Deconstructing the Anti-Glare VS Glossy myth. AKA beware of liars.

[Bobby Corwen]

There's the fallacy of the argument. I don't recommend either one to others. My recommendation is always to check them both out at an Apple store and decide for yourself. Knowing that it boils down to personal preference, it's not in anyone's best interest to buy either one based on someone's recommendation. The person who recommends one or the other isn't going to be stuck looking at that screen for hours every day; the buyer will. What you perceive as a disadvantage may be perceived by someone else as an advantage or a non-issue.

How is it a fallacy to suggest that we present the whole truth and not just the partial truth?

If you always keep it neutral, thats what I want to hear, but others are out there volunteering biased advice, offering their opinion as the de-facto standard choice when in fact the topic is highly polarized.

 

[GGJstudios]

How is it a fallacy to suggest that we present the whole truth and not just the partial truth?

Again, what you perceive as "truth" isn't a matter of fact. It's personal preference. For some, the anti-glare has all advantages and no disadvantages. For others, glossy is perfect for them and has no drawbacks. It's like saying blue is a better color for a car than red. Since everyone's needs and priorities are different, we shouldn't be recommending glossy or anti-glare. If we really want to help a buyer, recommend that they check them out and decide for themselves.

... others are out there volunteering biased advice, offering their opinion as the de-facto standard choice when in fact the topic is highly polarized.

... and you really think you're going to change their behavior with this thread?

 

[hashholly]

While you are 100% correct the entire point of a laptop is portability. If, for example, I'm going to take my laptop to a client's office I'd want a display that's still truer to the final product even if it's not good enough for final color grading. Or I could do some work at a coffee shop and have significantly less clean-up to do once I connect back to my IPS display than I would if I were using a glossy screen.

But how much truer is the color really between the two? Take two identical MBP's with TN panels manufactured at the same plant, at the same time, one with the glass, one without, and hardware color calibrate both laptops. Quantify how much more color accurate one display is vs the other, are we talking 5%, 10%, 100% more accurate? Are we talking a teal on the AG looks more like a deep blue on the Glossy?

Either which way you put it both the AG and Glossy will be inaccurate in color, and you will still have to fix things when you get to an IPS display.

My point is this, if you want to argue that the AG provides less glare in direct light, go ahead, its a fact. If you want to argue that the Glossy provides more appealing colors, go ahead, that too is a fact. But please, color accuracy? Its like arguing that a Learjet is a better mode of transportation to the moon than a Cessna.

 

[MuDPHuDStudent]

How is it a fallacy to suggest that we present the whole truth and not just the partial truth?

If you always keep it neutral, thats what I want to hear, but others are out there volunteering biased advice, offering their opinion as the de-facto choice when in fact the topic is highly polarized.

What I'm not understanding is why you care so much about this issue. It seems like you consider it a personal affront that people would advocate buying an anti-glare screen. You've made your points and anyone searching for this topic in the future will be able to read your original post and will consider what you've said when making their decision. It's not like anyone is trying to force you to by a AG screen.

 

[squeakr]

How is it a fallacy to suggest that we present the whole truth and not just the partial truth?

It is a fallacy when what is presented is based on opinion, but passed off as fact. When asked, I always state my opinion (and tell that it is nothing but my opinion and observations) and tell others to go and compare for themselves as they are the end judge and will be the one's using for extended periods.

When terms like vibrant, beautiful, dull, sharp and enjoyable are used as facts (without verifiable and measured/ repeatable data to back up such terms) they are nothing more than statements of opinion and not facts as they are being presented here. The true measure of which screen is better, would have to be made on equal screens that have been professionally calibrated to the same temperature and adjustments and the actual spectrum outputs measured to back all results and claims, thus taking out the individual and human error involved in assessment (and that still wouldn't mean that people won't still have preferences).

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Again, what you perceive as "truth" isn't a matter of fact. It's personal preference. For some, the anti-glare has all advantages and no disadvantages. For others, glossy is perfect for them and has no drawbacks. It's like saying blue is a better color for a car than red. Since everyone's needs and priorities are different, we shouldn't be recommending glossy or anti-glare. If we really want to help a buyer, recommend that they check them out and decide for themselves.

No, I believe it is our responsibility, if we give advice, to present the choice as it is truly, in its entirety, with all reported pros and cons.

If one does not comprehend what they are, then they should be asking the questions, not answering them.

How can you help someone make an informed decision when you say...

Typical Post: get the AG its way better.

You are misleading them because you should be saying...

Correct Post: The AG prevents glare, but it makes the screen look more pastel, but if you cant stand the glare of the glossy and you work outdoors, the tradeoff is worth it. Otherwise get the glossy because it has more eye candy.

If you were someone who knew nothing yet, which one of the above posts is misleading, and which one is more informative??

 

[GGJstudios]

No, I believe it our responsibility, if we give advice, to present the choice as is truly, in its entirety, with all reported pros and cons.

If one does not comprehend what they are, then they should be asking the questions, not answering them.

Again, you're not going to change anyone's behavior by anything you say in this or any other thread. People post misinformation all the time. They're not going to stop because of something said in this thread.

 

[squeakr]

No, I believe it our responsibility, if we give advice, to present the choice as it is truly, in its entirety, with all reported pros and cons.

If one does not comprehend what they are, then they should be asking the questions, not answering them.

Since you are stating that you know what the differences are, then I ask you are the colors on the AG duller, washed out, or muted, when compared to the glossy, because I have seen all of them used to describe the colors. These terms all mean different thing to different people, so how do they get qualified as facts without swaying meaning negatively??
It is our responsibility to to present the facts and not the biases.

 

[ender land]

Serious.. who the ******* cares?

Look at them both and pick the one you like better. When it comes down to it, they're both beautiful displays and whichever you choose is going to be the right one.

I could have gone either way, but they only stocked the 2.3 high res in anti-glare in the store. My criteria was that they had to give me my EPP in the store or I'll just order it with the glass screen. They gave it, so I took it and I love it.

This is more or less my thought too.

I like the glossy screen, always have. When I get a new laptop eventually I again will compare glossy vs anti-glare extensively and make my choice then.

But honestly, this debate is akin to "is red is better than blue" or "is blue is better than red!" - people will like either glossy or anti-glare based on their personal preference. If you are buying a laptop you should realize you will spend a lot of hours using it and should audition a few to determine which you actually like personally (not based on some people's online recommendations, when you have no idea which screen they have, have seen, useage habits, eyesight, typical useage conditions, etc).

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Again, you're not going to change anyone's behavior by anything you say in this or any other thread. People post misinformation all the time. They're not going to stop because of something said in this thread.

I think if they want to do the right thing, they will see that full disclosure is the correct thing to do.

I believe people are generally good and will do the right thing, given the opportunity to do so. I am all about positive energy.

 

[johnnj]

But honestly, this debate is akin to "is red is better than blue" or "is blue is better than red!"

Blue is better than red because more red cars get pulled over than blue ones. That's why my cars are black. They are also BMWs. My dad didn't say jack to me about getting them, nor about the previous five. My wife is beautiful and we drive around together and apart and are very happy. When I'm alone I can drive faster. We are happy.

Today in NYC it is drizzling. Some might say it's raining and some might say it's misting. They are wrong. The sound method of determining if it's drizzling is to walk down to the Best Buy and then walk back. If someone says it's not drizzling they have not walked to Best Buy. They are lying because they want it to be raining so that people open their umbrellas and show their support of the raining people.

It is our responsibility to tell people how to pick drizzling or raining because otherwise they will be uninformed and pick raining without knowing the facts and without using technical logic terminology.

I also talked to a photographer once and he said that he prefers it to be drizzling because he can carry any camera he wants as long as he's careful. If it's raining, then he has to carry his 1DsMkII w/ 70-200L mk2 and that it's too heavy, but weathersealed.

___
Ok, so the above babble has about as much merit and relevance as the general idea behind this thread. Can we just all stop and let it die? I know it's hard because I'm having a good time and all, but I really need to get back to work and this is too distracting.

 

[GGJstudios]

I think if they want to do the right thing, they will see that full disclosure is the correct thing to do.

I believe people are generally good and will do the right thing, given the opportunity to do so. I am all about positive energy.

If you want to do the right thing, you'll admit that this thread is a biased, thiny-veiled pro-glossy thread, as evidenced by your claims of opinion as fact in your original post:

THE SOUND APPROACH:

GLOSSY
Pros: Enjoyable vibrant beautiful screen in it's true form.
Cons: More Reflective

ANTI-GLARE
Pros: Reduces Glare
Cons: Reduces vibrancy and looks duller.

"THE SOUND APPROACH" is only your opinion.
"Enjoyable vibrant beautiful screen" is only your opinion.
"... in it's true form." What does that even mean?
"Reduces vibrancy and looks duller." is only your opinion.

These are subjective statements, not objective. It's clear you prefer glossy and dislike the arguments presented by those who prefer antiglare. This is just another glossy/antiglare thread, like all the others, and your post is just as biased as those you criticize.

 

[Loops]

The color argument is irrelevant since with a glossy screen you will often have so many reflections you won't be able to see its nicer colors.

But in a completely dark room the glossy screen is no doubt awesome.

Don't forget the eyestrain headache. I can't use glossy. I bought a Lenovo netbook and put OS X on it and I have vision problems when I use it because of the glare. I have mild epilepsy but the eyestrain will actually cause me to go into partial seizure. It's no laughing matter. I can work all day long on my Macbook Pro with the non-glare screen -- no issues.

The machine was supposed to be anti-glare but Lenovo deceptively changed the specs of the machine (to be less expensive to produce) without changing its name. So all the reviews praised the matte screen and the machine I received wasn't matte. The company refused to allow me to return it because it "wasn't defective".

 

[Bobby Corwen]

If you want to do the right thing, you'll admit that this thread is a biased, thiny-veiled pro-glossy thread, as evidenced by your claims of opinion as fact in your original post:

"THE SOUND APPROACH" is only your opinion.
"Enjoyable vibrant beautiful screen" is only your opinion.
"... in it's true form." What does that even mean?
"Reduces vibrancy and looks duller." is only your opinion.

These are subjective statements, not objective. It's clear you prefer glossy and dislike the arguments presented by those who prefer antiglare. This is just another glossy/antiglare thread, like all the others, and your post is just as biased as those you criticize.

Dude, I've seeen them. The AG is washed out.

 

[GGJstudios]

Dude, I've seeen them. The AG is washed out.

Again, your opinion.

 

[squeakr]

the machine I received wasn't matte. The company refused to allow me to return it because it "wasn't defective".

That's because the glossy is better!!!

 

[squeakr]

Dude, I've seeen them. The AG is washed out.

So which is it, duller or washed out? They are two totally different things. We want the "truth" in disclosure.

 

[Loops]

That's because the glossy is better!!!

Yes, when I want to give someone eyestrain I suggest they use a glossy screen. I tell them all about the more vibrant colors. It's a good revenge tactic.

 

[johnnj]

Anti-glare is better because you can make the colors more vibrant by consuming certain controlled substances.

You cannot make a glossy display have less glare using the same means.

Anti-glare wins again.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Again, your opinion.

Yeah but my opinion holds weight because I know for a fact I am a sound critical thinker. I went to years of college, was raised in the internet generation and I know for a fact my vision is clear. I am a man of science and worldly perspective. I know for a fact I am who I am.

And I know what I saw.

And others agree with me.

Now some don't, and I have to ask myself why they see something different than us, and the conclusion is the whole life outlook psychology I presented above which leads me to understand that their reasoning is biased and its not that they don't see the difference, its that they don't even think in those terms. They don't even have the capacity to appreciate the details I am appreciating so since they're logic is tainted, they are giving out misleading/incomplete information.

FACT.

 

[johnnj]

Yeah but my opinion holds weight because I know for a fact I am a sound critical thinker. I went to years of college, was raised in the internet generation and I know for a fact my vision is clear. I am a man of science and worldly perspective. I know for a fact I am who I am.

And I know what I saw.

And others agree with me.

Now some don't, and I have to ask myself why they see something different than us, and the conclusion is the whole life outlook psychology I presented above which leads me to understand that their reasoning is biased and its not that they don't see the difference, its that they don't even think in those terms. They don't even have the capacity to appreciate the details I am appreciating so since they're logic is tainted, they are giving out misleading/incomplete information.

FACT.

I saw one eat a rockin' chair once.

 

[GGJstudios]

Yeah but my opinion holds weight because I know for a fact I am a sound critical thinker.

Your opinion is exactly that: an opinion. It carries exactly zero weight with me or with anyone who uses common sense in choosing a screen. Personal observation is the only sensible method for choosing a screen. There are those who have more education, more experience, more technical prowess and more logical thinking than you who may prefer antiglare. Your thinking isn't that sound if you honestly believe you can reduce a personal preference to a black and white fact that applies to everyone.

All you really have to offer is one opinion. Some will agree with it; some won't. Historically, these glossy/antiglare arguments turn out to be roughly 50/50. There is no clear winner. You're rehashing the same old stuff said in hundreds of these threads. You haven't offered anything new.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Anti-glare is better because you can make the colors more vibrant by consuming certain controlled substances.

You cannot make a glossy display have less glare using the same means.

Anti-glare wins again.

Shouldnt you be working

 

[adrian1480]

this thread is absolutely horrible. does this forum have moderators?

jesus christ.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Your opinion is exactly that: an opinion. It carries exactly zero weight with me or with anyone who uses common sense in choosing a screen. Personal observation is the only sensible method for choosing a screen. There are those who have more education, more experience, more technical prowess and more logical thinking than you who may prefer antiglare. Your thinking isn't that sound if you honestly believe you can reduce a personal preference to a black and white fact that applies to everyone.

All you really have to offer is one opinion. Some will agree with it; some won't. Historically, these glossy/antiglare arguments turn out to be roughly 50/50. There is no clear winner. You're rehashing the same old stuff said in hundreds of these threads. You haven't offered anything new.

Let me ask you, do you have Glossy or AG?

Its not 50/50 because by default more people have Glossy since its standard. Thats why its ridiculous how hardcore AG fans try to rep it online here (which is not a representation of the greater whole) and instead of seeing more pro-glossy posters, you see more pro-AG posters which is an indicator of that same previously referenced hidden agenda.