You are probably right, but since I prefer a glossy display over matte I am apparently too ignorant to gets me some learnin'.
PS: Care to use logic to describe again how ignorant people like glossy displays?
No, but I can point out how your funny your logic is in which your inappropriate deduction is based on. Here you go...
Are you telling me that "Bunch of ignorant consumers prefer glossy screen over matte screen" means that "a glossy screen is necessarily a worse product than a matte ones" and "whoever likes glossy screen is ignorant"?!
Wow, I hope you're not telling me that whatever good or successful products (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners.
Hopefully you can figure out what your problem is by now. If not, take a logic class. That is the learning you need.
If you really can't stand the glossy screen go to your local hardware store and buy some #0000 steel wool for less than a buck, dip it in liquid dishwasher detergent for lubrication and have at it. Problem solved. Cheaply. Sheesh, you whining pussies.
Now that the 13? MB has gone Pro and now has a much better display it?s certainly more likely, but with this second revision in place and the 15? MBP still without the option it seems that Apple either isn?t seeing the numbers to justify the expense or they are having some problems creating it. The latter seems exceedingly unlikely.
Unless the problem is that it costs too much to make right now. I doubt that glossy will totally replace matte in the professional series, they're are too many users accustomed to matte that refuse to buy glossy. It's like the die-hards who still use Quark. God help Quark if they change their minds.
If you really can't stand the glossy screen go to your local hardware store and buy some #0000 steel wool for less than a buck, dip it in liquid dishwasher detergent for lubrication and have at it. Problem solved. Cheaply. Sheesh, you whining pussies.
Oh, absolutely not! Your time is only worth for criticizing yourself. Oh... not to mention that you're the one who embarrassed yourself in the first place.
Unless the problem is that it costs too much to make right now. I doubt that glossy will totally replace matte in the professional series, they're are too many users accustomed to matte that refuse to buy glossy. It's like the die-hards who still use Quark. God help Quark if they change their minds.
I?m sure it?s cost. Not necessarily costing more than the glass display, but not enough potential bys to justify the expense. After all, "many, if not most consumers are ignorant".
PS: People are still using Quark? Are these Japanese soldiers in the jungle unaware WWII has ended?
No need to shame Apple. Apple already has the anti-glare option ONLY for the 17" Macbook Pro. This goes to show that Apple acknowledges the glaring issue of the glossy screen already and does not want to admit it because bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
I find your post beyond annoying due to its overzealous generalization.
I'm neither ignorant, nor a "consumer."
I'm a professional who loves & would only ever use a glossy Apple screen for my super critical color work. The other graphic design & photo pros I've worked with, and work with, -all- prefer glossy screens...with, of course, an exception here & there. Frankly, whether one is a consumer or a pro, it takes just a bit of adjustment to one's environment to correct for screen glare.
oooooh, you mean that sad little software package that I & so many others were forced to contend with when the digital revolution of graphic design began in the 90s? No, nobody uses it anymore...just that occasional odd type who prefers <shudder> matte over glossy.
I?m sure it?s cost. Not necessarily costing more than the glass display, but not enough potential bys to justify the expense. After all, "many, if not most consumers are ignorant".
PS: People are still using Quark? Are these Japanese soldiers in the jungle unaware WWII has ended?
I don't think these are glass. I tapped on mine and it feels like plastic. I originally thought that like the iMac, the new Macbook Pro's had a glass display. Then I wondered how many would come back to Apple broken after using them in the real world. Then i tapped on mine, hmm.. feels flimsy like plastic. I guess I assumed since it looked like both the iPhone and the iMac that it was glass. Doh!
What can you do - there are just a lot of cocky, arrogant types in the tech industry who define their worth based on how smart they can attempt to look compared to others, as opposed to working towards something of real substance, both in terms of their work and their character.
I am not sure that you can dismiss someone's opinion or conjecture and replace it with your own arbitrary conjecture by just shouting "no". If you worked at the Apple store and knew for a fact that the old displays were used because of glare issues with the new ones, things would be different. As things stand, I stick to the explanation that seems more reasonable - to me at least. Apple is extremely successful financially and demonstrates time and again that it understands the market (public information). It seems implausible that they would risk their financial success by marketing a product which their own staff consider unfit for its intended use. I therefore conclude that the more likely scenario is that Apple, being a well-run company, is "sweating its assets", i.e. uses the old displays for training instead of selling them at half price or putting them in the bin.
Having said that, if you explain in a logical way how you got to your conclusion, we should all be prepared to listen and consider your point of view. Are you able to do that?
If I have to explain to you the definition of both glossy and glare then you are both clueless and hopeless.
If anybody can supply peer-reviewed clinical evidence, please?
Now we know a lot of comments about Apples glossy screens are about to flood this site, it wouldn't hurt anybody to look at some of this university's other recommendations before commenting.
That would be because there is a correct way to wash your hands and businesses are required to inform staff about occupational health and safety of which ergonomics is a part. You may chortle now but wait until you are 55 and have a bad back or RSI in your wrists.
I find your post beyond annoying due to its overzealous generalization.
I'm neither ignorant, nor a "consumer."
I'm a professional who loves & would only ever use a glossy Apple screen for my super critical color work. The other graphic design & photo pros I've worked with, and work with, -all- prefer glossy screens...with, of course, an exception here & there. Frankly, whether one is a consumer or a pro, it takes just a bit of adjustment to one's environment to correct for screen glare.
Cheers anyway, d00d.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_23
It has nothing to do with logic. It's an absurd, possibly priggish opinion.
Alas, I think I've just become guilty of feeding the tr0llz.
*sigh*
Does the sentence "bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen" mean that "all glossy screen users are ignorant consumers" or "glossy screen is necessarily worse than matte screen"? Seriously, what are you reading? Would you mind thinking through a bit before acting like a tr0llz? Your reading skills probably have no logic involved at all.
Wow, I can't believe this. Are people like you and solipsism trying to persuade me that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners? Hopefully not, because such statement is hilarious.
No wonder they're adding arguments in the GRE exams.
Predicted, predicted, predicted. Asserting that these features are easy to implement because they have it on the desktop version is not the same as stating they come when they get worked out. It’s clear now that MMS is an AT&T issue, not Apple, one that I tested months ago along with tethering.
Quote:
4.) A small formed Pro laptop has arrived.
Predicted this too, yet you told me Apple wouldn’t update the uMB display without making a big todo about it first.
Quote:
5.) Firewire came back.:
And predicted, as my previous reposting of posts from last year and many, many times since then indicated.
You have to really quite the all-or-nothing juvenile attitude you have. To say that video can’t feasibly come to the iPhone 3G is not the same as your pessimistic view that Apple will never bring to the iPhone or that they are artificially holding it back. Other things I have stated are:
• 3rd-party background apps will come to the iPhone, but they won’t come to the original or iPhone 3G as they can’t feasibly support it
That varies from your sky is falling stance that Apple is artificially holding it back when other smartphones have had it for years. The objective person looks at how the OS tasks the HW, not just the OS. They also look at how Apple works as a company, not how they’d like Apple to work to suit their selfish needs.
Wow, I can't believe this. Are people like you and solipsism trying to persuade me that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners? This is so funny.
I don?t know what shortbus this Eddie Haskel backpedaling usually works on but if you think it?s going to work on a forum with learned adults you are sorely mistaken.
?No, no, I meant that there is probably someone who likes a glossy display that may be ignorant as to the type of display options available. I never implied that people as a whole who like glossy displays are ignorant. How could you think of me, Wally?"
I don’t know what shortbus this Eddie Haskel backpedaling usually works on but if you think it’s going to work on a forum with learned adults you are sorely mistaken.
“No, no, I meant that there is probably someone who likes a glossy display that may be ignorant as to the type of display options available. I never implied that people as a whole who like glossy displays are ignorant. How could you think of me, Wally?"
If you insist on your faulty deduction that you have been making, you will inevitably come to a stupid conclusion that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners.
You're either dodging my point or stupid enough to not understand a bit of what I'm saying.
If you insist on your faulty deduction that you have been making, you will inevitably come to a stupid conclusion that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners.
You're either dodging my point or stupid enough to not understand a bit of what I'm saying.
It?s that ol? ingrained glossy-liking ignorance in me.
Comments
Ironically, your personal attack and insult over here is no less than others.
You are also not worth MY time, just to clarify.
You are probably right, but since I prefer a glossy display over matte I am apparently too ignorant to gets me some learnin'.
PS: Care to use logic to describe again how ignorant people like glossy displays?
No, but I can point out how your funny your logic is in which your inappropriate deduction is based on. Here you go...
Are you telling me that "Bunch of ignorant consumers prefer glossy screen over matte screen" means that "a glossy screen is necessarily a worse product than a matte ones" and "whoever likes glossy screen is ignorant"?!
Wow, I hope you're not telling me that whatever good or successful products (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners.
Hopefully you can figure out what your problem is by now. If not, take a logic class. That is the learning you need.
Now that the 13? MB has gone Pro and now has a much better display it?s certainly more likely, but with this second revision in place and the 15? MBP still without the option it seems that Apple either isn?t seeing the numbers to justify the expense or they are having some problems creating it. The latter seems exceedingly unlikely.
Unless the problem is that it costs too much to make right now. I doubt that glossy will totally replace matte in the professional series, they're are too many users accustomed to matte that refuse to buy glossy. It's like the die-hards who still use Quark. God help Quark if they change their minds.
If you really can't stand the glossy screen go to your local hardware store and buy some #0000 steel wool for less than a buck, dip it in liquid dishwasher detergent for lubrication and have at it. Problem solved. Cheaply. Sheesh, you whining pussies.
Nah, then it would look like a 1st gen Nano.
You are also not worth MY time, just to clarify.
Oh, absolutely not! Your time is only worth for criticizing yourself. Oh... not to mention that you're the one who embarrassed yourself in the first place.
Unless the problem is that it costs too much to make right now. I doubt that glossy will totally replace matte in the professional series, they're are too many users accustomed to matte that refuse to buy glossy. It's like the die-hards who still use Quark. God help Quark if they change their minds.
I?m sure it?s cost. Not necessarily costing more than the glass display, but not enough potential bys to justify the expense. After all, "many, if not most consumers are ignorant".
PS: People are still using Quark? Are these Japanese soldiers in the jungle unaware WWII has ended?
No need to shame Apple. Apple already has the anti-glare option ONLY for the 17" Macbook Pro. This goes to show that Apple acknowledges the glaring issue of the glossy screen already and does not want to admit it because bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen.
I find your post beyond annoying due to its overzealous generalization.
I'm neither ignorant, nor a "consumer."
I'm a professional who loves & would only ever use a glossy Apple screen for my super critical color work. The other graphic design & photo pros I've worked with, and work with, -all- prefer glossy screens...with, of course, an exception here & there. Frankly, whether one is a consumer or a pro, it takes just a bit of adjustment to one's environment to correct for screen glare.
Cheers anyway, d00d.
You are probably right, but since I prefer a glossy display over matte I am apparently too ignorant to gets me some learnin'.
PS: Care to use logic to describe again how ignorant people like glossy displays?
It has nothing to do with logic. It's an absurd, possibly priggish opinion.
Alas, I think I've just become guilty of feeding the tr0llz.
PS: People are still using Quark?
Of course people are still using Quark. It's a delicious alternative to cream cheese!
http://www.germancorner.com/recipes/hints/yoghurt.html
oooooh, you mean that sad little software package that I & so many others were forced to contend with when the digital revolution of graphic design began in the 90s? No, nobody uses it anymore...just that occasional odd type who prefers <shudder> matte over glossy.
Oh dear, another deduction made. I have a glossy screen. Wow, I can't believe you are making the same mistakes over and over again.
He (solipism) always does and then eats crow!
1.) Matte came back .
2.) Shuffles sales stalled.
3.) iPhone got video, MMs and cut and paste.
4.) A small formed Pro laptop has arrived.
5.) Firewire came back.
And the lists will keep on growing- mark my word.
I?m sure it?s cost. Not necessarily costing more than the glass display, but not enough potential bys to justify the expense. After all, "many, if not most consumers are ignorant".
PS: People are still using Quark? Are these Japanese soldiers in the jungle unaware WWII has ended?
I don't think these are glass. I tapped on mine and it feels like plastic. I originally thought that like the iMac, the new Macbook Pro's had a glass display. Then I wondered how many would come back to Apple broken after using them in the real world. Then i tapped on mine, hmm.. feels flimsy like plastic. I guess I assumed since it looked like both the iPhone and the iMac that it was glass. Doh!
What can you do - there are just a lot of cocky, arrogant types in the tech industry who define their worth based on how smart they can attempt to look compared to others, as opposed to working towards something of real substance, both in terms of their work and their character.
And you're siding with the Master of them.
I am not sure that you can dismiss someone's opinion or conjecture and replace it with your own arbitrary conjecture by just shouting "no". If you worked at the Apple store and knew for a fact that the old displays were used because of glare issues with the new ones, things would be different. As things stand, I stick to the explanation that seems more reasonable - to me at least. Apple is extremely successful financially and demonstrates time and again that it understands the market (public information). It seems implausible that they would risk their financial success by marketing a product which their own staff consider unfit for its intended use. I therefore conclude that the more likely scenario is that Apple, being a well-run company, is "sweating its assets", i.e. uses the old displays for training instead of selling them at half price or putting them in the bin.
Having said that, if you explain in a logical way how you got to your conclusion, we should all be prepared to listen and consider your point of view. Are you able to do that?
If I have to explain to you the definition of both glossy and glare then you are both clueless and hopeless.
If anybody can supply peer-reviewed clinical evidence, please?
Now we know a lot of comments about Apples glossy screens are about to flood this site, it wouldn't hurt anybody to look at some of this university's other recommendations before commenting.
They even outline how you should was your hands, how armrests could be harmful and how to find out if the 'seat' pan is suitable for you. http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/healthsafe...ely/chairs.jsp
\t\t
That would be because there is a correct way to wash your hands and businesses are required to inform staff about occupational health and safety of which ergonomics is a part. You may chortle now but wait until you are 55 and have a bad back or RSI in your wrists.
I find your post beyond annoying due to its overzealous generalization.
I'm neither ignorant, nor a "consumer."
I'm a professional who loves & would only ever use a glossy Apple screen for my super critical color work. The other graphic design & photo pros I've worked with, and work with, -all- prefer glossy screens...with, of course, an exception here & there. Frankly, whether one is a consumer or a pro, it takes just a bit of adjustment to one's environment to correct for screen glare.
Cheers anyway, d00d.
It has nothing to do with logic. It's an absurd, possibly priggish opinion.
Alas, I think I've just become guilty of feeding the tr0llz.
*sigh*
Does the sentence "bunch of ignorant consumers like the glossy screen" mean that "all glossy screen users are ignorant consumers" or "glossy screen is necessarily worse than matte screen"? Seriously, what are you reading? Would you mind thinking through a bit before acting like a tr0llz? Your reading skills probably have no logic involved at all.
Wow, I can't believe this. Are people like you and solipsism trying to persuade me that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners? Hopefully not, because such statement is hilarious.
No wonder they're adding arguments in the GRE exams.
2.) Shuffles sales stalled.
Subsiding after initial release is not stalling.
3.) iPhone got video, MMs and cut and paste.
Predicted, predicted, predicted. Asserting that these features are easy to implement because they have it on the desktop version is not the same as stating they come when they get worked out. It’s clear now that MMS is an AT&T issue, not Apple, one that I tested months ago along with tethering.
4.) A small formed Pro laptop has arrived.
Predicted this too, yet you told me Apple wouldn’t update the uMB display without making a big todo about it first.
5.) Firewire came back.:
And predicted, as my previous reposting of posts from last year and many, many times since then indicated.
You have to really quite the all-or-nothing juvenile attitude you have. To say that video can’t feasibly come to the iPhone 3G is not the same as your pessimistic view that Apple will never bring to the iPhone or that they are artificially holding it back. Other things I have stated are:That varies from your sky is falling stance that Apple is artificially holding it back when other smartphones have had it for years. The objective person looks at how the OS tasks the HW, not just the OS. They also look at how Apple works as a company, not how they’d like Apple to work to suit their selfish needs.
Wow, I can't believe this. Are people like you and solipsism trying to persuade me that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners? This is so funny.
I don?t know what shortbus this Eddie Haskel backpedaling usually works on but if you think it?s going to work on a forum with learned adults you are sorely mistaken.
?No, no, I meant that there is probably someone who likes a glossy display that may be ignorant as to the type of display options available. I never implied that people as a whole who like glossy displays are ignorant. How could you think of me, Wally?"
I don’t know what shortbus this Eddie Haskel backpedaling usually works on but if you think it’s going to work on a forum with learned adults you are sorely mistaken.
“No, no, I meant that there is probably someone who likes a glossy display that may be ignorant as to the type of display options available. I never implied that people as a whole who like glossy displays are ignorant. How could you think of me, Wally?"
If you insist on your faulty deduction that you have been making, you will inevitably come to a stupid conclusion that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners.
You're either dodging my point or stupid enough to not understand a bit of what I'm saying.
If you insist on your faulty deduction that you have been making, you will inevitably come to a stupid conclusion that whatever better or good product (either glossy or matte screen) must have less or very few, if not none, ignorant owners.
You're either dodging my point or stupid enough to not understand a bit of what I'm saying.
It?s that ol? ingrained glossy-liking ignorance in me.