Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
...
- Thread starter 3282868
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If you like the 23in ACDs and you can get two of them, why not go for it? Presumably they'll last you about another 5 years, as your current ones have, and in terms of outdated technology, all I can think of is the interfaces - but I would not think that you would have problems within 5 years.
Yeah, it sucks, bottom line.
That being said, this statement has been made many many times in recent months.
That being said, this statement has been made many many times in recent months.
Apple isn't even "dumbing down for the consumer", unfortunately. They're just dumbing down period, IMO. By this I mean that a consumer wants a mid-range tower to compete with the most common PC configuration out there (i.e. a mini-tower or tower with a good GPU, reasonable expandability for more hard drives and a few cards and a price gamut between $800-1500). This market is just plain IGNORED by Apple. Their ONLY tower starts at $2500 these days. That's just plain ridiculous when you can get an Intel Quad-Core with 8GB of ram, a 1.5TB drive and a better graphics card (take your pick really including SLI for PCs) for $800-1200 (depending on GPU) that will run circles around that Mac Pro for most prosumer applications and gaming. Apple literally has *NOTHING* that can compete with such a PC. NOTHING.
So is it any wonder then that some of us are contemplating building or buying a Hackintosh for our next "Mac" ? Apple provides NO VALUE these days in its Mac lines. I only bought my MBP last fall because I saved $600 off retail when they had a clearance sale of the old models as the new ones came in (essentially getting me a MBP for the price of the new regular Macbook). Otherwise, $2000 isn't reasonable IMO for the MBP. It comes with a cheap webcam, small hard drive and you better buy your own memory and put it in yourself or you'll get ripped off royally. I continually have issues with my either my USB mouse or keyboard not working when waking from sleep (unless I pull the hub and plug it back in) and for all the talk about how reliable Unix/OS X is, I've had more than a few kernel panics on the thing after several wake/sleep cycles (I guess it's not just my old upgraded PowerMac that gets kernel panics). Kernel panics are EXACTLY the same thing as the blue screen of death on Windows. Apple pretending like they don't have them is utterly laughable. I almost never see kernel issues like that with Linux. X-Windows might crash itself silly, but to force a reboot? (i.e. some magic key combos will usually reset X without requiring a reboot) I've had to do it a few times over the years, but nothing like OS X. Frankly, XP Pro has been pretty reliable on my PC. I'm not sure it's any less reliable than OS X in that regard. Yes, Windows98 was a crash test dummy, but that's ages ago and more akin to OS9 which was no better, IMO.
The thing is Apple has continually ignored the gaming market segment and so you would think that would have meant that their operating system would be the most stable thing known to man by now. They don't have to support every hardware configuration out there and they don't have to support their own 3D gaming library like Microsoft does with DirectX and Direct3D. They use the open source (i.e. SLOW) OpenGL instead of smartly licensing DirectX from Microsoft (which would make porting games to OS X 100x easier and faster than something like Cider that has to convert everything to OpenGL, leaving the games running like molasses even on the same hardware, but it would never compare in terms of hardware since OS X doesn't support real gaming hardware like SLI or Crossfire in the first place). So in summary, Apple is not a gaming computer AT ALL but yet it's still got a long way to go to be a truly stable Unix platform. I was running Final Cut Pro on my MBP when it got those kernel panics, not Call Of Duty. Pro should mean that doesn't happen.
Don't even get me started about that mini-display port crap. The very idea that a Mac *PRO* would have a *MINI* display port instead of a full sized one (let alone the argument that DVI is entrenched right now and that HDMI options would be more usable for secondary ports) just smacks of the underlying causes of us even having a "Mini" display port in the first place. One would assume that Apple created it to save space on their notebook computers, but display port is ALREADY very small so this is hard to believe and clearly a Mac Pro has PLENTY of room for a full size display port. There is nothing professional about a mini-display port because no one but Apple uses the darn thing. It's clearly just another move to try and force people to buy Apple's overpriced monitors. The fact they'd do it on a Mac Pro is just unforgivable, IMO. The market is not even remotely the same as a Macbook. At the very least they should offer proper adapters for a reasonable price so you can connect what you WANT or NEED instead of what Apple wants you to buy. The fact they want $99 for something that would have cost NOTHING had they used the industry standard bears mentioning. The fact that they will go through several more GPUs before anyone else even begins to support mini-display port or provide a cheaper adapter just shows how Apple thumbs its nose at the consumer. I'm sure $99 for a $10 adapter helps pad those record breaking profits during a recession and increases their 22+ BILLION in cash reserves...all on the hands of the consumer who has limited choices and high prices to deal with if they want to run Mac software.
Yeah, I'm irked at Apple. I much prefer OS X to Windows, especially to Vista which is just awful, but Apple seems to be doing everything it can to ensure that if Windows7 is successful that it will go back to being a 4% player in the market. If rumors are true and Snow Leopard dumps PPC, there goes nearly half the Mac market share right there and Apple will be back to 4-5% because no one will release "Universal" software for Snow Leopard since it doesn't support Universal software. Thus, software for regular Leopard will dry up in less than a year, IMO since no developer in his right mind is going to want to maintain two separate builds just to support older PPC machines. Apple therefore thinks all those G4 and G5 users (including G5 Quads which still run circles around most Intel iMacs) will just give them MORE money to upgrade to a new Intel machine in order to get new software support. They better hope that doesn't backfire and those people buy new PCs instead.
Personally, I'll buy a Hackintosh the next time around and then I'll be covered on both ends. It'll be able to run Windows or Mac and if Apple screws it all up, I still have a usable machine. Yes, Apple's own computers can run Windows also, but only the Mac Pro supports better graphics cards, etc. that Windows can already use and that OS X will probably never support any time soon.
What's Pro about Macs these days? I'm not sure. The lack of viruses is the number 1 selling point to me followed by a better user interface. If the former ever changes (nothing is there to stop virus writers from attacking Macs in the future should their market share go up) that leaves OS X purely to the mercy of Microsoft NOT improving their OS and we all know that Microsoft is emulating the best features of the Mac as fast as it can script them. Call it copying, call it unfair, but regardless, it's what Microsoft does. They're very good at bullying their way to the top and shoving other computer companies out of business. That's what happened to the Commodore Amiga (which I used to love) and this idea that because iPods and iPhones are extremely popular right now that the Mac is somehow "safe" in the future is just absurd. Apple should have been competing and pushing for expanded market share all this time, not just milking consumers for the highest possible profits. It's market share that protects a computer from obsolescence not cash reserves (Look how fast GM burned through their billions in reserves when things went South). Apple once had almost 20% market share in the late '80s and early '90s and places like Best Buy had 2-3 rows of software for the Mac. Now they have 1/2 a row (and that's up from NONE just a few years ago). That 20% fell to 4% pretty fast. Imagine if it had been only 8-9% when it fell. Apple would be out of business right now. They came pretty close as it was.
Even with the DISASTER that is Vista, Microsoft is in no danger of going away because 90% means virtual invulnerability, especially when its competitor cares more about milking existing consumers that trying to attract new ones and would rather sue (litigate) companies that could help increase market share (like Psystar) than to actually COMPETE with them, which is what Capitalism is supposed to be about. To make matters worse, my 2001 era PowerMac was Made In the USA. Prices are actually HIGHER now for a Mac and they're all Made In China. Guess where the labor cost savings went? Right into Apple's cash reserves. Are Macs more reliable as a result? When 3 out of 4 MBPs have major defects as one poster in another thread mentioned happened to him, I'd have to say NO. My (since upgraded) PowerMac is 8 years old and runs perfectly fine. I'm typing on it right now with 10.5.7. and it doesn't feel any slower for typical day-to-day stuff than my brand new (as of last October) MBP. In fact, app tests show that the MBP is typically only 3-4x faster and that's with two cores. Comparing only one core (since I chose the single CPU G4 upgrade instead of the double), it's only 1.5-3x faster at most. For an eight year span, that's a much smaller difference than I would have expected. All this talk about how Snow Leopard should just dump all PPC support because they're completely outdated is ridiculous, IMO. A Quad G5 is faster than most Core2Duo Intel models with many applications. But Apple doesn't make "new sales" on them so force them all to upgrade or move on and reduce the market share to 5-6% in one fell swoop. Go for it Apple. You'll have even less room to fall when Windows7 comes out and people realize they can get a PC that costs 1/3 as much that is twice as fast as a comparably priced Mac and runs nearly or just as well.
I can easily prove already that a $900 Hackintosh Quad-Core can outrun a $2500 Mac Pro for most applications. Apple has nothing that could touch it. If the Mac Pro truly were a PRO computer, Apple would not be worrying about whether a reasonably priced mid-range tower would usurp some Mac Pro sales because those sales would be from CONSUMERS (not professionals) that are currently being forced to buy a professional machine because Apple's mid-range computers are JOKES (iMacs are SLOW laptop based machines, not true desktops; a $799 Dell can run much faster!) Apple has a huge hold in its lineup and if they don't want to fill it, they should let someone else like Dell or Psystar do it. I have no doubts that the Mac market share could be 50%-100% more than it is right now if they offered truly competitive hardware or opened their doors to clones. This market is nothing like the one in the late 1990s. Cloning could be a good thing long term for Apple, particularly if they had a good degree of control over it. It would let them focus on the odd machines like iMacs and professional machines like the Mac Pro and leave the consumer Macs to the PC switchers they claim they want to court. Jack up OS X by $200 and they could make $300 in pure profit from each clone sold just on the OS itself, let alone licensing costs. If that boosted market share by 50%, they'd be protecting their long term investments, increasing the software base and therefore the software offerings and all around improving the Mac's standing in the world. But no, they look to short term profit wind-falls instead of the long-term picture. It's the same mistake Detroit made with cars compared to the Japanese and look where it got them in the long run....
So is it any wonder then that some of us are contemplating building or buying a Hackintosh for our next "Mac" ? Apple provides NO VALUE these days in its Mac lines. I only bought my MBP last fall because I saved $600 off retail when they had a clearance sale of the old models as the new ones came in (essentially getting me a MBP for the price of the new regular Macbook). Otherwise, $2000 isn't reasonable IMO for the MBP. It comes with a cheap webcam, small hard drive and you better buy your own memory and put it in yourself or you'll get ripped off royally. I continually have issues with my either my USB mouse or keyboard not working when waking from sleep (unless I pull the hub and plug it back in) and for all the talk about how reliable Unix/OS X is, I've had more than a few kernel panics on the thing after several wake/sleep cycles (I guess it's not just my old upgraded PowerMac that gets kernel panics). Kernel panics are EXACTLY the same thing as the blue screen of death on Windows. Apple pretending like they don't have them is utterly laughable. I almost never see kernel issues like that with Linux. X-Windows might crash itself silly, but to force a reboot? (i.e. some magic key combos will usually reset X without requiring a reboot) I've had to do it a few times over the years, but nothing like OS X. Frankly, XP Pro has been pretty reliable on my PC. I'm not sure it's any less reliable than OS X in that regard. Yes, Windows98 was a crash test dummy, but that's ages ago and more akin to OS9 which was no better, IMO.
The thing is Apple has continually ignored the gaming market segment and so you would think that would have meant that their operating system would be the most stable thing known to man by now. They don't have to support every hardware configuration out there and they don't have to support their own 3D gaming library like Microsoft does with DirectX and Direct3D. They use the open source (i.e. SLOW) OpenGL instead of smartly licensing DirectX from Microsoft (which would make porting games to OS X 100x easier and faster than something like Cider that has to convert everything to OpenGL, leaving the games running like molasses even on the same hardware, but it would never compare in terms of hardware since OS X doesn't support real gaming hardware like SLI or Crossfire in the first place). So in summary, Apple is not a gaming computer AT ALL but yet it's still got a long way to go to be a truly stable Unix platform. I was running Final Cut Pro on my MBP when it got those kernel panics, not Call Of Duty. Pro should mean that doesn't happen.
Don't even get me started about that mini-display port crap. The very idea that a Mac *PRO* would have a *MINI* display port instead of a full sized one (let alone the argument that DVI is entrenched right now and that HDMI options would be more usable for secondary ports) just smacks of the underlying causes of us even having a "Mini" display port in the first place. One would assume that Apple created it to save space on their notebook computers, but display port is ALREADY very small so this is hard to believe and clearly a Mac Pro has PLENTY of room for a full size display port. There is nothing professional about a mini-display port because no one but Apple uses the darn thing. It's clearly just another move to try and force people to buy Apple's overpriced monitors. The fact they'd do it on a Mac Pro is just unforgivable, IMO. The market is not even remotely the same as a Macbook. At the very least they should offer proper adapters for a reasonable price so you can connect what you WANT or NEED instead of what Apple wants you to buy. The fact they want $99 for something that would have cost NOTHING had they used the industry standard bears mentioning. The fact that they will go through several more GPUs before anyone else even begins to support mini-display port or provide a cheaper adapter just shows how Apple thumbs its nose at the consumer. I'm sure $99 for a $10 adapter helps pad those record breaking profits during a recession and increases their 22+ BILLION in cash reserves...all on the hands of the consumer who has limited choices and high prices to deal with if they want to run Mac software.
Yeah, I'm irked at Apple. I much prefer OS X to Windows, especially to Vista which is just awful, but Apple seems to be doing everything it can to ensure that if Windows7 is successful that it will go back to being a 4% player in the market. If rumors are true and Snow Leopard dumps PPC, there goes nearly half the Mac market share right there and Apple will be back to 4-5% because no one will release "Universal" software for Snow Leopard since it doesn't support Universal software. Thus, software for regular Leopard will dry up in less than a year, IMO since no developer in his right mind is going to want to maintain two separate builds just to support older PPC machines. Apple therefore thinks all those G4 and G5 users (including G5 Quads which still run circles around most Intel iMacs) will just give them MORE money to upgrade to a new Intel machine in order to get new software support. They better hope that doesn't backfire and those people buy new PCs instead.
Personally, I'll buy a Hackintosh the next time around and then I'll be covered on both ends. It'll be able to run Windows or Mac and if Apple screws it all up, I still have a usable machine. Yes, Apple's own computers can run Windows also, but only the Mac Pro supports better graphics cards, etc. that Windows can already use and that OS X will probably never support any time soon.
What's Pro about Macs these days? I'm not sure. The lack of viruses is the number 1 selling point to me followed by a better user interface. If the former ever changes (nothing is there to stop virus writers from attacking Macs in the future should their market share go up) that leaves OS X purely to the mercy of Microsoft NOT improving their OS and we all know that Microsoft is emulating the best features of the Mac as fast as it can script them. Call it copying, call it unfair, but regardless, it's what Microsoft does. They're very good at bullying their way to the top and shoving other computer companies out of business. That's what happened to the Commodore Amiga (which I used to love) and this idea that because iPods and iPhones are extremely popular right now that the Mac is somehow "safe" in the future is just absurd. Apple should have been competing and pushing for expanded market share all this time, not just milking consumers for the highest possible profits. It's market share that protects a computer from obsolescence not cash reserves (Look how fast GM burned through their billions in reserves when things went South). Apple once had almost 20% market share in the late '80s and early '90s and places like Best Buy had 2-3 rows of software for the Mac. Now they have 1/2 a row (and that's up from NONE just a few years ago). That 20% fell to 4% pretty fast. Imagine if it had been only 8-9% when it fell. Apple would be out of business right now. They came pretty close as it was.
Even with the DISASTER that is Vista, Microsoft is in no danger of going away because 90% means virtual invulnerability, especially when its competitor cares more about milking existing consumers that trying to attract new ones and would rather sue (litigate) companies that could help increase market share (like Psystar) than to actually COMPETE with them, which is what Capitalism is supposed to be about. To make matters worse, my 2001 era PowerMac was Made In the USA. Prices are actually HIGHER now for a Mac and they're all Made In China. Guess where the labor cost savings went? Right into Apple's cash reserves. Are Macs more reliable as a result? When 3 out of 4 MBPs have major defects as one poster in another thread mentioned happened to him, I'd have to say NO. My (since upgraded) PowerMac is 8 years old and runs perfectly fine. I'm typing on it right now with 10.5.7. and it doesn't feel any slower for typical day-to-day stuff than my brand new (as of last October) MBP. In fact, app tests show that the MBP is typically only 3-4x faster and that's with two cores. Comparing only one core (since I chose the single CPU G4 upgrade instead of the double), it's only 1.5-3x faster at most. For an eight year span, that's a much smaller difference than I would have expected. All this talk about how Snow Leopard should just dump all PPC support because they're completely outdated is ridiculous, IMO. A Quad G5 is faster than most Core2Duo Intel models with many applications. But Apple doesn't make "new sales" on them so force them all to upgrade or move on and reduce the market share to 5-6% in one fell swoop. Go for it Apple. You'll have even less room to fall when Windows7 comes out and people realize they can get a PC that costs 1/3 as much that is twice as fast as a comparably priced Mac and runs nearly or just as well.
I can easily prove already that a $900 Hackintosh Quad-Core can outrun a $2500 Mac Pro for most applications. Apple has nothing that could touch it. If the Mac Pro truly were a PRO computer, Apple would not be worrying about whether a reasonably priced mid-range tower would usurp some Mac Pro sales because those sales would be from CONSUMERS (not professionals) that are currently being forced to buy a professional machine because Apple's mid-range computers are JOKES (iMacs are SLOW laptop based machines, not true desktops; a $799 Dell can run much faster!) Apple has a huge hold in its lineup and if they don't want to fill it, they should let someone else like Dell or Psystar do it. I have no doubts that the Mac market share could be 50%-100% more than it is right now if they offered truly competitive hardware or opened their doors to clones. This market is nothing like the one in the late 1990s. Cloning could be a good thing long term for Apple, particularly if they had a good degree of control over it. It would let them focus on the odd machines like iMacs and professional machines like the Mac Pro and leave the consumer Macs to the PC switchers they claim they want to court. Jack up OS X by $200 and they could make $300 in pure profit from each clone sold just on the OS itself, let alone licensing costs. If that boosted market share by 50%, they'd be protecting their long term investments, increasing the software base and therefore the software offerings and all around improving the Mac's standing in the world. But no, they look to short term profit wind-falls instead of the long-term picture. It's the same mistake Detroit made with cars compared to the Japanese and look where it got them in the long run....
I beckon you to read this article before jumping on the "glossy is a gimmick" bandwagon. http://mark2000.com/?p=541
Apple's old displays weren't that good anyway. They were not updated in 3 years making them look washed out and grainy compared to any decent Dell Ultrasharp. Take a look at Apple's 30" compared to a 30" Ultrasharp, there is no comparison on picture quality. Certainly it's not as good as an Eizo, but then an Eizo would curb stomp an Apple display anyway. The 24" LED is the first Apple display thats been reasonably good value since.. well since I can remember, my opinion of course.
I'm not against matte, people should have a choice, but when people invent problems or stories just like Engadget did in that article, that really grinds my gears. If you want a decent matte display for a good price, that will stomp any of the old matte Apple displays, by a Dell Ultrasharp. If you want a display with a beautiful vibrant picture and instant on LED, buy a 24" LED Cinema Display. If you want the best possible accuracy, by an Eizo or NEC.
Apple's old displays weren't that good anyway. They were not updated in 3 years making them look washed out and grainy compared to any decent Dell Ultrasharp. Take a look at Apple's 30" compared to a 30" Ultrasharp, there is no comparison on picture quality. Certainly it's not as good as an Eizo, but then an Eizo would curb stomp an Apple display anyway. The 24" LED is the first Apple display thats been reasonably good value since.. well since I can remember, my opinion of course.
I'm not against matte, people should have a choice, but when people invent problems or stories just like Engadget did in that article, that really grinds my gears. If you want a decent matte display for a good price, that will stomp any of the old matte Apple displays, by a Dell Ultrasharp. If you want a display with a beautiful vibrant picture and instant on LED, buy a 24" LED Cinema Display. If you want the best possible accuracy, by an Eizo or NEC.
If you're using a Macbook Pro, or indeed any laptop for colour critical work then you are an idiot in every sense of the word. All laptops, PC or Mac use TN panels due to power, price and resolution reasons. TN panels are awful for any colour critical work.
Newsflash: Apple is a company, they are only about 1 thing: making money.
They may pretend to care about customers or what they want at some point or another, but that is all make belief in order to make money. If they think they can make more money selling $1 iPhone apps, they will sell $1 iPhone apps. If they feel the pro-graphics market is costing them more then they make, they will drop them without batting an eye.
Welcome to the real world of commercial capitalistic thinking.
They may pretend to care about customers or what they want at some point or another, but that is all make belief in order to make money. If they think they can make more money selling $1 iPhone apps, they will sell $1 iPhone apps. If they feel the pro-graphics market is costing them more then they make, they will drop them without batting an eye.
Welcome to the real world of commercial capitalistic thinking.
that's b/c they rather take the little kids $$ than Pros' $$. it's been their big philosophical change...ever since they got their ipods in place.
What does LED have to do with IPS panels in laptops? I ask out of ignorance not out of argument. And OLED is quite a few years away yet. Sony has a 15" OLED display that sells for about £3.5k ($5k). It will be some years before screen size and resolution increases and price comes down to make OLED viable.
So do that then. The big difference between the two panels is that glossy reflects light back whilst matte disperses the light over it's surface. So if your working in a lit room, it is negatively effecting your work in some way or another, however little. The difference, again as the article states, is that most people can "look through" reflections, no one can "look through" a washed out display.
Why at night? Thats like saying look at a glossy display when it's off, you don't look at it when it's off, you look at it when it's on. Try looking out your window in the middle of the day, and turning your light on and off, no difference.
There are many photographers and graphics designers on here that use glossy displays. The 24" LED costs $899, meaning that professionals are buying it, consumers don't pay $899 for a display.
That still doesn't explain how it will make TN panels better for colour accurate work. Darker blacks and crisper whites, yes, but not more accurate.
Then that is the fault of the panel, not whether it is matte or glossy. Untreated clear glass cannot over saturate colours, because it's glass, it does nothing to change the image in any way. It looks better than a matte display, because a matte display has a treated, textured matte surface which dulls down colours to below normal levels.
That does nothing to prove which is more accurate. When other displays view the image, it is nothing similar because other displays are matte displays. As I've tried to point out, you cannot say one is more accurate, because you have nothing to compare it to. How do you know that a glossy display is outputting the true image, and the matte display is just dulling down the image, a far more likely scenario as well might I add.
Might I also point out that laptops are vastly outselling desktops, the majority of which in the consumer world at least, all use glossy displays. So if you are designing anything for the web, you should be using a glossy display because more people will be viewing it on a glossy display.
Tell that to the hundreds of professionals happily using glossy screens on this forum.
That wasn't a response to my point. I stated that turning a light on and off at night is pointless since the display, or in this case the sun, cannot cancel out the reflections with it's light. If you do it in the middle of the day, when the sun is out, or should I say when the display is on, this becomes a total non issue because the light from the display cancels out reflections. Except of course when the light from the room is brighter than the light from the display, but this renders a matte display useless as well, since the matte texture disperses the light across it's surface, changing the picture. If you have a colour critical job, turn the lights off, glare and reflection immediately disappear.
No, but if it is expensive, and isn't pro quality, then pros wont buy it. Guess what, pro's are buying it, otherwise it would have been discontinued by now, like the G4 Cube was. The only pro's that aren't buying it, are those who can't move on with the advancement of technology, just like the LCD vs. CRT debate, 8 years ago.
No you said that...
Although the two share no correlation.
Laptops use TN panels because they are cheaper, offer higher PPI, and use less power. The current MacBook Pro's use LED TN panels, guess what, they are still crap for colour accuracy.
You mentioned physics, yet you still have yet to explain why clear untreated glass over saturates colours, but treated textured matte displays show them in their true form.
I understand all of those terms, I would list them along with descriptions but you would accuse me of copying it off the net.
Did it ever occur to you that pros believe it as fact due to ignorance? 8 years ago, every pro on the planet believed that CRT's were superior to LCD's, guess who was wrong. There is no valid reason as to why matte is superior to glossy, but there is considerable evidence to prove the opposite, namely:
Glossy reflects the light, whilst matte disperses the light over it's screen completely ruining any supposed colour accuracy and washing out the picture.
Matte is a treated textured surface, glossy is untreated. Matte actually has something added to it to dull the colour.
You seem to believe that matte is true to colour, and glossy oversaturates colours, but you can't comprehend that the opposite is far more likely to be true due to the mattes treated screen. Glossy is truer to colour, matte dulls the colour.
Anything, absolutely anything is clearer and crisper on a glossy display.
I never said you did say TN was better. TN panels are cheap, poor panels. What you did say however:
When as far as I can see, this has no correlation at all, nor is related to the point.
This would just distort the image, like matte does. A pointless service, if it does even exist or is even possible. Link?
Only trying to get you to respond to my unanswered points.Simple fact. The rest, well, you have been looking for an argument where there is none. It seems any one could keep this debate going and you would keep restating the same comments. Brick, meet wall.
I think we need to differentiate 2 different things here:
1) (In my opinion) gloss display display a more accurate image, as in what is captured per pixel, you get to see, undiffused. None of the pixel light is diffused as they are with a matte screen. This by definition makes them more accurate. Also, as correctly stated by Nick, untreated glass does nothing, nada, zilch to the saturation of a image. If an image looks over-saturated on a gloss screen, this is more likely caused by over compensation for matte display or just the ole eyes being fooled (as they can be easily, shiny objects always look more saturated to our eyes).
2) And this is very important, printed paper does not look the same as a gloss display. Not even close. In fact, printed paper is matte, not unlike a matte display. You can see a similar difference in color when you compare a normal matte photo print and a high gloss print of the same photo. The high gloss print will look more saturated and more contrasty. This makes a matte screen easier to use when adjusting for printed media, as the output of the screen will be close to printed result.
Now, does that make gloss or matte better than the other? NO. Not necessarily. But it does make it important to think about what you are doing when buying a screen. If you work a lot with or prepare printed media, you will want to have a screen that has characteristics that are as close as possible as your output media. You have to realize the limitations of the media you work with and work around them. However, if you do not have to deal with those limitation, there is no reason to impose those limitations on yourself by picking a screen that fits those. Different tools have different applications. Stating one is better than the other without context is just stupid and ignorant.
1) (In my opinion) gloss display display a more accurate image, as in what is captured per pixel, you get to see, undiffused. None of the pixel light is diffused as they are with a matte screen. This by definition makes them more accurate. Also, as correctly stated by Nick, untreated glass does nothing, nada, zilch to the saturation of a image. If an image looks over-saturated on a gloss screen, this is more likely caused by over compensation for matte display or just the ole eyes being fooled (as they can be easily, shiny objects always look more saturated to our eyes).
2) And this is very important, printed paper does not look the same as a gloss display. Not even close. In fact, printed paper is matte, not unlike a matte display. You can see a similar difference in color when you compare a normal matte photo print and a high gloss print of the same photo. The high gloss print will look more saturated and more contrasty. This makes a matte screen easier to use when adjusting for printed media, as the output of the screen will be close to printed result.
Now, does that make gloss or matte better than the other? NO. Not necessarily. But it does make it important to think about what you are doing when buying a screen. If you work a lot with or prepare printed media, you will want to have a screen that has characteristics that are as close as possible as your output media. You have to realize the limitations of the media you work with and work around them. However, if you do not have to deal with those limitation, there is no reason to impose those limitations on yourself by picking a screen that fits those. Different tools have different applications. Stating one is better than the other without context is just stupid and ignorant.
HOW DID WE SURVIVE FOR YEARS AND YEARS WITH (CURVED) GLASS CRTS? THEN TRINITON SCREENS THAT NO-ONE WOULD DUMP FOR 'MATT' LCDS.
Sorry. But it really, really irritates me to see a constant barrage against 'glossy' displays. They're not glossy, they're glass. Glass just like your plasma TV, or the monitors used for graphic design and photography for decades (and still in use).
Anyway, if you don't like it, buy the adapter for the MacBook Pro that turns it into a matt screen. Job done.
AppleMatt
Sorry. But it really, really irritates me to see a constant barrage against 'glossy' displays. They're not glossy, they're glass. Glass just like your plasma TV, or the monitors used for graphic design and photography for decades (and still in use).
Anyway, if you don't like it, buy the adapter for the MacBook Pro that turns it into a matt screen. Job done.
AppleMatt
Yeah right, everyone needs to chill out for 5 minutes, this topic has been beaten to death already, by posting in here REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINION, (I am aware of the irony), you are adding fuel to the flame...
LED and LCD are different things. LED is Light Emitting Diode. LCD is Liquid Crystal Display. There's a big difference.
- Status