When you definitively tell someone they are wrong and you are right, usually it takes more than just having some knowledge of something to prove your case.
I didn't make false claims though did I? It works both ways.
I have already proven my case.
When you definitively tell someone they are wrong and you are right, usually it takes more than just having some knowledge of something to prove your case.
I have already proven my case.
By showing some youtube videos and claiming you know for a fact?
I made a statement based on information that has been posted for years on this forum. You challenged the statement, which is fine. I asked for an official source, so I would have both reason to change my statement and so I would have something to prove any future statements to the contrary. You have so far failed to provide any official proof. I'm not going to start claiming that there's an antiglare coating just because one or two posters claim that there is. As I said, I will cheerfully accept correction, but I prefer something more substantial than a few posters claims. Otherwise, I could find myself in this very same situation, with someone claiming that there is no coating, and asking me for proof. If you don't have any proof, just say so, and it can remain a matter of undocumented perception. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I just want proof.So I have to prove you wrong despite you offering NOTHING to support your claim. I offered hard knowledge not simply my perception. See the MacBook Air comments above.
I made a statement based on information that has been posted for years on this forum. You challenged the statement, which is fine. I asked for an official source, so I would have both reason to change my statement and so I would have something to prove any future statements to the contrary. You have so far failed to provide any official proof. I'm not going to start claiming that there's an antiglare coating just because one or two posters claim that there is. As I said, I will cheerfully accept correction, but I prefer something more substantial than a few posters claims. Otherwise, I could find myself in this very same situation, with someone claiming that there is no coating, and asking me for proof. If you don't have any proof, just say so, and it can remain a matter of undocumented perception. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I just want proof.
So you're saying you don't have anything official. That's fine. That's all I wanted to know.This has to be a joke...
So you're saying you don't have anything official. That's fine. That's all I wanted to know.
Umm.. Okey..
Still not resolved 100% but i should just go with the hi res anti glare for my architectural study purposes.. ??
If theres minimal 'screen door' effect then ill be happy
If anyone who uses one realised a huge difference in crisp n details between gloss and anti glare pls do tell me soon!
Fyi, where i live right now, there are no anti glare options in apple stores/resellers due to their low demand and ppl rarely buy pricey products online.
The antiglare screen is exactly the glossy screen with the glass removed. There is no extra coating on it.
Umm.. Okey..
Still not resolved 100% but i should just go with the hi res anti glare for my architectural study purposes.. ??
If theres minimal 'screen door' effect then ill be happy
If anyone who uses one realised a huge difference in crisp n details between gloss and anti glare pls do tell me soon!
Fyi, where i live right now, there are no anti glare options in apple stores/resellers due to their low demand and ppl rarely buy pricey products online.
This is not true. The Macbook Air is the screen with the glass removed. The LCDs come in two different surfaces, a matte surface and a low-gloss one; then a lot of Apple monitors have glass added to make them shinier.
As to the question: The anti-glare screen for Macs is exactly like what you'd get with any matte display monitor or PC laptop. It looks fine. It's not a fingerprint magnet like the Air's uncovered display, and it's not glossy like the ones with glass over them.
I made a statement based on information that has been posted for years on this forum.
Your answer will not be accepted.
Umm.. Okey..
Still not resolved 100% but i should just go with the hi res anti glare for my architectural study purposes.. ??
If theres minimal 'screen door' effect then ill be happy
If anyone who uses one realised a huge difference in crisp n details between gloss and anti glare pls do tell me soon!
Fyi, where i live right now, there are no anti glare options in apple stores/resellers due to their low demand and ppl rarely buy pricey products online.
Umm.. Okey..
Still not resolved 100% but i should just go with the hi res anti glare for my architectural study purposes.. ??
If theres minimal 'screen door' effect then ill be happy
If anyone who uses one realised a huge difference in crisp n details between gloss and anti glare pls do tell me soon!
Fyi, where i live right now, there are no anti glare options in apple stores/resellers due to their low demand and ppl rarely buy pricey products online.
Why do they charge MORE for it then? Lol.
..although that doesn't explain the additional premium over the glossy 1680x1050 version.