MacBook Pro Speed Bump

[zync]

So, two things have been cleared up by your post.

One: Obsolete, as an adjective (which is how it is being used here and really is the only way it is used in modern speech) does not mean "no longer produced or made". Your post offers no evidence that the adjective carries this meaning.

Two: The arcane verb "to obsolete (something)" has the once-used *tertiary* meaning of "to cease production", though this is "former" and now obsolete usage.

So, to get it straight. You jumped down all these peoples throats because they did not consider an archaic verbal form of a word which is being used here as an adjective and for which they very much in their rights uphold the STANDARD DEFINITION AND MODERN USAGE. I just don't get it.

Did you look at the image? The modern form of the verb means technology that has replaced another technology. I jumped down no one's throat but the person who originally asked if the guy's MBP was no longer functioning.

I have explained how the current verbal form applies to the adjective as something cannot obsolete something else with out the thing being obsoleted becoming obsolete! I'll give you a minute for that one but trust me it works...

Nothing was archaic, and nothing was incorrect. Sorry. Do me a favor, pull up the dictionary included in OSX—a variant of Oxford English Dictionary—and look for yourself what the present form of obsolete is as a transitive verb, I mean even look at the stupid sentence that uses it.

I guess in the future if I don't feel like explaining for four pages why OBSOLETE does not mean BROKEN, I'll just keep it to myself. More than one of you have called me out because I was trying to explain the above. How about this: if anyone can prove to me, that my original argument, replicated below in bold so that there is no confusion, is false, I will shut the hell up right now.

ORIGINAL ARGUMENT:

Obsolete does not imply that the object considered to be obsolete no longer functions.

 

[Doctor Q]

Note from the moderator: Any further posts about language usage rather than the topic at hand will be deleted.

 

[zync]

Sounds good Doctor Q, I don't think we would change our minds anyway. This is a good way to end it, and I hope there are no hard feelings. I hate arguing with people over stupid stuff, but once it starts I can't stop myself.

Back on topic, I would hope that these new glossy screens, which always look like crap—unless you're looking at them in the dark—will not become standard on the MBP. I highly doubt they would. I'm sure many, many designers would refuse to buy such an item with such a "feature."

 

[matticus008]

Back on topic, I would hope that these new glossy screens, which always look like crap—unless you're looking at them in the dark—will not become standard on the MBP. I highly doubt they would. I'm sure many, many designers would refuse to buy such an item with such a "feature."

Actually, they look far better in direct sunlight than PowerBooks and most people have no trouble using them indoors. They are reflective and distracting from oblique angles, but using them isn't a problem. I'm not sure why you'd single out designers as objecting to them--higher clarity and brighter screens actually seem like exactly what designers have been wanting.

It's like your windshield. They can blind you in passing cars, but as long as you're looking straight through it, there's almost never an issue.

 

[zync]

Actually, they look far better in direct sunlight than PowerBooks and most people have no trouble using them indoors. They are reflective and distracting from oblique angles, but using them isn't a problem. I'm not sure why you'd single out designers as objecting to them--higher clarity and brighter screens actually seem like exactly what designers have been wanting.

It's like your windshield. They can blind you in passing cars, but as long as you're looking straight through it, there's almost never an issue.

If they're using them only in a studio, then sure. I haven't used one in sunlight, but I've used my friend's with a light source near me and it was unbearable. I think it's because you can only really look directly through a small area of the display at a time. Even with his small 10" screen I couldn't see it all without glare. I can only imagine how they'll work with such a bright light source as the sun. And yes, you are correct. My PowerBook sucks in direct sunlight, however I think even with a brighter, glossy screen it will still be terrible in direct sunlight—either that or blind you Nothing has enough lumens (at least for screen backlighting) to overpower the sun. To be able to be bright enough it'd have to be almost as bright as the sun.

It would be pretty cool if Apple developed some sort of strict B&W or small latitude grayscale, like 8 bit or something, for when the light sensors detect sunlight-like levels of light. I don't know about you, but my cell phone—which is glossy—is also hard to see in direct sunlight, but when the display fades to the clock I can see it easily because it's only in two colors. It might work better in direct sunlight. If you set system preferences>universal access>display to white on black and grayscale it might work better, but less shades of gray would be needed.

 

[matticus008]

Nothing has enough lumens (at least for screen backlighting) to overpower the sun. To be able to be bright enough it'd have to be almost as bright as the sun.

Maybe a halogen worklight as a backlight could do the trick .

It would be pretty cool if Apple developed some sort of strict B&W or small latitude grayscale, like 8 bit or something, for when the light sensors detect sunlight-like levels of light.

I've never thought to check, but give this a shot next time you see the sun. Go to Universal Access and tick the "use grayscale" box. There used to be a keyboard shortcut for this, but apparently "invert screen" is the only one with a keyboard shortcut now. I'm not sure if it'd help, but it's worth a shot to test your theory.

 

[zync]

Maybe a halogen worklight as a backlight could do the trick .

I mean things that could fit in the case Maybe a portable fission reactor?

I've never thought to check, but give this a shot next time you see the sun. Go to Universal Access and tick the "use grayscale" box. There used to be a keyboard shortcut for this, but apparently "invert screen" is the only one with a keyboard shortcut now. I'm not sure if it'd help, but it's worth a shot to test your theory.

I said that, lol. I think the shortcut used to be like ctrl+shift+F8 or something. Oops, it's all three modifier keys (other than shift) and 8. That used to invert and go to grayscale, now it just inverts the colors as you said.

Anyway, the next time I'm outside I'll try this and report back.

Actually, as another helpful tip for digital photographers, if you want a rough idea at what a grayscale conversion on a bunch of images will look like, harvest the power of Quartz via the same universal access menu mentioned before and check use grayscale.

 

[matticus008]

I mean things that could fit in the case Maybe a portable fission reactor?

With the screen turned off, I can see the Apple logo through the backside if there's a bright light behind the screen, so maybe they can just take it a step further and use the sun as a backlight. Honestly though, I can use my PocketPC cell phone in direct sunlight (and it has a glossy screen) on less than full brightness, and I can use a Dell M140 in direct sunlight as well. I can't with my PowerBook or with my old circa 2002 Latitude which don't have glossy screens. The M140 works great indoors in all lighting situations except with a point source beside my shoulder, but I don't work in that situation well...the bright light is too distracting right in my periphery.

I said that, lol. I think the shortcut used to be like ctrl+shift+F8 or something. Oops, it's all three modifier keys (other than shift) and 8. That used to invert and go to grayscale, now it just inverts the colors as you said.

Oops, you're right! I don't know how I missed that.

 

[zync]

With the screen turned off, I can see the Apple logo through the backside if there's a bright light behind the screen, so maybe they can just take it a step further and use the sun as a backlight.

That's exactly the lines I was thinking along. Actually if I'm bored I'll turn the light on my desk on and dim my display to see stuff through it. It's pretty cool. I might've even taken a picture of it actually.

Oops, you're right! I don't know how I missed that.

Probably because I didn't accentuate it and there's not enough leading in the text on macrumors.

 

[absurdio]

I'm not sure why you'd single out designers as objecting to them--higher clarity and brighter screens actually seem like exactly what designers have been wanting.

Well, I've already made up my mind against the glossy screens, so I'm not unbiased here, but this quote (fromhttp://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html) sortof confirms the idea that designers probably prefer the anti-glare finish:

"Finishing coat
MacBook Pro offers an antiglare coated widescreen display that’s perfect for color-minded professionals. For a more immersive viewing experience, you can configure MacBook Pro with a glossy finish. This gives everything you see a richer, more saturated feel."

On the other hand, it's not clear to me why "a more immersive viewing experience" would be less "perfect for color-minded professionals." My suspicion, though, is that "more immersive" is just the plus side of the coin; the flip side is "permanently riddled with glare."

I'm gonna second the Ars sentiment: "So, what's the big deal? Consider some synonyms for the word 'glossy.' Gleaming. Shiny. Reflective. Now you're getting it." (http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/5/16/4004)

 

[aristobrat]

Well, I've already made up my mind against the glossy screens

Out of curiosity, have you used a MacBook?

 

[matticus008]

My suspicion, though, is that "more immersive" is just the plus side of the coin; the flip side is "permanently riddled with glare."

But that's simply not true. It's not permanently riddled with glare any more than your windows are.

The only real disadvantage is that because of the "richer" viewing experience, it's harder to match screen colors with printed colors, just as printing on gloss paper requires some color tweaking. But design professionals can easily handle this. Designers, like everyone else, will have differing opinions on whether they like it or not, but suitability isn't really the problem it's made out to be.

 

[absurdio]

Out of curiosity, have you used a MacBook?

Well, they've been released for about three days... so no, I'm afraid I haven't.
But my distrust of glossy screens isn't completely arbitrary. The Ars article I referenced in my last post (http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/5/16/4004) offers some pretty telling pictures. There are others, of course, too. http://looprumors.com/macbookphotos.php has a couple. Even these aren't glare-free: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1748 .

And, as plenty of people before me have pointed out, there are any number of PC laptops that've had glossy screens for quite a while. I have seen those, and I have seen the glare that can come with them.

On the other hand, there are plenty of pictures of MacBooks that don't seem especially glare-y, too. (http://domojo.com/macbook/MacBook%20Photos.html, for example).

But the alternative to the glossy screen is what Apple calls "an antiglare coated widescreen" (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html). Why would it be called "anti-glare" if there weren't glare to be concerned about? And why would the antiglare finish be "perfect for color-minded professionals" if those color-minded professionals didn't have a vested interest in avoiding glare?

Apple also says "Choose the glossy widescreen display to make your graphics, photos, and videos appear with richer color and deeper blacks - great for watching DVD movies." The first part sounds great. Who wouldn't want richer coller and deeper blacks? The part that worries me is the "great for watching DVD movies." Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but that, to me, suggests that the glossy screen will work a lot like your TV screen: colors will look good, but if the lighting isn't right, you'll have serious glare to avoid. That's less of a problem with the TV, too, I think, since you can, conceivably, position a TV somewhere (once and for good) where it's not so susceptible to glare. But laptops are inherently more portable than TVs, and they generally wind up being used in more diverse lighting conditions, not all perfect. That's not to say that you can't find a good enough lighting situation to minimize glare, but I worry that when/if I'm taking my laptop from my couch to my desk to class and to the library, finding the ideal lighting conditions isn't always going to be easy. That's where the antiglare finish shines (so to speak).

So I don't mean to suggest that all MacBooks will have glare on them all the time (Matticus, you're right, I was probably wrong in saying "permanently riddled with glare." If anything, I should have said "permanently, though not consistently, plagued by glare and/or the threat of glare"). But I think people's apprehension regarding the glossy screens is well-founded. If the next incarnation of MBPs has no anti-glare option, it probably won't be a deal-breaker for me (since the alternatives are PC laptops, too many of which have the same glossy finish...and which suffer the additional disadvantage of being PCs), but I will be disappointed.

But that's simply not true. It's not permanently riddled with glare any more than your windows are.

Again, probably right. But windows do have glare on them in less-than-ideal lighting conditions. You won't have glare on your MacBook all the time, but it is a problem you're going to have to deal with (as the pictures I linked to illustrate).

Don't let me stop anyone from getting a glossy screen, but I think I'm justified in having my doubts about them.

 

[zync]

But that's simply not true. It's not permanently riddled with glare any more than your windows are.

The only real disadvantage is that because of the "richer" viewing experience, it's harder to match screen colors with printed colors, just as printing on gloss paper requires some color tweaking. But design professionals can easily handle this. Designers, like everyone else, will have differing opinions on whether they like it or not, but suitability isn't really the problem it's made out to be.

Well, as a designer, I for one will never buy one I like being able to see my screen from all angles. I'm mostly a web designer, although I do print design as well. I also do A LOT of video work.

If I were working on a MacBook right now—which I wouldn't be anyway because of the integrated graphics—I'd be seeing the TV instead of the right side of my screen—then again I did always want picture in picture wireless TV on my PowerBook

BTW, as an aside, some windows have anti-glare coatings

 

[matticus008]

Well, as a designer, I for one will never buy one I like being able to see my screen from all angles.

Then the viewing angle of the PowerBook would be equally inferior and useless, and I say that being an owner of two PowerBooks. So if that's just cause not to buy the glossy screen, then it's also just cause not to buy ANY portable Mac.

 

[zync]

Then the viewing angle of the PowerBook would be equally inferior and useless, and I say that being an owner of two PowerBooks. So if that's just cause not to buy the glossy screen, then it's also just cause not to buy ANY portable Mac.

I have quite a large viewing angle on mine. I didn't mean at exactly 180 degrees or something. I meant that with a glossy screen you can stare straight at it and pretty much only see what you're blocking if a light is behind you, and what you're not blocking if you're wearing white. Also, I can recline in my chair and still see all of my screen whereas a MB would give me glare. It's kind of like how eyes work, you can really only focus on 3-9% acutely. When reading on a glossy screen that might be ok if you move your head, but if you're looking at an image, it's not going to go well unless you're in the dark.

And again, I have used a glossy-screened laptop.

 

[absurdio]

Y'know, it's six A.M., I'm having some Frosted Mini Wheats, the sunlight is coming in the windows behind me...and y'know what i keep struggling to avoid perceptible amounts of? glare. Now this is on my non-glossy, glare-reduction 3 years old Tibook screen. The glare is not very serious. My god, if i were stuck with a glare-y screen right now, though, i would throw my computer out the windos.

Down with glare, down with gloss.

 

[zync]

Y'know, it's six A.M., I'm having some Frosted Mini Wheats, the sunlight is coming in the windows behind me...and y'know what i keep struggling to avoid perceptible amounts of? glare. Now this is on my non-glossy, glare-reduction 3 years old Tibook screen. The glare is not very serious. My god, if i were stuck with a glare-y screen right now, though, i would throw my computer out the windos.

Down with glare, down with gloss.

Haha! At least you're not smoking a bong full of fruit loops like George Carlin

 

[matticus008]

I have quite a large viewing angle on mine.

There's terrible color accuracy if you move more than about 30˚ on the PowerBooks. When working on anything, you have to adjust the display so it's head on. And just as an above poster noted, a bright light on the matte screen produces a glare (a washed out image in sunlight).

Also, I can recline in my chair and still see all of my screen whereas a MB would give me glare. It's kind of like how eyes work, you can really only focus on 3-9% acutely. When reading on a glossy screen that might be ok if you move your head, but if you're looking at an image, it's not going to go well unless you're in the dark.

Then adjust the screen to the proper angle from your new position. Unless you don't care about contrast and color, you have to do this with a PowerBook, too. This "in the dark" nonsense is just downright silly. Unless you have a light directly overhead or adjacent to the screen, there's not going to be glare interfering with your work. You might have to make a few adjustments, but come on.

 

[JurgenWigg]

Another thought:
How likely is it that Apple will even do a significant revision/overhaul of the MBP when Merom comes out?

Long-time reader, first time poster, soon to be college student.

From what I've been reading, it seems pretty likely that there will be some serious asthetic changes to the MBP with Merom. Yonah seems to be a beta chip - not even a 64 bit processor, while Merom is the real deal. This may have just been to allow Apple (and users) a "smoother" transition from IBM/Motorola to Intel - keeping the same old look and changing the inside. Now that the transition has been established, Apple might go for a more distinctive look to separate the MBP from past computers. Does anyone know anything else?

I really hope that they don't make glossy standard on the MBPs. I'm working some long hours to get one this fall, and I'm hoping that the Merom MBPs will be out in time...

 

[trevorden]

Glossy Screen is Great

Glossy screen's are great for designers, and EASIER to see outside as far as I am concerned.

I have used them for a few years now and will buy nothing else. The reflection isn't so bad, and since the Mac Book Pro is brighter then ever before, it is barely noticable.

This is just my opinion, but I have been running a Design business here in South NJ for several years, and thats all my employees and I want to use. They take their notebooks out in the field to local business's all the time and have very few issues. Now that they have a Mac Book Pro, they have little or NO issues!

Mac really did something great with their glossy screen. I don't know what it is exactly...but it works better then any other glossy screen.

 

[absurdio]

Another thought:
How likely is it that Apple will even do a significant revision/overhaul of the MBP when Merom comes out?

Long-time reader, first time poster, soon to be college student.

From what I've been reading, it seems pretty likely that there will be some serious asthetic changes to the MBP with Merom. Yonah seems to be a beta chip - not even a 64 bit processor, while Merom is the real deal. This may have just been to allow Apple (and users) a "smoother" transition from IBM/Motorola to Intel - keeping the same old look and changing the inside. Now that the transition has been established, Apple might go for a more distinctive look to separate the MBP from past computers. Does anyone know anything else?

I really hope that they don't make glossy standard on the MBPs. I'm working some long hours to get one this fall, and I'm hoping that the Merom MBPs will be out in time...

Yeah. I hope you're right on both accounts. Revisions: good. Mandatroy glossy screen: bad. But I wouldn't mind seeing the MacBook's magnetic "latch" and new keyboard appear in the Merom MBPs. Along with what seem like some pretty essential cooling/whine/screen-blotchiness improvemnets. I know a lot of people don't like the new MB keyboards, but i love how they just look so integrated now. By comparisson, the one-piece MBP keyboard (backlit or not) just looks sortof cheap. I hope they come up with a way to make a MB-style keyboard backlit (though that seems sortof impossible).

 

[absurdio]

Haha! At least you're not smoking a bong full of fruit loops like George Carlin

Ah, if only I weren't out froot loops. *sigh*

 

[absurdio]

And just as an above poster noted, a bright light on the matte screen produces a glare (a washed out image in sunlight).

Y'know, I was afraid someone was gonna try to turn this argument around. The point was not "all computers have glare, anyway, so you might as well get the glossy screen." On the contrary, the point was that the minimal amount of glare that persists even on an anti-glare finish is still irritating enough that I don't even want to consider working on anything without
an anti-glare finish.

 

[matticus008]

Y'know, I was afraid someone was gonna try to turn this argument around. The point was not "all computers have glare, anyway, so you might as well get the glossy screen." On the contrary, the point was that the minimal amount of glare that persists even on an anti-glare finish is still irritating enough that I don't even want to consider working on anything without
an anti-glare finish.

Actually, the point was that's it's annoying to use ANY computer or even read a magazine with the sun beating right down on it. A sensible person would move so s/he could see. So in other words, you have to adjust any computer for optimum viewing, so it's not like you suddenly have to move four inches and you've never had to before.

If you were facing the other way and the sun were beating directly into your eyes, would you still sit there? Sitting with the screen in direct sunlight doesn't make much more sense.