Mac laptop users.
Apple is usually the company that offers what it believes to be the most usable solutions, despite what the majority of consumers ask for (one-button mouse anyone?). In this case it seems to have sided with the mass market, lowest common denominator user base and left a lot of experienced users with distinct preferences out in the cold.
Well, hopefully someone will get the new machine tomorrow and post "this is amazing, the colors are deep and rich and they've somehow reduced the glare problem too!" and then this will all be irrelevant.
I don't notice it on a conscious level, but the brain is working nevertheless.
For instance, I suffer from very slight astigmatism. I don't have to use glasses, I see just fine without them. Yet, if I have a long day and I am already slightly tired, I can get some major headaches. I don't if I use my glasses. As far as my vision go, I see little difference with or without them. But without, my brain is just straining throughout the day to correct my vision.
The muscles controlling your eyes, and the constant attempt of your eyes to find the proper focus is what's tiring you out. I wear glasses, and have the same problem with screens, with their brightness and fine type.
That's the same problem with glares. They put a constant strain on the eyes and brain. That won't prevent me from working, but that will ensure I won't enjoy a headache free evening.
If glare is really bad, then you could have a problem, but usually, it's at a low level, and we do quickly ignore it. But, some people can't, and they have more problems. When I mentioned the one eyed microscope viewing, I didn't mention that there were always a few people who couldn't work with one eye. They needed t grey card in front of the other eye, and some couldn't do it at all.
I know, I do the same thing with photography. It's actually some work for your brain, I know i had to train for quite some time for it. The difference is that my other eye doesn't blank, since its purpose it to be situation aware while my over eye is composition aware.
But it is training and it doesn't come naturally. For photography, it has a real purpose. Being both composition and situation aware makes it so I'm not surprised by objets getting into my composition or that I can spot something interresting going on outside of the narrow field of view. Kind of what like people with a Leica do with one eye.
But here, the training was worth it. I don't see the point of training myself to go past the drawbacks of a technology. I do believe that computing is past the day were the human was supposed to do the adaptation. I think it should be the other way around. Actually, wasn't it the selling point of Apple? Why should I be required to adapt myself to something unnatural and without benefits to me?
Most people do this without thinking about it. A few can't. For them, it might always be a problem.
The problem is that you don't have to *think*. It's part of your survival wiring : something moves outside of your active field of vision (the *very* narrow spot where you see clearly), it draws your attention. Because it might be some kind of danger.
Actually, why do you think many pro photographers put gafer on the brand logo of their camera? Because they're all into "no-logo"? Nope... Because the white letter make a high frequency moving target that is *sure* to attract attention and make your subjects less spontaneous. Hide the logo under black gafer, and the camera just becomes a black fuzzy mass.
That's also why the military slash their face with a few streaks of dark green/gray. Just a couple of lines are enough to break the face recognition patterns of the brain if it isn't looking directly at it.
That's why mirror finish is bad. It just reflects really without breaking it. So, you get plenty of lines and high frequencies moving around on your screen, and this kicks into your brain priority list way higher than low frequencies mass on a matt screen...
I think that;s an exaggeration of this problem. Rarely is the reflection going to flash around the screen causing problems.
You might note that even matte graphics monitors often come with "blinders" for the screen (or offer them as accessories), to keep the reflections away, that cause saturation, color change, and contrast reduction, that all matte screens are subject to to a high degree.
I'm not totally against matte screens, but if Apple thinks they don't have enough customers who really want them, and so can't provide them, one must make do. More PC laptops are also going glossy up and down the lines. At some point, it may be impossible to find a matte model anywhere.
Here are both screens at their usable desk position/height. That's the ceiling light you can see in the laptop very clearly!
Except you're not sitting down, and the laptop display is angled back more than it should be, and people don't usually operate a laptop computer 3+ feet away while standing up.
Furthermore, with a camera you can take a picture with a far greater depth of field than your eyes provide under the same lighting conditions. At normal working distance (~20") and typical ambient lighting intensities (not camera flash intensities), objects that are likely to be reflected in a glossy display will be far enough away that they'll be out of focus to your eyes and, hence, interfere less than you might imagine (and less than what was captured here with a camera and flash). Reflections will interfere more as ambient light levels increase, because the iris then closes down, which increases the depth of field. Counteracting the reflections, though, when ambient light levels increase and the iris closes, anything reflected gets dimmer; and if you can boost the intensity of the display, the reflection then interferes less.
I definitely understand this. The only problem is that it's not quite fair to look at sales numbers alone to determine which options to offer. Most people don't realize that on the showroom floor, the downsides of a glossy screen are less apparent, so in a side-by-side comparison in that environment, a consumer might well choose the glossy screen. That same consumer goes home and has big glare problems in their living room and just figures that's how all laptops work -- you have to pull the shades and dim the lights. Few of these people are complaining because they don't realize there's an alternative, and in a snowball effect that alternative diminishes to the point where it has now disappeared for Mac laptop users.
Apple is usually the company that offers what it believes to be the most usable solutions, despite what the majority of consumers ask for (one-button mouse anyone?). In this case it seems to have sided with the mass market, lowest common denominator user base and left a lot of experienced users with distinct preferences out in the cold.
Well, hopefully someone will get the new machine tomorrow and post "this is amazing, the colors are deep and rich and they've somehow reduced the glare problem too!" and then this will all be irrelevant.
This is all happening because people have been selecting glossy machines over matte models. This isn't an Apple thing.
If a fair number of people weren't happy with their new glossy machines, the movement towards them would have slowed down, or stopped altogether. It hasn't. It's accelerated.
Maybe Apple is again a bit ahead of the trends, or maybe not.
Certainly, if they felt their pro market still wanted matte in any more than small numbers, they would have continued to offer it. This isn't like discontinuing the floppy drive, or serial ports. They have nothing to gain in a technology sense from this.
I am quite happy with the update, and in fact, I have just ordered my first MBP. YAY! Can't wait for it to arrive
However, one thing about the update bugs me: The Mini DisplayPort. I would so much rather have had a HDMI. But now that I haven't gotten that, what do I do, when I want to hook my MBP up to my Panasonic PZ85 plasma (42" 1080p)?
Is the Mini DisplayPort plug something Apple invented themselves? I would love to find a third-party Mini DisplayPort -> HDMI cable, instead of having to buy Apple's own Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter (grr) and a DVI-HDMI cable.
Thanks in advance.
Rasmus
At first glance, this essentially external redesign of the new MBP 15" is somewhat disappointing as there are no improvements on the previous MBP in terms of the processor speed, weight, battery life, connectors ... I mostly surf and edit documents/presentations/spreadsheets and do no graphic work, so I don't care that much about the new NVIDIA chipset, nor do I care about the glossy screen as I am among those few 'lucky' ones being able to adapt my workplace according to the lighting - I understand the pain of the rest of you though for the lack of matte option
More importantly, this update has 1066 DDR3: the fact that very few - if any - have so far mentioned (having gone back thought the previous posts, I now see that only one person mentioned it ...). The new memory set is imho the most notable internal improvement over the old line, or any laptop for that matter.
But I still find the new line mostly appealing purely design-wise; in particular, the solution for the unique body, accommodating the screen and the tampered edges a la iPhone, and no ugly frames as per Macbook Air - albeit few aesthetic reasons can be put forward to justify the extremely annoying black keyboard
The glass touchpad also promises to be one of those things to add to the general ergonomics.
In this context, it seems that the winner may be ... the new MB 13" which has almost all the externals and internals of the 15" minus a hefty sum of money. If only they could beef-up the processor speed to at least 2.2GHz, I would have probably been a taker even at GBP 950. Yet to be seen...
I use the Xrite i1XTreme. That's a new name for the bundle, but it's the same one I have.
The price has come down.
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=792
Thanks. I have what is now called the i1Basic. So, can I safely assume that you do not have reflectivity issues or glass coatings "tricking" the spectrophotometer, or do you use a method to compensate for that. I have up to now avoided glossy displays.
If $$ was equal....would you prefer a new MB 2.4 or an old MBP 2.5 (with the 512MB video) ? Which would perform better graphics-wise if I wanted to play games? The newer NVIDIA card with less memory or the older one with more memory?
I know a major difference to consider is screen size as well.
The newer Nvidia card would perform slightly better. Go with the new 2.4.
since the new macbook pros are covered in actual glass like the iMacs.
[ I ask because i have thought that the iMacs were much more glossy than the glossy macbook pros, is this correct, or am i smoking crack and they are the same?]