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.
Does anyone regret getting a Matte screen?
- Thread starter slapple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If that happens it will disappoint a LOT of people who prefer larger fonts and readability for text ... just look at all the complaints online already about the hi-screens.
If that was the case we would never have the resolutions we have now, my first monitor was 640 x 480. Eventually people will adjust.
To small fonts? No. People will not adjust nor will their eyes.
The ability to easily adjust ALL font sizes throughout the system is going to have to accompany these high resolution screens.
It's a fact there is a percentage of people who don't like them. Look at the people here in this forums who are returning the hi-res MBP's.
Google the Sony Z and read in the forums and you'll see complaints that the font size is too small and they don't resize well either.
A better solution to satisfy everyone is needed asap.
Absolutely right guys. I am a home theater nerd and have learned that the shadow detail of an image is largely lost when an HDTV's display,usually an LCD, if set on "stun" as is usually the case with display models on the floor at Best Buy, etc. That's why I bought a Pioneer Kuro Plasma a couple of years ago. The difference is subtle but it's marked when you learn to appreciate the rendition of shadow details in dark scenes. I believe a matte display does this far better than a glossy one does but readily concede that it's a matter of personal preference.Gotta agree with Kadman here.
Throwing more fuel to the fire maybe... It's similar to comparing a high end Panasonic Vierra Plasma big screen TV to a Sharp Aquos ... because at first glance the Aquos will grab your attention with 'black blacks', deep colors and you immediately think 'wow, I like that'...
But, going deeper and comparing the Aquos LCD to the Vierra Plasma, especially if you compare them side by side you'll learn the Plasma has a much better, true to life, easier on the eyes picture. A good TV salesperson should direct your attention to compare the two if you're TV shopping.
I say it's similar to this AG versus Glossy discussion. It's personal preference first and foremost ... you do need to see them side by side to really know and decide what's best for you.
When I went from 640 x 480 up to 1280 x 854 it took some getting used to the smaller fonts and higher resolution. After a while my eyes adjusted just like they will again. The fact is that displays will continue to get better and have higher resolutions. You can either sit back and use your outdated displays or move forward.
Tough call...
My daughter just ordered a 15" Hi-RES MBP with Glossy screen for me. I've had a 12" Powerbook G4 for the last 5 years and it had a matte screen, which was just fine (great Mac, too!) My daughter has a MBP with the Glossy and I really had a hard time deciding which way to go. I decided on the glossy, because I always use my G4 in the basement family room and never go outside with it. I have played with hers and decided it will be just fine...but I understand why it's such a tough decision.
Now, I just have to wait for it to show!
My daughter just ordered a 15" Hi-RES MBP with Glossy screen for me. I've had a 12" Powerbook G4 for the last 5 years and it had a matte screen, which was just fine (great Mac, too!) My daughter has a MBP with the Glossy and I really had a hard time deciding which way to go. I decided on the glossy, because I always use my G4 in the basement family room and never go outside with it. I have played with hers and decided it will be just fine...but I understand why it's such a tough decision.
Now, I just have to wait for it to show!
Never thought I'd be in this boat, but I just exchanged my matte for a glossy.
Until I actually had one in my room and on my desk in front of me, I was a strong advocate of the matte screen (and still think they are a great option), but to me, it just looked a bit too outdated/tacky. Its amazing how much being inside an apple store can glorify the looks of things. It just didnt look as good at home.
Anyways, Im back to glossy now and I can truly appreciate this design once and for all. Apple really created something beautiful with it, despite the occasional glare. I'll just reposition myself.
Until I actually had one in my room and on my desk in front of me, I was a strong advocate of the matte screen (and still think they are a great option), but to me, it just looked a bit too outdated/tacky. Its amazing how much being inside an apple store can glorify the looks of things. It just didnt look as good at home.
Anyways, Im back to glossy now and I can truly appreciate this design once and for all. Apple really created something beautiful with it, despite the occasional glare. I'll just reposition myself.
So it sounds like you chose glossy mostly based on the look of the computer? I personally would base my decision on whether I can live with the reflection and glare. Apple could bring out the ugliest computer ever created but if I needed the benefit of matte I would choose matte...but maybe that's just me.
The glossy screen with an antiglare film will look like garbage, and the antiglare screen itself will look fantastic.
No, I'm not talking out of my ass. I know from personal experience.
Yep, my decision was partly aesthetic. Honestly, a good chunk of the apple appeal, no matter what you use their products for, is the beautiful design and aesthetic value. Every apple product I've owned from my first non unibody MBP I have pulled out and right away admired the look. No point in losing that when spending so much money on it.
I can adjust my lighting situations.
I received my new MacBook Pro last Tuesday. The high-res antiglare screen is perfect in my opinion.
I guess that's were we are different. I actually don't like the design of some Apple products but I'm interested in them anyway because of the function and benefit they give me. If my decision was based mostly on design then I would have not bought some Apple products.
I'm not denying that a lot of Apple users are into the aesthetic design of a product but I find it interesting that it's such a major factor in the buying decision. It reminds me of some women I know who wear very uncomfortable shoes but tolerate the pain because they think the shoes look good.
I have a last-gen MBP 15 inch with antiglare at home. At work I use a glass-fronted current iMac. The reflections on the iMac are absolutely awful* and they were a key decision in buying a matte MBP. I absolutely don't regret it.
If they remove matte screens altogether (it looks like they're heading that way with the new MPB price hike), I'm not buying another Mac (which is a shame, as I need one to do my job).
* I honestly don't believe that Jony Ives or Steve Jobs actually use their products. If they did, they wouldn't have let the the current range of iMacs out of the door. In some conditions my iMac is virtually unusable. And no, in an office it's not possible to move the strip lights or move my desk half way across the floor. I've got used to it, but it regularly gives me headaches and I've resigned myself to always having some part of the screen unusable. I work in a normal, average office.
It's all very well saying 'some people like it, some people hate it' (an online sales rep said that to me) but that attitude isn't really acceptable. If even 1/8 of your customers are not able to use your product without discomfort, surely that's something worth doing something about?
Rant over. Buy a matte without fear.
If they remove matte screens altogether (it looks like they're heading that way with the new MPB price hike), I'm not buying another Mac (which is a shame, as I need one to do my job).
* I honestly don't believe that Jony Ives or Steve Jobs actually use their products. If they did, they wouldn't have let the the current range of iMacs out of the door. In some conditions my iMac is virtually unusable. And no, in an office it's not possible to move the strip lights or move my desk half way across the floor. I've got used to it, but it regularly gives me headaches and I've resigned myself to always having some part of the screen unusable. I work in a normal, average office.
It's all very well saying 'some people like it, some people hate it' (an online sales rep said that to me) but that attitude isn't really acceptable. If even 1/8 of your customers are not able to use your product without discomfort, surely that's something worth doing something about?
Rant over. Buy a matte without fear.
That's interesting because I look at it completely from the opposite angle. While I do say that I first wanted a black border around the screen (I feel it can make things stand out a bit more particularly when watching video) I didn't want it to be gloss black. Having the gloss of the display and the gloss of the border (in my mind) makes it look like the $499 consumer grade notebooks from Compaq (HP still brands some consumer junk as Compaq), Toshiba, Asus, etc. All it needs is a few blue/purple LEDs to add that finishing touch, lol. The gloss just makes it look like cheap consumer crap.
The silver bezel on the matte display looks fine although I must say that that black gasket around the edge subtracts from what would be a nice clean bezel. That said, I'm MUCH more concerned about the display itself than the aesthetics of the bezel. In that category it's really not even a question. The matte display is superior in accuracy, contrast detail, and consistency across a wider range of lighting conditions.
What I'd like to add to the question is about durability?
Is the glass (glossy) going to protect the screen better in case of occasional bumps or scrapes? Or in a harder accident crack the glass only (which can be replaced easier)? I'm considering an AG for doing music with, but stuff happens on stage and moving lots of gear in a hurry, and I'd worry a lead, dropped PSU, or other bash on stage could be more damaging with the matte? Is this a valid concern? Thoughts?
Is the glass (glossy) going to protect the screen better in case of occasional bumps or scrapes? Or in a harder accident crack the glass only (which can be replaced easier)? I'm considering an AG for doing music with, but stuff happens on stage and moving lots of gear in a hurry, and I'd worry a lead, dropped PSU, or other bash on stage could be more damaging with the matte? Is this a valid concern? Thoughts?
I've spent the last couple of days in a conference room with windows (effectively glass walls) on 2 sides. Those of my colleagues using matte MBPs (of different ages) were fine anywhere in the room, and the recent 15" matte looked simply glorious - nicer than anything else in the room, Apple or otherwise.
There's no right or wrong in this - it's what works best for you.
I definitely did. I meant to buy glossy but through an error at the store I ended up with a matte version--it was the weekend that the 1st iPhone was released so Apple Stores were a complete disaster zone. I didn't realize my mistake until i was comparing my screen to my friend's computer and realized I had received the matte version, but at that point it was too late to do anything about it. My old computer screen was so awful that anything seemed glossy by comparison! Thankfully this will be fixed with my next MBP arriving shortly
Also wondering about this
I have loked at a bunch or reviews and photo comparisons, etc., for previous model late 2009 at a guess) MBP comparing glossy, factory original matt, matt conversions, and anti-glare film.
I got the impression from photos (which is nothing like seeing it in person) that the nicest looking option was a glossy screen with a good quality anti-glare film. The film both protected the screen and removed the glare. Looking at the pictures it appeared to me that the glossy with film was brighter than the true matt screen.
The other day I compared a glossy 15" MBP with a antiglare 17" (both 2009 models). I did not like the reflections. I did like the antiglare of the matt. BUT I did notice that the matt screen looked like it was dull. I kept wanting to turn up the brightness. But it was on max. I did have a window behind me, so perhaps it would have been different in darker lighting?
The previous weekend I was using a 17" MBP glossy for three days and it seemed very bright. I was in a darkish room though.
So my question is this:
Has anyone compared, or seen a comparison online, the factory matt compared to a glossy with a quality film on it?
Also, I read that the glass was added in part to make the super thin lid stronger and more rigid. If that is the case, does this mean that the AG screens are less rigid, given slight flex to the super thin lid?
Much thanks,
Jonathan
I have loked at a bunch or reviews and photo comparisons, etc., for previous model late 2009 at a guess) MBP comparing glossy, factory original matt, matt conversions, and anti-glare film.
I got the impression from photos (which is nothing like seeing it in person) that the nicest looking option was a glossy screen with a good quality anti-glare film. The film both protected the screen and removed the glare. Looking at the pictures it appeared to me that the glossy with film was brighter than the true matt screen.
The other day I compared a glossy 15" MBP with a antiglare 17" (both 2009 models). I did not like the reflections. I did like the antiglare of the matt. BUT I did notice that the matt screen looked like it was dull. I kept wanting to turn up the brightness. But it was on max. I did have a window behind me, so perhaps it would have been different in darker lighting?
The previous weekend I was using a 17" MBP glossy for three days and it seemed very bright. I was in a darkish room though.
So my question is this:
Has anyone compared, or seen a comparison online, the factory matt compared to a glossy with a quality film on it?
Also, I read that the glass was added in part to make the super thin lid stronger and more rigid. If that is the case, does this mean that the AG screens are less rigid, given slight flex to the super thin lid?
Much thanks,
Jonathan