I calibrated mine (9C8C) with the Spyder2, and it still looks awful. As someone else said, I could live with the limited viewing angles, but the blacks are just terrible from any angle. This really falls short of my expectations.
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.
9C89 vs ????
- Thread starter jav6454
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I calibrated mine (9C8C) with the Spyder2, and it still looks awful. As someone else said, I could live with the limited viewing angles, but the blacks are just terrible from any angle. This really falls short of my expectations.
Sure I tried calibrating myself and about 20 different profiles from these forums. The manager of the apple store was quite impressed when he saw the list
In the end I found pstube's profile the best because it enhances contrast to workable levels. Downside was that it was quite a dark profile and the whites did not come out that well.
PS. I had C89.
9C8C and while it's not the best screen in the world, it's no worse than my Blackbook that I never heard anyone bitching about -- not sure why this is now coming up.
Because the new MB is more expensive, but the better build quality, better GPU and bigger hard drive apparently aren't enough...people still need something to complain about.
What pisses me off is that Apple does not mention anywhere that the MacBook uses and inferior screen to the MBP. Consumers expect stuff like LCDs to have similar quality, unless pointed out otherwise.
So when some sod spends $1600 of his hard earned money on a MacBook, he expects to have the best quality screen. But Apple shafts all of us by their sly marketing and were forced to return the machine and pay a restocking fee.
The least Apple can do is mention somewhere on their website that their notebook lines use different quality screens, and let consumers self-select rather than go home and be disappointed later on.
So when some sod spends $1600 of his hard earned money on a MacBook, he expects to have the best quality screen. But Apple shafts all of us by their sly marketing and were forced to return the machine and pay a restocking fee.
The least Apple can do is mention somewhere on their website that their notebook lines use different quality screens, and let consumers self-select rather than go home and be disappointed later on.
Because the new MB is more expensive, but the better build quality, better GPU and bigger hard drive apparently aren't enough...people still need something to complain about.
And some like to simply complain about complaining.
Because the new MB is more expensive, but the better build quality, better GPU and bigger hard drive apparently aren't enough...people still need something to complain about.
Would you like a Porsche 911 GT with bad air conditioning? But the interiors, suspension, sound system, in-dash interface are all better than the previous generation.
So you wouldn't be one of the whiners if you got this particular car right? Since ONLY the air conditioning is bad ... everything else is fine.
I assume you are not in advertising.
"Introducing the all new Aluminum Macbook, now with Inferior screen!"
I fixed your question with a more accurate presentation. The screen on the new macbook is no worse than the previous MB screen and slightly better with respect to brightness. It's not unusable. Sheesh.
I don't think it's worse than the previous generation, and it's certainly not bad. But it's inferior to the macbook pro, which is what I'd expect. There has to be something that differentiates the two product lines. Of course, I'd love it if it had the top of the line screen, but that isn't something I'd expect. As long as we're on the car analogies. I wouldn't expect that my (hypothetical) new $20,000 car to be as nice as the $30,000 model that I couldn't afford.
apple sleight of hand
Not wanting to bring up the aluminum iMac 20" controversy, but Apple has done this before, hasn't it? I checked my screen out next to a friends 2.4 white book he bought last Christmas, and the new one is heads and tails better than the previous.
The sleight of hand is Apple dressing the macbook up in clothes identical to its big brother and stating and/or implying that the screens are identical except in size when they are not. The difference in contrast ratios between the two are noticeable. Even if they stated in the MBP ads "with premium or exceptionally high quality LED screen", I think they would be covered.
Except for the narrow viewing angle and the problem it has with contrasting dark colors, it is a great screen. If apple would say up front that the MBP screen is a better screen, it would have squelched this discussion. Trouble is, I've had people working at the apple store tell me that they're identical except in size when they are not.
Not wanting to bring up the aluminum iMac 20" controversy, but Apple has done this before, hasn't it? I checked my screen out next to a friends 2.4 white book he bought last Christmas, and the new one is heads and tails better than the previous.
The sleight of hand is Apple dressing the macbook up in clothes identical to its big brother and stating and/or implying that the screens are identical except in size when they are not. The difference in contrast ratios between the two are noticeable. Even if they stated in the MBP ads "with premium or exceptionally high quality LED screen", I think they would be covered.
Except for the narrow viewing angle and the problem it has with contrasting dark colors, it is a great screen. If apple would say up front that the MBP screen is a better screen, it would have squelched this discussion. Trouble is, I've had people working at the apple store tell me that they're identical except in size when they are not.
I have compared my Blackbook next to my friends new alu Macbook and his is a little worse. We then compared it to my wife's almost 2 year old Whitebook and same result. His was a little worse. He isn't too happy about it either. When we went to the Apple Store the manager even admitted that the new Macbooks had a better graphics card, but the screen was no improvement. We also compared the new Whitebook screen at the Apple Store to the new ones (they are there side by side) and same conclusion.
I guess when anyone wants a Macbook they just need to realize they will get a sub par screen. Both the previous gen and the new gen should have better screens for the price.
Because the new MB is more expensive, but the better build quality, better GPU and bigger hard drive apparently aren't enough...people still need something to complain about.
Well I had the Blacbook previously, which was what, $100 less than the 2.4GHz AluBook?
I'd say the backlit keyboard and aluminum enclosure justify the higher price. Internals I expect to be getting better each generation, but major changes in product build quality are a different story.
9C89 (LG) here and it's great for a cheap laptop TN panel.
Calibrated with a Spyder3 Pro. Though, out of the box, this is the first Macbook screen I have seen that doesn't really need calibration. It is pretty close from the factory. I can upload profiles if anyone is interested.
Calibrated with a Spyder3 Pro. Though, out of the box, this is the first Macbook screen I have seen that doesn't really need calibration. It is pretty close from the factory. I can upload profiles if anyone is interested.
Oh no... if Apple has started using a new screen that means even more screen comparison posts.
Anyway has anyone actually posted comparison shots between the alu macbook screens? Does anyone really think they could tell the difference in a blind test? I think that all this talk of the difference between 9c89 and 9c8c is just perception.
I agree! Its a step up from the previous MB but not the giant leap I hoped it would be.