Daisy-chaining has to work for audio or I'm out the question as a customer.
I've got a 800 HD and a 400 audio interface that better work.
I've got a 800 HD and a 400 audio interface that better work.
I suspect Photoshop for Mac sales to seriously tail off over the next couple of years. Apple just killed any reason for photo or graphics studios to choose the Mac over Windows.A lot of photographers aren't going to like this.
check out the glare on the images that gizmodo took. I would never buy a notebook that had glare like this. On the new macbook, the glare is more dominant than the actual screen image. That just stinks. www.gizmodo.com
I agree; I hate my glossy display. I don't like the reflections it gives under certain lighting conditions.
I suspect Photoshop for Mac sales to seriously tail off over the next couple of years. Apple just killed any reason for photo or graphics studios to choose the Mac over Windows...
Photographers in the field would most likely disagree.That's some funny stuff right there. Studios buy desktops and external displays. in fact, if you are at all serious about photography, design and web you have an external display; problem solved.
Glossy isn't going to change anything.
Photographers in the field would most likely disagree.
That's some funny stuff right there. Studios buy desktops and external displays. in fact, if you are at all serious about photography, design and web you have an external display; problem solved.
Glossy isn't going to change anything.
You mean like the new 24" Apple display, oh yeah right whoops glossy too.
I'm happy that I don't have to see 50 posts per day about which is better.
Ill just be glad to see no more 'matte' Ahem!!!!!
it's matt folks![]()
lacking or deprived of luster or gloss
not reflecting light; not glossy
If you had a matte screen, you WOULD be able to see them!
p.s. if you think this is the end of the matte v glossy threads, I think you're quite mistaken!