I have an older 17" anti-glare MBP and the new uMBP 15. The screens are the same matte finish. The 15" antiglare is a true matte screen. It does not have a glass surface, and even has the aluminum surround, rather than the black one of the glass screens.Is it a true "matte" option or is it just an anti-glare coating? There is a big difference. Did anyone have an old matte MBP and a new unibody "anti-glare" to compare it to?
As off today (55/(70+55))x100=44% of people have been somewhat unhappy over the glossy screens.
That is a damning indictment against Apple.
As off today (55/(70+55))x100=44% of people have been somewhat unhappy over the glossy screens.
That is a damning indictment against Apple.
In that case I read the latest results as having 57.58% of the population in favour of Glossy. This 3.8 Billion potential customers, therefore great business sense.
Or they could offer both with a slight premium for the less popular model... oh, wait.
Don't be stupid. 3.8 billion people do not have access to the finance to purchase.
I therefore repeat that this is a damning indictment against Apple.
Hang on....
Quote:
Originally Posted by shambo
Whilst upon ordering having my initial doubts about reflections and lighting I now firmly believe that Glossy > Matte. There is absolutely NO comparison.
End of
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/742031/