Anti-Glare on 15" MBP?

[secretanchitman]

not until WWDC (summer 09) because they have to make a reason for people to pay so much for the 17" other than 2" extra screen size.

really? are you sure about that? if so, then im definitely holding out for it!

 

[darngooddesign]

So I'd say that both screens are equally durable. The only difference is which type of damage they are more susceptible to.

The previous matte screens were prone to keyboard scuff marks that wouldn't wipe off. With glass this isn't an issue.

 

[Niiro13]

Well, there are always the anti-glare films you can put on.

 

[numbersyx]

Not necessarily. People seem to be jumping to the conclusion that anti-glare = matte. I'd be willing to bet that's wrong. Older high end CRTs (like some high-end Sonys with trinitron tubes) used coatings on the glass to reduce reflections. It's still glass though with a smooth finish, no matte texturing.

Well they're charging for it so it can't just be a matte screen. Must be something in the middle. Glossy (which I prefer) can be a bit maddening in a room with a lot of fluoro lighting...

 

[RexTraverse]

Well they're charging for it so it can't just be a matte screen.

So because they're charging for it, it can't "just be a matte screen"?

How soon we forget the Black MacBook and the $50 extra charge for "just a black case".

 

[darngooddesign]

So because they're charging for it, it can't "just be a matte screen"?

How soon we forget the Black MacBook and the $50 extra charge for "just a black case".

And if you want the white iPhone you have to buy the more expensive model.

 

[RexTraverse]

And if you want the white iPhone you have to buy the more expensive model.

Well, that's not quite the same thing, since you're not paying a premium for the white iPhone over a similarly spec'd black iPhone.

The black MacBook was $50 more than a white MacBook, all other things being the same.

 

[darngooddesign]

Well, that's not quite the same thing, since you're not paying a premium for the white iPhone over a similarly spec'd black iPhone.

The black MacBook was $50 more than a white MacBook, all other things being the same.

Didn't the Blackbook come with a larger drive?

 

[RexTraverse]

Didn't the Blackbook come with a larger drive?

I believe it came standard with a larger drive and faster processor, but if you bumped the white MacBook to the same, there was still a $50 difference.

 

[Brien]

not until WWDC (summer 09) because they have to make a reason for people to pay so much for the 17" other than 2" extra screen size.

Same reason we won't see 8GB in the 15". Probably not for awhile, but I'd love a firmware update.

 

[numbersyx]

Well, that's not quite the same thing, since you're not paying a premium for the white iPhone over a similarly spec'd black iPhone.

The black MacBook was $50 more than a white MacBook, all other things being the same.

Yes. You are right on that front. Maybe anti glare really is just a matte screen..

 

[MacFever]

I really find the silver bezel on the new 17" unibody "anti-glare" screen makes it look cheap now compared to the black bezel on the regular model.

why didn't Apple just leave the black bezel on the "anti-glare" option?? especially since we are paying extra....

so we pay extra to make the laptop look cheaper with the stupid silver old school bezel.

 

[numbersyx]

I actually prefer the all silver look to the newer black iMac look...

 

[Ploki]

i like the black screen bezel also.

i mean, if it had also silver keyboard.. but i grown to like this black/alu combo.

 

[macrem]

Now that there actually is an anti-glare 17" option available, I've been noticing a lot of back-peddling toward glass à la: "the glass screen looks better / no bezel for gunk to get into / more durable / easier to clean / colors pop / like glass from edge-to-edge / wish there was black bezel / etc."