How many actually have the hi res screen?

will be getting the hi res glossy in about a week.

i like the glossy over the matte because of the sheet of glass. its easy to clean and its idiot proof for friends that like to poke screens. also i like the vibrant colors.

the matte is really nice but like i said its a little more risky and harder to clean. if i was a gfx artist id get the matte, but i produce music and the vivid screen is welcome

 

I got the Hi-Res Glossy and there is no way I would EVER EVER EVER get the glossy screen again.

It is terribly, it gets dirtier, etc.

Pass on it, you will be glad you did.

Also, DEFINITELY get the high res display. It makes the computer twice as usable.

 

meh i was kinda set on the glossy. and dont really have the extra dough for the matte...im already getting the top of the line 15" and upgrading my ram and doing a SSD + HDD in the optibay.

 

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I primarily use an external monitor, but have hi res antiglare. Can't imagine not having it. All screens should be high res IMO.

 

Do you need it? Probably not, although it's nice to have. If you do all of your work on an external monitor then I wouldn't see it as a necessity. If you don't feel cramped on your current machine then go with the standard display. Personally, I went for the Hi-Res as the extra pixels are nice to have and I don't work on an external monitor but it's your call.

Here's an image that shows the difference between the two, it's nothing that major:

 

Glad to be of help.

 

idk i find it to be quite noticeable when you have like a lot of plugins open on a DAW or something. or if your trying to use the browser and write something in a doc at the same time its nice to be able to fit them both etc..

its 30% more screen basically, just looks smaller around all 4 sides. move that white image all the way to the bottom corner of the black image and it will look a lot more noticeable.

 

In use, it makes a huge difference.

 

Hi Res glossy here. I really like it. Granted if you are using it outdoors or even in an office with lots of overheard lights then it WILL reflect .

 

1440x900 glossy, here.

I was going to get the 1680x1050 glossy, but... unfortunately, the Apple Store didn't stock those. Not a huge loss, really - 1440x900 is still an upgrade over 1024x768!

(Sure, I could've ordered online, but I much prefer to pick up such things in person. Besides, living close to Delaware, I just drove down there and got the machine instead - no sales tax is great.)

 

17" Hi-Res Anti-Glare

In the past I have always had glossy because that was all the Apple Stores stocked in my area.

For my last purchase they had the Anti-Glare and it took some getting used to.

I like it.
----------

I think if you were looking at two image files, one at full resolution and the other cropped to the lower resolution the difference would seem greater than it does by looking at a white block imposed over a black block.

When working with image files I am at full resolution, yet sometimes when working with larger text documents I kick the resolution down a notch or search for my reading glasses!
-----------

Hey that is where I got my 17" Hi-Res Anti-Glare.

When I was there in June they had 15" Hi-Res Anti-glare but I wanted the 17" so I left with that.

I travel up from Maryland and yeah .... saving that tax money is cool.

Gave me $150.00 to lose at the Race Track/Casino!

 

For much of the work I do I could not trust the HR Matte display. The colors are always slightly off, like you are wearing sunglasses at the world all the time...

As for it getting dirty, how would one display get any more/less dirty than the other. I have found the glass on mine to be very easy to clean.

Finally, I think people should be wary of your advice since you said you edited your post for spelling but left this in: "It is terribly"

 

No clue why people that ask this question not simply try it out.
If you have a 15" screen you can test it very easily.

A bunch of Windows (Opera Window, Word at 130% zoom, ical) at native 1680x1050 resolution. I scaled it down to get 1440x900. All you need to do is display it full screen. A bit fuzzy but exactly the same proportions it would have.
Screen_shot_2011-11-25_at_14.27.50.png:
And here is the very same Windows on a 1440x900 Resolution. I simple set it lower made a screenshot and set it back to normal. If I would actually run that res I would shrink the preview tab bar and loose sharpness. One cannot see it in the pictures but they are at the native 1680x1050 setting quite sharp.
Screen_shot_2011-11-25_at_14.31.54.png:

 

it may get dirtier, but it's much easier to clean than a matte screen. or at least, that's my experience. (I have a glossy right now and I love it, although mine is 17" so i can't speak about resolution differences)

 

I had a glossy 2008 MBP, and now have a hi-res anti-glare 2011 MBP. If you're used to the normal resolution and you don't find that you're feeling cramped, that's fine. After switching to the hi-res screen (passed my 2008 MBP on to hubby), going back to the normal one is...unpleasant, I guess would be the best word for it. Everything feels way too big and it's much harder to have all the windows open that I want. But if you don't feel like you need it, then don't spend the money on it.

As for glossy or anti-glare, it really is personal preference. I got sick of always having to adjust my screen depending on where the lighting source in the room was. And fingerprints show up MUCH better on the glossy screen than the anti-glare, so yes, you have to clean the glossy screen more often. I'm much happier with the anti-glare, but everyone has different preferences and needs.

 

Funny, I have always been under the impression from graphical design/photographer folks the matte display is a lot more consistent.

While technically correct, you missed the point. Two displays in exactly the same situation would get the same dirt on them, but the matte screen would show it a lot less.

You think people should be wary of my advice because I hastily wrote (then hastily corrected) as post on MacRumors? Okay. You're entitled to your opinion.

While we're giving our opinions, I think people should be wary of your "advice" since you appear to have commented simply to incite an argument.

I see what you are saying, but I think matte displays are about as easy to clean as glossy ones, the only different (with the MBP) being that the display is covered by something hard and thus less delicate.

I think that argument is mostly irrelevant however, because you shouldn't be using enough force to damage the display while cleaning it anyway.

The bottom line: I have both displays (High Res Matte and High Res Glossy) and I would never purchase the glossy one again. I would ALWAYS get the high res option.

 

i do professional photo stuff on my macbook pro and really love the hi-res glossy (I have a 17). yes it reflects and for those who can't stand that, they should get the matte (I had one and returned it). i just like the way my pictures look on the hi-res glossy screen and find i can lock in the detail more, but I am in the minority of photo types who usually want matte. also, glossy allows me to critically judge sharpness--i tended to slightly over sharpen on a matte.

on the 15" model (we have a few) i find the hi-res screens (glossy or matte) gives you more information to edit your images than the standard res one. so if you do image work, the hi-res wins.

 

Great info, from someone who does it professionally.

 

This might sound like a dumb question, but is the hi-res anti glare/glossy suitable for individuals who are short-sighted and wear glasses. My eyesight isn't the best , so I just want to know whether the standard glossy will suit my needs as opposed to the hi-res anti glare/glossy.

Thanx in advance

 

Standard res has 1296000 pixels. hi-res has 1764000 pixels. So you're talking an extra 468,000 pixels on the hi-res screen, which is quite a difference.