Anti-Glare Only Available In 1680x1050

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by kolax, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #1
    That's great right?

    Though it means if you want anti-glare display, you have to fork out even more for it. The anti-glare high-res display is $50 more than the glossy high-res. Though we're used to the $50 cost from previously, it does mean that to get an anti-glare display we have to pay $150 more, instead of just $50 more.

    Anyway, here's hoping the Apple Store will stock the high-res anti-glare displays rather than just making them a BTO from the online store. I'd rather check the machine out for myself, as opposed to mailing it back for a return/exchange.

    I'm going to give my local store a phone in a few hours to give them time to find out what the plans are.
     
  2. thadoggfather Suspended

    thadoggfather

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #2
    yep i'm going to go to to the apple store soon this morning too.

    Opting for a 2.4 i5/antiglare high res option.
     
  3. migsev macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #3
    Kinda disappointed by it though. Whats wrong about offering the 1440*900 resolution in anti-glare too?
     
  4. itommyboy macrumors 6502a

    itommyboy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Location:
    Titletown USA
    #4
    Um...is this a joke :confused:

    Yeah it's a bend over move for sure but what do you expect from :apple: we can't have it all. I'm happy they actually gave us the option for better resolution and no glare. They got my extra $150 without hesitation.
     
  5. kolax thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #5
    I'm all for the higher res display, it's just the extra cost! They should have made the high-res glossy and high-res anti-glare the same price.
     
  6. Sn0wball macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    England
    #6
    I agree. I prefer a slightly lower resolution (such as 1440x900) in a 15" notebook. Anti-glare would've been great. Alas, it was not to be. :(

    Upgrading from 1440x900 to 1680x1050 anti-glare is $185 for us in the UK, too. :(
     
  7. thadoggfather Suspended

    thadoggfather

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #7
    You can wait until the antiglare c2d models show up on clearance/refurb section of the Apple store. I saw antiglare models of all three versions of the 15" last week on Apple store.

    Still, if you wanted 1440x900 antiglare and arrandale, no dice.

    Agreed, maybe there will be outrage from the professionals and we will get a rebate like iPhone early adopters. Either way, antiglare high res is probably the one I'll buy today assuming they have them in stock.
     
  8. coloursinmyhead macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    #8
    so expensive, i was let down for that =(

    i'm definitely going to spring for it, but i was hoping to have some savings on the top-end 15", but between the 7200rpm hd (why didn't they go standard on that yet?!) and the new antiglare screen, i'm paying just about the same as the base 2.8ghz C2D system.
     
  9. Quetsche macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    #9
    If you want an anti glare screen (like me), the 17" might actually be a better investment, since if you take both the i7 option and the anti glare option, it's only 200$ more than the 15" with anti glare. :confused:
     
  10. itommyboy macrumors 6502a

    itommyboy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Location:
    Titletown USA
    #10

    Yeah it's more bang for your buck no doubt but then your stuck lugging that behemoth around...if you're in the market for a new road warrior at least. Great option if the 17" is your thing though.
     
  11. kolax thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #11
    Yeah but the 17" uses Core i5, not Core i7.

    If you want the Core i7, it's an extra bunch of bucks, so the 15" Core i7 anti-glare high res v 17" Core i7 anti-glare high res in terms of price is quite different.
     
  12. TheDrift- macrumors 6502a

    TheDrift-

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    #12
    Yeah i'm going for antiglare, big price hike, was happy with the low res antiglare.

    £150 sure puts the price up! was going to go for a mid range mbp but now going for a base and antiglare screen.
     
  13. Quetsche macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    #13
    No, actually, i was comparing them both with the i7 cpu.
     
  14. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #14
    I have to admit that the only part that got my attention in the upgrade is the lack of anti-glare at the "standard resolution". I'm one of those folks that like the current res on the 15" MBP.

    It is great that people now have the option for a higher-res. But now to get the anti-glare you have to add a close to 10% premium over the price? come on. :rolleyes:
     
  15. dgdosen macrumors 65816

    dgdosen

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #15
    So are hi-res screens in on the east coast? I'm in Seattle - and am wondering if they'll be in stores...
     
  16. migsev macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #16
    Same here. Don't see the value for money in paying an extra $150 for the anti-glare option. I want the anti-glare, but not necessarily the extra pixels.
     
  17. darkus macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #17
    Im just straight pissed off. Why take away the 1440x900 anti glare as an option???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? There is no decent explanation for this move. I waited 6 months to get this laptop that I desperatly need and now only find that they removed my #1 needed option, the anti-glare. What do I do now. Damn you apple. Damn you.
     
  18. jonesjb macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    #18
    Why not upgrade and run 1440x900 from the display preferences?
     
  19. PAC88 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    #19
    it wont look as good since its not the native res
     
  20. thadoggfather Suspended

    thadoggfather

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #20
    1440x900 on a 1680x1050 native resolution panel will look like iPoop
     

Share This Page