Glossy or Antiglare? 2.66GHz or 2.93.GHz?

Longey Nowze · Jan 8, 2009

My trusty G4 1.33GHz PowerBook is showing it's age and I believe it's time to get a new machine, I am interested in the new 17 inch MacBook Pro, but I have a few questions. First I am wondering should i get the glossy or the antiglare screen? I usually use the my PB in a darkish room, I surf the net, I write projects using either office or iWork, I edit photos and stuff like that, I have used my sister's MacBook Air and iMac several times and to be honest I never noticed the difference with glossy screen and never had any problems, plus I like the black border more, and is the antiglare screen made of glass? what do you guys recommend?

Second is there a big difference with the 2.66GHz or the 2.93GHz? for the uses above would it really make a difference? I usually use my computers for a long time before changing them, and 4-5 years is my average, I am suffering a bit with my PB sometimes I type faster than it, and it's starting to take ages to do mundane stuff, again what do you guys recommend?

THANK YOU
MaT

G.T. · Jan 8, 2009

Longey Nowze said:
My trusty G4 1.33GHz PowerBook is showing it's age and I believe it's time to get a new machine, I am interested in the new 17 inch MacBook Pro, but I have a few questions. First I am wondering should i get the glossy or the antiglare screen? I usually use the my PB in a darkish room, I surf the net, I write projects using either office or iWork, I edit photos and stuff like that, I have used my sister's MacBook Air and iMac several times and to be honest I never noticed the difference with glossy screen and never had any problems, plus I like the black border more, and is the antiglare screen made of glass? what do you guys recommend?

Second is there a big difference with the 2.66GHz or the 2.93GHz? for the uses above would it really make a difference? I usually use my computers for a long time before changing them, and 4-5 years is my average, I am suffering a bit with my PB sometimes I type faster than it, and it's starting to take ages to do mundane stuff, again what do you guys recommend?

THANK YOU
MaT

I'd say it depends on money for the processor if you can afford it get the faster one, therefore future proofing, as you say u would keep it for 4-5 years. Otherwise the standard 2.66 would be fine. The only difference is really just the clock speed. As for gloss and matte it is a matter of personal opinion, I think you should get gloss, you said yourself you are in a darkish room, however, it depends how serious a photo editor you are. Most people would say matte is more colour accurate, there is always colour calibration though.

eXan · Jan 8, 2009

The base model will last you for years.

numbersyx · Jan 8, 2009

Doubt you'll see much advantage at the marginally higher speed (would go for more RAM for that anyway).

But Glossy v. Matte er, sorry, Anti-Glare is a matter of personal choice. I love the former but there's plenty of people for the latter. Go to a store and check one out.

kastenbrust · Jan 8, 2009

I went for the 2.93 and the glossy

but the 2.93 is a bit of a rip off.

nick9191 · Jan 8, 2009

I don't think you'll notice a big difference between the 2.66 and 2.93.

Get the glossy screen, yes it is made of glass and it makes the computer look very slick and really makes OS X come to life.

Most of the stuff you hear on here about glossy screens is 90% BS.

uicandrew · Jan 8, 2009

the glossy part really depends on your lighting situation.

since you indicate that you work in the dark, the glossy part and reflections may not bother you.

my advice is to have the lamp in front of you and the macbook. (ie - so you can see the light directly.

no one needs the highest processor speeds. unless the computer is for nasa and there's an asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards earth.

kastenbrust · Jan 8, 2009

uicandrew said:
no one needs the highest processor speeds. unless the computer is for nasa and there's an asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards earth.

I need it for graphic design and coding and having hundreds of windows open in 4 different spaces but your right otherwise its a bit pointless

jon08 · Jan 9, 2009

Yeah, lots of people here are matte screen fanboys. Well, I love glossy ones tho. However, I have the previous generation GLOSSY MBP. It seems that these previous generation glossy MBPs are not at all as glossy, or should I say glAssy, as the new ones. For that reason I'm happy to have gotten the glossy screen and be in-between - having a slick-looking screen that doesn't reflect half as much as the new one, which is a good thing, and at the same time not having to go with a matte screen...

I am not too sure, though, whether the picture on this one is equally vivid as on the glAssy (new) ones...

Longey Nowze · Jan 9, 2009

thanks guys

I think I'll be getting the 2.66 GHz, I have question though, how easy is it to upgrade RAM or change the HDD?

I am still confused about the glossy and antiglare thing, is the antiglare screen made of glass? would it really make a difference if it were glass or plastic? would the glass scratch? I think with the glossy screen the computer looks nicer cuz of the black border, looking good isn't really important, but still it is a factor no matter how small.

jon08 · Jan 9, 2009

Longey Nowze said:
I think I'll be getting the 2.66 GHz, I have question though, how easy is it to upgrade RAM or change the HDD?

I am still confused about the glossy and antiglare thing, is the antiglare screen made of glass? would it really make a difference if it were glass or plastic? would the glass scratch? I think with the glossy screen the computer looks nicer cuz of the black border, looking good isn't really important, but still it is a factor no matter how small.

Looks like the "antiglare" option is after all matte: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/631126/

MovieCutter · Jan 9, 2009

uicandrew said:
no one needs the highest processor speeds. unless the computer is for nasa and there's an asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards earth.

And if you run Final Cut Pro every day, and if you run Motion every day, and you're constantly needing less render time and more power....

Scottsdale · Jan 9, 2009

If you were going to keep your new MBP for two at max three years, I would agree with the 2.66 CPU. However, in wanting to use it for four to five years, I think it is worth the extra $300 for the 2.93. The CPU is one thing NOT replaceable, so in paying that much and wanting it to last upwards of five years, I think an extra 10% is well worth it. While it doesn't make a difference for most apps now a lot can change in five years, and the difference may mean you can use it for five years instead of replacing in 3.5 years.

Should be an amazing computer, congrats!

eXan · Jan 9, 2009

Scottsdale said:
If you were going to keep your new MBP for two at max three years, I would agree with the 2.66 CPU. However, in wanting to use it for four to five years, I think it is worth the extra $300 for the 2.93. The CPU is one thing NOT replaceable, so in paying that much and wanting it to last upwards of five years, I think an extra 10% is well worth it. While it doesn't make a difference for most apps now a lot can change in five years, and the difference may mean you can use it for five years instead of replacing in 3.5 years.

Should be an amazing computer, congrats!

So, you think if I got a 1.33 GHz PowerBook instead of 1.25 GHz 5 years ago it would somehow make the machine more usable now?

Santabean2000 · Jan 9, 2009

eXan said:
So, you think if I got a 1.33 GHz PowerBook instead of 1.25 GHz 5 years ago it would somehow make the machine more usable now?

No, but you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you had, if only for a while, the best there was.

If you have the cash, splash it.

I figure, spread over the lifetime of your machine, the extra $$ is not that much.

detz · Jan 9, 2009

I'm getting the 2.6 and glossy. After much consideration this seems like the best option for most people including myself. I spent 14-18 hours a day in front of my computer. Damn, that's kind of sad.

aethelbert · Jan 9, 2009

Santabean2000 said:
No, but you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you had, if only for a while, the best there was.

If you have the cash, splash it.

I figure, spread over the lifetime of your machine, the extra $$ is not that much.

If it's extra power that never gets used, then it's a waste of money. If one buys a computer just so that it can be the best, then they're buying for the wrong reasons.

Scottsdale · Jan 9, 2009

eXan said:
So, you think if I got a 1.33 GHz PowerBook instead of 1.25 GHz 5 years ago it would somehow make the machine more usable now?

Times change. For your case, it was very little difference. Less than ten percent at a MUCH slower CPU speed. It may not, but if I were buying, I would buy the MAX CPU power I could as it is not upgradeable later. At the same time, I would not care about RAM or HD space as those are easily upgradeable (max RAM for this MBP the OP is buying is 8 GB - I wouldn't recommend upgrading now, but a year from now it will probably only cost $75). For CPU, go through some apps and check the minimum CPU requirements, it's very possible it would make a difference. Why not upgrade the major thing you can now and do everything you can to make your computer last five years.

eXan · Jan 9, 2009

Scottsdale said:
Times change. For your case, it was very little difference. Less than ten percent at a MUCH slower CPU speed. It may not, but if I were buying, I would buy the MAX CPU power I could as it is not upgradeable later. At the same time, I would not care about RAM or HD space as those are easily upgradeable (max RAM for this MBP the OP is buying is 8 GB - I wouldn't recommend upgrading now, but a year from now it will probably only cost $75). For CPU, go through some apps and check the minimum CPU requirements, it's very possible it would make a difference. Why not upgrade the major thing you can now and do everything you can to make your computer last five years.

It was a 6% difference, 2.93 vs 2.66 is 10% difference, does 4% matter that much? And how exactly do times change? What I'm saying is that both 2.66 and 2.93 will be outdated by all means in 5 years, just like 1.33 and 1.25 are outdated now.

The CPU upgrade is not cheap either - 300$ for something you probably won't ever notice is just too much in my view. But as long as people like you continue to buy stuff from Apple, its good for them

numbersyx · Jan 10, 2009

Scottsdale said:
If you were going to keep your new MBP for two at max three years, I would agree with the 2.66 CPU. However, in wanting to use it for four to five years, I think it is worth the extra $300 for the 2.93. The CPU is one thing NOT replaceable, so in paying that much and wanting it to last upwards of five years, I think an extra 10% is well worth it. While it doesn't make a difference for most apps now a lot can change in five years, and the difference may mean you can use it for five years instead of replacing in 3.5 years.

Should be an amazing computer, congrats!

I doubt whether the .27 difference in speed will matter now or in 5 years (actually it will be probably be less relevant in 5 years)...

Longey Nowze · Jan 14, 2009

Thanks a lot!

Thanks a lot guys.. I'll probably go and compare a glossy 15 inch with a matte 17 inch... i wish i could get both

Glossy or Antiglare? 2.66GHz or 2.93.GHz?

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 601

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68000

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68040

Suspended

macrumors 601

macrumors 68000

macrumors 65816

macrumors 601

Suspended

macrumors 601

macrumors 65816

macrumors regular

Our Staff