Hush, don't say such hurtful things.
Unfortunately I have never been a huge fan of the all-in-one design for desktops.
Because I'm a major fan of upgrading choice.
+1 End of "Mac Pro" line = end of Mac user for me.
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 to Utilize Anti-Reflective Glass in Next-Generation iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hush, don't say such hurtful things.
+1 End of "Mac Pro" line = end of Mac user for me.
This is correct as you say. the 0.01% or whatever very small % of users who have this issue (and no longer have a Mac) will be glad it's fixed and will buy Macs again. And a large number of people who believe the hype and think they have the issue when they do not will be happier too and buy more Macs.
It's so obvious.
A matte iMac display is the only way to keep us graphic designers on board when they kill the Mac Pro...
Unfortunately I have never been a huge fan of the all-in-one design for desktops.
Because I'm a major fan of upgrading choice.
Pfffft. Listen to you. Hardly anyone outside of animation and video buys a Mac Pro anymore. Todays iMacs are more than capable at handling a graphic designers needs. The price point, screen size and processing power all hit the sweet spot.
There have even been rumblings Apple themselves might want to eventually kill the tower.
Graphic designers, perhaps. Movie studio's, no way. They need the ability for better multi-display support, graphics cards, internal SATA drives, and more cores. This is especially true for HD content rendering. An iMac is still limiting in upgradeability, while a Mac Pro can last longer with incremental updates. Pricing, a top line, loaded iMac (what you would need to compete with a Xeon Westmere Pro) will run you ~$3k before taxes, placing it in the same price range as a decent Mac Pro and you will get more for your money with the Pro (and many professional prefer to use their own displays, EIZO being the preferred display with a hood as anti-glare displays simply diffuse/pixelate images).
In short, the Mac Pro is still the number one choice for professionals who need the power for the price, upgradability, and use of their preferred displays.
Thank you for unnecessarily detailing the reasons I already excluded the animation and video guys in my post.
I was agreeing with your overall comment (aside from killing the tower), and explaining why to those who may not know the field. My apologies if you took it as a personal insult, wasn't my intention.
I was agreeing with your overall comment (aside from killing the tower), and explaining why to those who may not know the field. My apologies if you took it as a personal insult, wasn't my intention.
None taken and your explanation was thorough.
I have to admit, that was my first thought when I read this article: that the next gen iMac would have a touch display. The article suggests this manufacturer makes touch screen glass (admitedly I didn't look them up). There is also a certain logic to this assertion - at least for future Apple computers. With more and more iOS and OSX integration, the philosopy of the company and the fact that they have always looked for simplicity in their UI, I would assume touch screens were inevitable. Whether the next generation or not...
Granted like touchscreen phones and tablets, Apple would not be inventing a touchscreen PC, but like the phone and tablet, they could be the first to make one really work well. My mom has a touchscreen HP laptop. It totally sucks. The screen is very difficult to see in any light and where you put your finger ain't where the arrow shows up on the screen.
OK, then, I stand (sit) corrected. Thank you, sir, for letting me know precisely what I don't have to do.
My comment was based on an assumption: there are two display "looks:" Polished "glossy" (with all the glare) and semi-frosted "anti-glare" surfaces. If you apply mutli-layer anti-reflective coatings to a polished glossy surface, you don't loose the glossy look. (As you know, you can in fact still see *some* reflections.) Same "rich blacks" and high-res as current uncoated "glossy" displays. Ergo, I inferred your statement "some users may still prefer the glossy" as "some users may still prefer the smooth."
So I've explained my comment, for better or worse -- Back to your original comment then. Could you then please explain the "glossy" look that would be missed with anti-reflective coatings on a polished glass? And, do you *really* think you could find anyone who would prefer the (uncoated) glossy glare to the coated (and still glossy) anti-reflective glass?
Best,
Give the iPad Power Support anti-glare film a try. Excellent quality film that doesn't introduce artifacts or color shifts. I also use the film on a 13" MBP. I couldn't see a difference between the 13" and my 15" MBP matte display.
----------
I prefer CCFL backlit displays with a matte surface which is why I purchased a 24" NEC. The company currently has 30 CCFL displays starting at $300 MSRP; discounts are often available at retailers such as B&H Photo. I snagged an $899 MSRP display for $550 in December.
Some people have serious eyestrain problem when using Apple LED backlit displays:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1677617?start=0&tstart=0
It's amazing that something so common for so long is forgotten so quickly. Many glass CRTs had an anti-glare coating. This really isn't new at all...at least outside of the Mac world.
I've had mine for over 4 years and the screen doesn't have a mark on it. Not sure why people need to touch the screen with anything at all. At least until they are touch screens.
I've said my opinion. But, hey, you live in Maryland and so do I, so if you are interested in a long-winded detailed response on something so mundane, you're welcome to come over and we can talk about it.
Could it be that the cost of putting these coatings on something as large as a computer monitor is prohibitively expensive, compared to eyeglasses? I don't know one way or the other, just throwing it out there...
This for me would be the game changer between getting an iMac and a MacPro.
I have a MBP with the matte screen and it has been perfect on the eyes. I recently bought the new iPad and love it apart from the glossy screen; it's like a mirror even in subdued light whilst watching dark scenes in movies etc.
A matte screen / non-reflective glass option on the iMac for me would seal the deal and I wouldn't have to go to the expense of a 6 core Mac Pro & Dell U2711 to get the same performance with a satisfactory screen.
I just wish this story was posted on MacFact rather than MacRumours
I have a MBP with the matte screen and it has been perfect on the eyes. I recently bought the new iPad and love it apart from the glossy screen; it's like a mirror even in subdued light whilst watching dark scenes in movies etc.
A matte screen / non-reflective glass option on the iMac for me would seal the deal and I wouldn't have to go to the expense of a 6 core Mac Pro & Dell U2711 to get the same performance with a satisfactory screen.
I just wish this story was posted on MacFact rather than MacRumours
Fair enough… I can feel your pain!
We have no disagreement there!
----------
Well, sure, I can't argue with you there. But I think you might find yourself in a very small minority. Most people who like glossy screens defend them based on the sharpness and/or saturation of the image, and say that the reflections are minimised sufficiently when you make your room dark, etc. You're the first person I've heard say they actually like to see reflections on the glass covering the display. Seems crazy to me, but okay.
You might want to save a few of those "finally"s for if and when they do actually ship one of these things.
Rally really hope this is true.
I love and also in the same time hate my Thunderbolt Display (it's basically the same as iMac). Currently, to use it normally, I have to artificially limit daylight during day and during evenings, especially if I want to watch a movie (movies always have lots of dark scenes where the reflection is crazy), I have to sit in dark room and strain my eyes. I hate this. I love the picture quality, I love glass, I love the aesthetics. But I hate the reflections.
BTW, this is a problem for iPad too, I can't use it normally on my kitchen table, because I see the lights above it more than the content on screen...
I love and also in the same time hate my Thunderbolt Display (it's basically the same as iMac). Currently, to use it normally, I have to artificially limit daylight during day and during evenings, especially if I want to watch a movie (movies always have lots of dark scenes where the reflection is crazy), I have to sit in dark room and strain my eyes. I hate this. I love the picture quality, I love glass, I love the aesthetics. But I hate the reflections.
BTW, this is a problem for iPad too, I can't use it normally on my kitchen table, because I see the lights above it more than the content on screen...
There is a fine line between, "I'm happy but it would be nice if the screen was anti-glare" vs. what one observes on this websites claiming that their experience has been akin to a horror story, that Bill Gates climbed through their window one night, installed Windows and raped their dog. You would swear via the hysteria and over reaction on this issue by certain members of this website that someone had just punched their mother.
Huh? Most TVs ever sold have been reflective glass, many with very little or no anti-reflective coatings. There are long argument threads at A/V forums over the reflective (mostly plasmas) vs the non-reflective (mostly LCDs).
