Great news ! Choice is good.
Now if only Apple will update the rest of the ACDs before the end of this decade.
Now if only Apple will update the rest of the ACDs before the end of this decade.
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.
Apple Again Offers Matte Display Option on 15" MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Percentage? How many are using the IR receiver or iSight very often? I'm using mine like few times a year. But if they weren't there I wouldn't be able to. That's the whole point! I can always add an SD-reader ExpressCard should I want to, but I cannot expand the built-in SD-reader to anything else. That really sucks.
Oh, well... My trusty old 2007 MBP will have to do a bit longer, or perhaps I'll finally upgrade to 17" or something smaller. I will definetely not buy a 15" laptop without a multi-purpose expansion option. PowerBooks used to have PCMCIA, MacBook Pro's used to have ExpressCard. Now there's only one pro model (17") and it's a shame.
Expresscard and removable battery are much more useful features that need to come back before I'll be in line for a new one.
Again... I suggested that they add the OPTION to get a 1680x1050 on the 15". Offering this OPTION will not take away your precious 1440x900 screen. Personally I can't get anything done on a screen with so little real estate. 1680x1050 is cramped enough.
1440x900 is OK for lightweight stuff like browsing the web, writing emails or watching movies, but for working in Photoshop, Flash, Cubase and other applications with a gazillion different toolbars and palettes cluttering up the workspace, it's useless because there's little left for the actual material you're working on. Yes, you can plug in an external screen but sometimes you're not working at your desk. That's kind of the point of, you know, a laptop.
For a niche market, yes. For a company that sells millions, no. It would be perfectly fine for Apple to make both models and let the customer choose. It's just that they have "forced he issue" and now it seems they can get away with charging more for the choice!
I would not mind the option, but my point was I don't care about the resolution until they manage to make the OS resolution independent. THEN, probably I'm going to be one of the first ones to buy high-resolution monitor.
What is the point of having an FW800 port when the moment you daisy chain anything on FW400 the system slows to 400?. Keep two ports (FW400/800), or put 2 FW800 if you really want to push FW800 as the new standard. With an Unibody that is a limitation (ok only for "pros"), plus you have not the expresscard option...yes, I guess I'm very happy at the moment with my matte SR MBP, let's see in 2 year when repleacement wil be needed
Right, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. They've talked about resolution independence for many years, the first time I heard about Apple looking into it was probably around 2001 or 2002. But it didn't show up in Tiger, not in Leopard, and it's not coming in Snow Leopard. These UI changes never come, there's always plenty of talk but we're still stuck with the 10 year old Aqua interface with some minor incremental improvements like removing the pinstripes and the brushed aluminum.
Besides, as long as applications make extensive use of bitmaps for UI elements, resolution independence is a no-go. Scaling text is easy but you'll still be stuck with miniscule buttons, toolbar icons and stuff like that. Computers still don't have the power to handle an entirely vector based UI.
I still miss my 17" Powerbook. Every time I go to the Apple Store, the extra resolution just calls out to me -- take me, NewSc2, I'm your only hope.
Now I could save some money by going down to the 15" (for my next MBP), but the words are a little big. Wake me up when they offer a high-res 1680 x 1050 on the 15.
Now I could save some money by going down to the 15" (for my next MBP), but the words are a little big. Wake me up when they offer a high-res 1680 x 1050 on the 15.
You are misinformed and wrong. FW400 and FW800 devices are capable of operating at their highest respective speeds, provided that all the FW800 devices are closest to the port and that all FW400 devices are daisy-chained on the far end of the port. This is a design feature of FW800. According to the technical specs:
What are we talking about here, external drives? Go run some speed tests on your own FW devices and post the results for all to see. I'm happy to take a look at them myself!
What do you mean by saying that OS X is "Resolution Dependent"?
Would Windows (At least XP, Vista, or 7) be considered resolution independent?
I'm just trying to understand what you mean.
Would Windows (At least XP, Vista, or 7) be considered resolution independent?
I'm just trying to understand what you mean.
Good news! How about 13" BTO matte?
I don't have a problem with $50.
The masses (okay, Apple masses) want glossy, fine.
But choice is good, and matte customers are obviously fewer, so $50 is fine.
How about another $50 for an expresscard slot instead of SD, hmmm?
Brian
Waiting for 13" matte MBP - then I'll buy (immediately)
I don't have a problem with $50.
The masses (okay, Apple masses) want glossy, fine.
But choice is good, and matte customers are obviously fewer, so $50 is fine.
How about another $50 for an expresscard slot instead of SD, hmmm?
Brian
Waiting for 13" matte MBP - then I'll buy (immediately)
Yes, more choices that I and many others will gladly pay more for.
Higher res screens. Express card available on all models. MULTIcard readers.
Blu-ray. HDMI. Altec Lansing or Harmon Kardon speakers. Latest generation video cards and not two year old renamed stale Nvidia leftovers.Jeebus Apple, give your customers what they want and charge them for extras. Build To Order. otay ?
Right now, most interfaces are drawn using bitmaps, i.e. predefined pixels. If something is resolution independent, it can be stretched forever with no loss in quality, like a Flash or Illustrator file. Resolution independence would mean that instead of the look of a button being loaded from a bitmap on a computer, it would be loaded from a vector file, which means it would be mathematically calculated and sized appropriately on the spot.
You are misinformed and wrong. FW400 and FW800 devices are capable of operating at their highest respective speeds, provided that all the FW800 devices are closest to the port and that all FW400 devices are daisy-chained on the far end of the port. This is a design feature of FW800. According to the technical specs:
What are we talking about here, external drives? Go run some speed tests on your own FW devices and post the results for all to see. I'm happy to take a look at them myself!
This mentions 'Firewire Beta'... is that in all products. This is something I was not aware of. Thank you for bringing it to light =)
For example, the top menu bar is smaller or larger in centimeters/inches depending what resolution you have. A truly resolution independent OS would scale automatically having similar sized (in centimeters/inches) UI elements independent of the display resolution.
Right now, most interfaces are drawn using bitmaps, i.e. predefined pixels. If something is resolution independent, it can be stretched forever with no loss in quality, like a Flash or Illustrator file. Resolution independence would mean that instead of the look of a button being loaded from a bitmap on a computer, it would be loaded from a vector file, which means it would be mathematically calculated and sized appropriately on the spot.
Ahh, ok. Thanks!
I find it funny to read apple's description, they used to be the biggest advocates of matte finish screens.
"About glossy and antiglare
Choose the glossy widescreen display to make your graphics, photos, and videos appear with richer colors and deeper blacks great for watching DVD movies. If you prefer a display with antiglare coating for a matte rather than glossy viewing experience, choose the antiglare widescreen display."
It makes it all seem rather disappointing.
"About glossy and antiglare
Choose the glossy widescreen display to make your graphics, photos, and videos appear with richer colors and deeper blacks great for watching DVD movies. If you prefer a display with antiglare coating for a matte rather than glossy viewing experience, choose the antiglare widescreen display."
It makes it all seem rather disappointing.
Unfortunatly not. This eTa into apples pro market that they sort of dump on these days. The iMac is pretty powerful and graphic pros are forced to buy mac pros. Releasing in matte would eat at those high profit margins.
Now, should apple release matte for iMac, express slot for iMac and 15" ( numerous dsp hardware which is why I am glad I still have express slot, and mid range i7 headless mac, that would dhow true dedication to prosumers, gamerz, video, audio users. Doubtful as the pros would buy these machines, even though Apple would sell more and ultimatly, make more money.
Someone in marketing needs to step up. Might not happen until Jibs is gibe though.
Now, should apple release matte for iMac, express slot for iMac and 15" ( numerous dsp hardware which is why I am glad I still have express slot, and mid range i7 headless mac, that would dhow true dedication to prosumers, gamerz, video, audio users. Doubtful as the pros would buy these machines, even though Apple would sell more and ultimatly, make more money.
Someone in marketing needs to step up. Might not happen until Jibs is gibe though.
If it costs them more to produce this option, then so be it. $50 is nothing. I would happily pay for it. There are many of us (often accused around here of "whining") with imperfect eyesight for whom a glossy screen is a serious impediment. If you have great eyesight and the glossy screen works for you... wonderful. But having the option, even at a price, is a welcome change.