What validates the glossy screens is the fact that the far majority of consumer notebooks use glossy screens. Computer manufacturers are using glossy because they sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmatte
Skeptics have tried to dismiss the poll results by asserting that, if that many Mac purchasers really did prefer matte, then Apple’s sales figures would be falling, so the argument goes. That is not true.
Quote:
Most online polls show that 40% prefer matte, but 20% would still buy glossy if forced to do so. This means that 20% of past Apple users refuse to buy glossy Macs.
What invalidates these polls is that they are not representative of the entire computer market. They are only representative of the people who visit that web site.
I have one question NO ONE seems to be able to answer for me. If I buy this new 13" MacbookPro, will it pick up wifi signals from farther away then my 12" Powerbook? I really need it to.
i have a 12" PB 1.5 too, and just got a 13" MacBook Pro 2.53/500/7200 and i can tell you that the wifi reception is massively improved! From the places in my house where my PB would have trouble the MBP gets full signal. My router is pretty old and not 'n'. And wifi reception is great when i'm and about too. So no problem there.
I find glossy screens force me to look at them from an angle where the background is relatively dark with low contrast. I can't use my iPod touch when it's facing directly at me. I've always got it tilted 10-20% away from me. Doing that with a larger screen, particularly one with an attached keyboard is simply unacceptable. Covering glare with increased brightness is also unacceptable. I do a lot of work with text and need the background white to be soft on my eyes. On many displays that means setting the brightness to less than 30 and I've used one that was too bright to use for more than a few minutes at a time when brightness was set to zero.
I do understand the problems with matte screens too. Surely there's some sort of happy medium that doesn't cut down the sharpness too much, but gets rid of most of the glare.
I hear you, people who need to use the computer for long lengths of time and don't live in a dark basement usually prefer the matte screens as it's easier on the eyes.
I've read what others have said that "turning the laptop to reduce reflections" etc., in my experience that didn't help much, as I sit in the very same chair to use either computer and there are no reflections, but still I got the eyestrain and the headaches from the glossy MacBook screen anyway.
There is a option for non-glare glass, it's called museum glass and called that for a good reason as you certainly can fathom.
Quote:
Museum Glass is the highest quality anti-reflective picture framing glass available in the industry. Tru Vue® has a proprietary manufacturing process, called Magnetron Sputtering, which produces an ultra protective, nearly invisible finish. It protects against 99% of harmful indoor and outdoor UV light rays and has the highest light transmission along with the lowest reflection rating of any other glass product.
What validates the glossy screens is the fact that the far majority of consumer notebooks use glossy screens. Computer manufacturers are using glossy because they sell.
Buying is a emotional experience and yes "oh shiny" sells to inexperienced computer newbies very well. Which over 50% of people buying in Apple stores are new to the Mac, according to Apple.
When IBM sold their computer business to Lenevo, they did a poll, asked their business customers, "matte or glossy screens?" 86% choose matte.
Or provide Mac's with "Museum Glass" as it's anti-reflective and also provide all the great contrast the glossy screens currently provide.
It's Apple using cheap reflective glass that's the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What invalidates these polls is that they are not representative of the entire computer market. They are only representative of the people who visit that web site.
MacMatte is not presenting his position very well.
But on his site there is a list of links, posts and polls from all over the internet and (all but one) are overwhelmingly in favor of matte screens over glossy. Including the poll results I quoted above.
And yes those polls are not reflective (reflective ha!) of the entire computer purchasing public obviously, but it is not something to be ignored.
I would like to see Apple use Museum Glass, which is glass made to be anti-reflective for art purposes, in their computers.
It would be the best of both, the nice contrast and sharp colors of glossy, without the annoying reflections.
Seeking a solution to a widespread problem, not trying to toss out glossy, but make it anti-reflective so everyone is happy.
And I think a better quality of glass will solve that problem, thanks for helping me remember about museum glass.
Or provide Mac's with "Museum Glass" as it's anti-reflective and also provide all the great contrast the glossy screens currently provide.
It's Apple using cheap reflective glass that's the problem.
When Apple first launched the MacBook Pro they did offer both. Apple stopped offering both because they discovered that Mac users overwhelming chose glossy.
The poll in that Arstechnica article was an online poll, it wasn't a specific poll for only business users. The problem with online polls is that the people who care most will answer the poll.
I seriously doubt you can simply slap a pane of museum grade glass on a screen and everything work out fine. As in everything I'm sure its more complicated than that.
Quote:
But on his site there is a list of links, posts and polls from all over the internet and (all but one) are overwhelmingly in favor of matte screens over glossy. Including the poll results I quoted above.
The types of polls have little real usefulness. The problem with online polls is the fact that people who care the most are going to answer the most. Which is why there are specific rules to how polls are conducted to insure you gain realistic and useful information. You cannot gain legitimate or useful information from an online poll. All you learn is from the people who visit the website what issue they care about the most.
No delivery problems for me. I ordered it 6/30. The "free" iPod touch arrived on Friday, the MacBook Pro yesterday and I'm waiting for the p"free" printer to be delivered today - Fed Ex's website says it's on the truck.
The son-in-law got the touch and I get the 13" MBP as my wife has decided she wants the MB Air. And it is sweet!
I don't have the least bit of a problem with Apple's latest laptop offerings. They are excellent and my point, which you seem to have missed, is that one size doesn't fit all.
Not every potential buyer has the same needs and even professionals have different situations in which one offering in the Mac laptop line-up is better suited than another.
Pro, really, is a term that Apple uses to denote a certain calibre of machine and every one of their Pro laptops are justifiably being marketed by Apple as top-end devices. I was responding, evidently a little too flippantly to be understood, to the notion that if a member of the Pro family isn't ideal for every imaginable professional customer that it shouldn't be called a Pro.
The bottom line is, different strokes for different folks. Apple is offering a laptop pro line-up that covers a lot of bases. This is a good thing.
When Apple first launched the MacBook Pro they did offer both. Apple stopped offering both because they discovered that Mac users overwhelming chose glossy.
It's because most people in Apple's stores (by Apple itself) are new to computers an attracted to shiny objects (I see this in art stores too, the shiny glass art objects get all the attention). They don't know that glare is a problem like experienced computers users know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The poll in that Arstechnica article was an online poll, it wasn't a specific poll for only business users. The problem with online polls is that the people who care most will answer the poll.
The polls are reflective of the experienced online computing user base. Those people prefer having a "anti-glare" solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I seriously doubt you can simply slap a pane of museum grade glass on a screen and everything work out fine. As in everything I'm sure its more complicated than that.
The iMac's glass can be pulled off and so can the iPhone and replaced with Museum Glass if Apple desired too.*
*(I'm using this as a illustration, I don't know any company or person doing this, but certainly is very interesting prospect, see further posts for links)
If Apple used that type of glass in the first place, then we would have all the benefits of the glossy screens without the reflections and glare.
The Museum Glass is a better quality glass and thus would cost more. But Mac's are quality computers. The glossy loving crowd would like the elimination of reflections too, so it's a win for them.
If glossy screens didn't sell, Apple wouldn't be using them.
All this matte business is a moot discussion because most notebook screens out there are glossy nowadays.
Glossy sells well to emotional buyers, computer newbies unaware of glare problem and those who prefer glossy because of the better contrast and color and wiling to take the penalty of glare and/or live with it. (edited to clarify)
However those who glare is a serious issue, think that has more importance being eliminated than the better contrast and color glossy screens provides.
And no not all notebook screens are glossy, Leveno sells matte screens and so do other makers. But it's Windows, and we know that sucks.
However, if Apple used Museum Glass, which is glass, but non-reflective. We could reap the benefits of the higher contrast and colors of glossy without the annoying reflections and glare.
The types of polls have little real usefulness. The problem with online polls is the fact that people who care the most are going to answer the most.
It's no use trying to be logical with the rabid pro-matte crowd. They don't want to accept that some people actually want glossy. In their narrow world view, if you don't believe what they do you are stupid, shallow, attracted to "shiny things", a newbie or any other derogatory term they can come up with.
The refuse to acknowledge that for many people, glossy screens are actually preferred for real and valid technical reasons.
Oh well. Their insisting that glossy is total crap won't prevent me from preferring and enjoying it
i have a 12" PB 1.5 too, and just got a 13" MacBook Pro 2.53/500/7200 and i can tell you that the wifi reception is massively improved! From the places in my house where my PB would have trouble the MBP gets full signal. My router is pretty old and not 'n'. And wifi reception is great when i'm and about too. So no problem there.
Thank you rosstheBoss,
I appreciate the info. I was back in the Apple store tonight, and learned that as knownikko and others stated, I just need to buy a firewire 400 to 800 adapter, and I should be fine. The apple Store has been selling so many macbookPro's that they were all out of any printer that took the $100 rebate.
It's no use trying to be logical with the rabid pro-matte crowd. They don't want to accept that some people actually want glossy. In their narrow world view, if you don't believe what they do you are stupid, shallow, attracted to "shiny things", a newbie or any other derogatory term they can come up with.
The refuse to acknowledge that for many people, glossy screens are actually preferred for real and valid technical reasons.
Oh well. Their insisting that glossy is total crap won't prevent me from preferring and enjoying it
Sorry you see things that way, and take things personally like that.
I didn't imply any of that, but I further clarified my post anyway just in case.
I have used both screens, so I'm not narrow or bias. Perhaps people are a loss for words in describing their problem of glare too. People are upset.
I'm looking for a solution to the glare of glossy screens, not knocking people who choose it or prefer it. I would take a glass screen without the glare and so would most matte people too.
It just so happens that a better type of glass would eliminate the glare and make things better for everyone.
I added you to my ignore list (temporarily) since it appears your just looking for trouble today.
It's because most people in Apple's stores (by Apple itself) are new to computers an attracted to shiny objects (I see this in art stores too, the shiny glass art objects get all the attention). They don't know that glare is a problem like experienced computers users know.
At this point I seriously doubt the majority of people who understand the difference between Windows and Mac OS X and willing to spend $1000+ are buying their first computer.
Quote:
The polls are reflective of the experienced online computing user base. Those people prefer having a "anti-glare" solution.
To gain any real and useful knowledge you have to poll a large and random group of people. Users of tech websites are not at all random and are completely biased in their viewpoints and in no way reflect the general computer user base.
Quote:
The iMac's glass can be pulled off and so can the iPhone and replaced with Museum Glass.
Can you provide a link to a company that provides museum glass for the iMac or iPhone? Otherwise you are just making stuff up.
P.S. All this glossy vs. matte nonsense is just that.
One sells better now, one sold better then.... we'll never know how they compare until Apple offers both options side by side on all models without tacking on an extra price to one.
We all know that won't happen, so the argument is moot. There's no option but to deal with what Apple offers us, even though I loathe the screens glossy with a passion.
You can order a 13" MBP from ColorWare (those paintjob guys).
If you get it painted by them they offer all kinds of customizations (coloring different parts in different colors). As a new feature they now also offer a 'Matte Screen' as 'Screen Finish' option.
This is probably the same as the 17" matte MBP: they simply remove the glass at the front and don't replace it.
Because of the paintjob options you could still have the aluminium bezel painted shiny black for a similar look - minus the glossy glass in front of the screen. I'd probably chose that.
Although I have not tried ColorWare, so can't really vouch for them either way. And it seems quite expensive (adds $799 to your 13" MBP price tag for the matte screen and painting).
But for people considering even the 17" just for the matte option, this might still be a viable solution.
At this point I seriously doubt the majority of people who understand the difference between Windows and Mac OS X and willing to spend $1000+ are buying their first computer.
To gain any real and useful knowledge you have to poll a large and random group of people. Users of tech websites are not at all random and are completely biased in their viewpoints and in no way reflect the general computer user base.
Yes it's difficult to accurately evaluate without doing some sort of blind test.
Although I've heard from computer lab techs that people tend to gravitate towards the "anti-glare" type screens more than the glare type ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Can you provide a link to a company that provides museum glass for the iMac or iPhone? Otherwise you are just making stuff up.
I don't know of any company that provides museum glass specifically for those devices.
But I bet you could get TechRestore to do it if the specs of the glass were the same, pre-cut, smoothed and everything shipped off to them.
What I do know is that with a suction cup the iMac glass can be removed, but there are some sort of pins or something. So your on your own there or have TechRestore do it.
What I also know is Apple stores can now replace the iPhone glass in the store, what that entails exactly you would have to find out.
(disclaimer: I receive no compensation for product or company mention)
Comments
Skeptics have tried to dismiss the poll results by asserting that, if that many Mac purchasers really did prefer matte, then Apple’s sales figures would be falling, so the argument goes. That is not true.
Most online polls show that 40% prefer matte, but 20% would still buy glossy if forced to do so. This means that 20% of past Apple users refuse to buy glossy Macs.
What invalidates these polls is that they are not representative of the entire computer market. They are only representative of the people who visit that web site.
I have one question NO ONE seems to be able to answer for me. If I buy this new 13" MacbookPro, will it pick up wifi signals from farther away then my 12" Powerbook? I really need it to.
i have a 12" PB 1.5 too, and just got a 13" MacBook Pro 2.53/500/7200 and i can tell you that the wifi reception is massively improved! From the places in my house where my PB would have trouble the MBP gets full signal. My router is pretty old and not 'n'. And wifi reception is great when i'm and about too. So no problem there.
I find glossy screens force me to look at them from an angle where the background is relatively dark with low contrast. I can't use my iPod touch when it's facing directly at me. I've always got it tilted 10-20% away from me. Doing that with a larger screen, particularly one with an attached keyboard is simply unacceptable. Covering glare with increased brightness is also unacceptable. I do a lot of work with text and need the background white to be soft on my eyes. On many displays that means setting the brightness to less than 30 and I've used one that was too bright to use for more than a few minutes at a time when brightness was set to zero.
I do understand the problems with matte screens too. Surely there's some sort of happy medium that doesn't cut down the sharpness too much, but gets rid of most of the glare.
I hear you, people who need to use the computer for long lengths of time and don't live in a dark basement usually prefer the matte screens as it's easier on the eyes.
I've read what others have said that "turning the laptop to reduce reflections" etc., in my experience that didn't help much, as I sit in the very same chair to use either computer and there are no reflections, but still I got the eyestrain and the headaches from the glossy MacBook screen anyway.
There is a option for non-glare glass, it's called museum glass and called that for a good reason as you certainly can fathom.
Museum Glass is the highest quality anti-reflective picture framing glass available in the industry. Tru Vue® has a proprietary manufacturing process, called Magnetron Sputtering, which produces an ultra protective, nearly invisible finish. It protects against 99% of harmful indoor and outdoor UV light rays and has the highest light transmission along with the lowest reflection rating of any other glass product.
http://www.tru-vue.com/Tru-Vue/Products/33/
Maybe the glossy displays reflect more interior UV than the matte screens which scatter it more?
What validates the glossy screens is the fact that the far majority of consumer notebooks use glossy screens. Computer manufacturers are using glossy because they sell.
Buying is a emotional experience and yes "oh shiny" sells to inexperienced computer newbies very well. Which over 50% of people buying in Apple stores are new to the Mac, according to Apple.
When IBM sold their computer business to Lenevo, they did a poll, asked their business customers, "matte or glossy screens?" 86% choose matte.
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2006/10/8022.ars
So it would be good for Apple to provide both.
Or provide Mac's with "Museum Glass" as it's anti-reflective and also provide all the great contrast the glossy screens currently provide.
It's Apple using cheap reflective glass that's the problem.
What invalidates these polls is that they are not representative of the entire computer market. They are only representative of the people who visit that web site.
MacMatte is not presenting his position very well.
But on his site there is a list of links, posts and polls from all over the internet and (all but one) are overwhelmingly in favor of matte screens over glossy. Including the poll results I quoted above.
And yes those polls are not reflective (reflective ha!) of the entire computer purchasing public obviously, but it is not something to be ignored.
I would like to see Apple use Museum Glass, which is glass made to be anti-reflective for art purposes, in their computers.
It would be the best of both, the nice contrast and sharp colors of glossy, without the annoying reflections.
Seeking a solution to a widespread problem, not trying to toss out glossy, but make it anti-reflective so everyone is happy.
And I think a better quality of glass will solve that problem, thanks for helping me remember about museum glass.
Discussion is good.
When IBM sold their computer business to Lenevo, they did a poll, asked their business customers, "matte or glossy screens?" 86% choose matte.
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2006/10/8022.ars
So it would be good for Apple to provide both.
Or provide Mac's with "Museum Glass" as it's anti-reflective and also provide all the great contrast the glossy screens currently provide.
It's Apple using cheap reflective glass that's the problem.
When Apple first launched the MacBook Pro they did offer both. Apple stopped offering both because they discovered that Mac users overwhelming chose glossy.
The poll in that Arstechnica article was an online poll, it wasn't a specific poll for only business users. The problem with online polls is that the people who care most will answer the poll.
I seriously doubt you can simply slap a pane of museum grade glass on a screen and everything work out fine. As in everything I'm sure its more complicated than that.
But on his site there is a list of links, posts and polls from all over the internet and (all but one) are overwhelmingly in favor of matte screens over glossy. Including the poll results I quoted above.
The types of polls have little real usefulness. The problem with online polls is the fact that people who care the most are going to answer the most. Which is why there are specific rules to how polls are conducted to insure you gain realistic and useful information. You cannot gain legitimate or useful information from an online poll. All you learn is from the people who visit the website what issue they care about the most.
All this matte business is a moot discussion because most notebook screens out there are glossy nowadays.
No delivery problems for me. I ordered it 6/30. The "free" iPod touch arrived on Friday, the MacBook Pro yesterday and I'm waiting for the p"free" printer to be delivered today - Fed Ex's website says it's on the truck.
The son-in-law got the touch and I get the 13" MBP as my wife has decided she wants the MB Air. And it is sweet!
Credit crunch looming?
I don't have the least bit of a problem with Apple's latest laptop offerings. They are excellent and my point, which you seem to have missed, is that one size doesn't fit all.
Not every potential buyer has the same needs and even professionals have different situations in which one offering in the Mac laptop line-up is better suited than another.
Pro, really, is a term that Apple uses to denote a certain calibre of machine and every one of their Pro laptops are justifiably being marketed by Apple as top-end devices. I was responding, evidently a little too flippantly to be understood, to the notion that if a member of the Pro family isn't ideal for every imaginable professional customer that it shouldn't be called a Pro.
The bottom line is, different strokes for different folks. Apple is offering a laptop pro line-up that covers a lot of bases. This is a good thing.
He was being sarcastic, brucep.
I need to get out more often .
peace
9
Well I want to get the 13". Can I still get my chip?
yes one chip
the 9400
i get 9400 and
the 9600
gaming chip
dude 15 is not so much bigger than the 13 in
its the 17 in one that is too large
When Apple first launched the MacBook Pro they did offer both. Apple stopped offering both because they discovered that Mac users overwhelming chose glossy.
It's because most people in Apple's stores (by Apple itself) are new to computers an attracted to shiny objects (I see this in art stores too, the shiny glass art objects get all the attention). They don't know that glare is a problem like experienced computers users know.
The poll in that Arstechnica article was an online poll, it wasn't a specific poll for only business users. The problem with online polls is that the people who care most will answer the poll.
The polls are reflective of the experienced online computing user base. Those people prefer having a "anti-glare" solution.
I seriously doubt you can simply slap a pane of museum grade glass on a screen and everything work out fine. As in everything I'm sure its more complicated than that.
The iMac's glass can be pulled off and so can the iPhone and replaced with Museum Glass if Apple desired too.*
*(I'm using this as a illustration, I don't know any company or person doing this, but certainly is very interesting prospect, see further posts for links)
If Apple used that type of glass in the first place, then we would have all the benefits of the glossy screens without the reflections and glare.
The Museum Glass is a better quality glass and thus would cost more. But Mac's are quality computers. The glossy loving crowd would like the elimination of reflections too, so it's a win for them.
If glossy screens didn't sell, Apple wouldn't be using them.
All this matte business is a moot discussion because most notebook screens out there are glossy nowadays.
Glossy sells well to emotional buyers, computer newbies unaware of glare problem and those who prefer glossy because of the better contrast and color and wiling to take the penalty of glare and/or live with it. (edited to clarify)
However those who glare is a serious issue, think that has more importance being eliminated than the better contrast and color glossy screens provides.
And no not all notebook screens are glossy, Leveno sells matte screens and so do other makers. But it's Windows, and we know that sucks.
However, if Apple used Museum Glass, which is glass, but non-reflective. We could reap the benefits of the higher contrast and colors of glossy without the annoying reflections and glare.
Everyone would be happy, including me.
The types of polls have little real usefulness. The problem with online polls is the fact that people who care the most are going to answer the most.
It's no use trying to be logical with the rabid pro-matte crowd. They don't want to accept that some people actually want glossy. In their narrow world view, if you don't believe what they do you are stupid, shallow, attracted to "shiny things", a newbie or any other derogatory term they can come up with.
The refuse to acknowledge that for many people, glossy screens are actually preferred for real and valid technical reasons.
Oh well. Their insisting that glossy is total crap won't prevent me from preferring and enjoying it
i have a 12" PB 1.5 too, and just got a 13" MacBook Pro 2.53/500/7200 and i can tell you that the wifi reception is massively improved! From the places in my house where my PB would have trouble the MBP gets full signal. My router is pretty old and not 'n'. And wifi reception is great when i'm and about too. So no problem there.
Thank you rosstheBoss,
I appreciate the info. I was back in the Apple store tonight, and learned that as knownikko and others stated, I just need to buy a firewire 400 to 800 adapter, and I should be fine. The apple Store has been selling so many macbookPro's that they were all out of any printer that took the $100 rebate.
Frank D.
It's no use trying to be logical with the rabid pro-matte crowd. They don't want to accept that some people actually want glossy. In their narrow world view, if you don't believe what they do you are stupid, shallow, attracted to "shiny things", a newbie or any other derogatory term they can come up with.
The refuse to acknowledge that for many people, glossy screens are actually preferred for real and valid technical reasons.
Oh well. Their insisting that glossy is total crap won't prevent me from preferring and enjoying it
Sorry you see things that way, and take things personally like that.
I didn't imply any of that, but I further clarified my post anyway just in case.
I have used both screens, so I'm not narrow or bias. Perhaps people are a loss for words in describing their problem of glare too. People are upset.
I'm looking for a solution to the glare of glossy screens, not knocking people who choose it or prefer it. I would take a glass screen without the glare and so would most matte people too.
It just so happens that a better type of glass would eliminate the glare and make things better for everyone.
I added you to my ignore list (temporarily) since it appears your just looking for trouble today.
I use their anti-glare iPhone cover. I love it.
It's because most people in Apple's stores (by Apple itself) are new to computers an attracted to shiny objects (I see this in art stores too, the shiny glass art objects get all the attention). They don't know that glare is a problem like experienced computers users know.
At this point I seriously doubt the majority of people who understand the difference between Windows and Mac OS X and willing to spend $1000+ are buying their first computer.
The polls are reflective of the experienced online computing user base. Those people prefer having a "anti-glare" solution.
To gain any real and useful knowledge you have to poll a large and random group of people. Users of tech websites are not at all random and are completely biased in their viewpoints and in no way reflect the general computer user base.
The iMac's glass can be pulled off and so can the iPhone and replaced with Museum Glass.
Can you provide a link to a company that provides museum glass for the iMac or iPhone? Otherwise you are just making stuff up.
One sells better now, one sold better then.... we'll never know how they compare until Apple offers both options side by side on all models without tacking on an extra price to one.
We all know that won't happen, so the argument is moot. There's no option but to deal with what Apple offers us, even though I loathe the screens glossy with a passion.
I'm not sure if people are aware of this.
You can order a 13" MBP from ColorWare (those paintjob guys).
If you get it painted by them they offer all kinds of customizations (coloring different parts in different colors). As a new feature they now also offer a 'Matte Screen' as 'Screen Finish' option.
This is probably the same as the 17" matte MBP: they simply remove the glass at the front and don't replace it.
Because of the paintjob options you could still have the aluminium bezel painted shiny black for a similar look - minus the glossy glass in front of the screen. I'd probably chose that.
Although I have not tried ColorWare, so can't really vouch for them either way. And it seems quite expensive (adds $799 to your 13" MBP price tag for the matte screen and painting).
But for people considering even the 17" just for the matte option, this might still be a viable solution.
ColorWare 13" MBP Link
Maybe helpful for some...
Thanks!
TechRestore replaces the glossy with a matte screen without the paint job. But no warranty. $200
http://www.techrestore.com/xcart/home.php?cat=404
But I believe the Colorware will cover the warranty if you buy the computer from them.
I like the Stealth MacBook Pro, just not the price. heh!
http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...macbook-pro-15
I use their anti-glare iPhone cover. I love it.
Yes I saw a You Tube video on it, looks good and they have a film for computers too.
Hard to get it right on though, such a shame to have to resort to that.
At this point I seriously doubt the majority of people who understand the difference between Windows and Mac OS X and willing to spend $1000+ are buying their first computer.
To gain any real and useful knowledge you have to poll a large and random group of people. Users of tech websites are not at all random and are completely biased in their viewpoints and in no way reflect the general computer user base.
Yes it's difficult to accurately evaluate without doing some sort of blind test.
Although I've heard from computer lab techs that people tend to gravitate towards the "anti-glare" type screens more than the glare type ones.
Can you provide a link to a company that provides museum glass for the iMac or iPhone? Otherwise you are just making stuff up.
I don't know of any company that provides museum glass specifically for those devices.
But I bet you could get TechRestore to do it if the specs of the glass were the same, pre-cut, smoothed and everything shipped off to them.
http://www.techrestore.com/xcart/home.php?cat=404
I do have a link to the company that provides this museum type of glass for art shops and museums.
http://www.tru-vue.com/
What I do know is that with a suction cup the iMac glass can be removed, but there are some sort of pins or something. So your on your own there or have TechRestore do it.
What I also know is Apple stores can now replace the iPhone glass in the store, what that entails exactly you would have to find out.
(disclaimer: I receive no compensation for product or company mention)