MacBook Pro Speed Bump

[absurdio]

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.

Well, I hate to nit-pick, but since I was the one who raised the anecdote, I think that probably puts me in a better position to explain what the point of it was. But the problem with your argument is that there's degrees of glare. It's not simply glare or no-glare. The anti-glare screen I have can, as I said, in very poor conditions, be a bit reflective. But, as I also said, had I been in the same position with the glossy screen, life would have been unbearable. And the glare is easier to escape with the anti-glare screen. I mean if moving four inches is what makes all the difference with an anti-glare screen, you're going to have to move a lot further to find ideal conditions for a glossy screen.

This is likely a matter of opinion, anyway. As hundreds of people wiser than I have already said about the glossy screen: some are gonna love it, some are gonna hate it. I remain in the latter camp, at least until I see the MBs in person (not pictures of them, not PC glossy screens, and preferably not just in a CompUSA or AppleStore). So it goes.

 

[zync]

Well, I hate to nit-pick, but since I was the one who raised the anecdote, I think that probably puts me in a better position to explain what the point of it was. But the problem with your argument is that there's degrees of glare. It's not simply glare or no-glare. The anti-glare screen I have can, as I said, in very poor conditions, be a bit reflective. But, as I also said, had I been in the same position with the glossy screen, life would have been unbearable. And the glare is easier to escape with the anti-glare screen. I mean if moving four inches is what makes all the difference with an anti-glare screen, you're going to have to move a lot further to find ideal conditions for a glossy screen.

This is likely a matter of opinion, anyway. As hundreds of people wiser than I have already said about the glossy screen: some are gonna love it, some are gonna hate it. I remain in the latter camp, at least until I see the MBs in person (not pictures of them, not PC glossy screens, and preferably not just in a CompUSA or AppleStore). So it goes.

I agree. Apple may have somehow perfected the glossy screen, but I somehow doubt it. If they had, they'd surely not offer the option on MBPs, and they'd surely not call it a glossy screen. Glossy anything is always plagued by glare. The Apple Implementation could possibly be better, but as I believe all versions are just some variant of lexan placed over the screen I don't really think it's possible. Maybe if they used fluorite or some other material it might work.

One thing is for sure, if I go to the Apple store and come back and proclaim that the glossy screen is good, then you can rest assured you should get one on your next Apple portable

 

[jaxstate]

Do anyone actually have the glossy screen MBP. I just ordered one, and would like to hear the opinion of someone who actually has one.

 

[MarkAlanEis]

May 28th Intel Chip Price changes

Since Intel will be reducing the price of its chips on May 28th people wanting to buy a new Apple computer should wait out till Apple makes its changes as well.
The lower end MacBook Pro will then have the 2.16 ghz chip and the other 2 models will get the new 2.33 ghz chip. Also the MacBook is most likely to get the 2 ghz chip on its cheapest model and the 2.16 mhz on the other two.
If Apple makes these changes next week I will laugh at anyone that has bought a new MacBook or MacBook Pro in the past 2 weeks because they could of got more for their money.

 

[aristobrat]

That's a big "IF".

 

[poppe]

Do anyone actually have the glossy screen MBP. I just ordered one, and would like to hear the opinion of someone who actually has one.

I know this isn't the greatest source but it is first hand. I was at comUSA and they hadn't put the display MB out yet. So i asked if they were going to, and they quickly brought one out and opend it right there for me. We went through boot up and all that good stuff and I played with it running all of the iLife squites and all of MS office stuff. It had the glossy screen and man was it sweet looking. It looked sharper and brighter than the 17" MBP.

Anyways as to your question: well CompUSA has those super super super super bright white lights. and yes if you are standing up at an angle so that the screen is facing towards the lights you have a few bright white spots. But if you have the screens at a close to 90 degree angle with the ground, like you would at a desk, then there isn't a light to be seen. Not litterally 90 degrees. I had it at a gestimate of about 75 to 80 degrees.

I'm stoked for the glossy screens. It makes the MB and MBPs look sweet.

 

[whitetrashanth]

this macbook pro looks pritty decent... i might sell my quad power mac,..get some money back....

i wanted the portability from the start, but was too hasty before christmas...

what should i do i really could do with the portability

 

[slackpacker]

Since Intel will be reducing the price of its chips on May 28th people wanting to buy a new Apple computer should wait out till Apple makes its changes as well.
The lower end MacBook Pro will then have the 2.16 ghz chip and the other 2 models will get the new 2.33 ghz chip. Also the MacBook is most likely to get the 2 ghz chip on its cheapest model and the 2.16 mhz on the other two.
If Apple makes these changes next week I will laugh at anyone that has bought a new MacBook or MacBook Pro in the past 2 weeks because they could of got more for their money.

I see no Core Duo 2.33 in Intels Roadmap... where did you get any info on a 2.33 processor? Where's the Facts Man!

 

[absurdio]

this macbook pro looks pritty decent... i might sell my quad power mac,..get some money back....

i wanted the portability from the start, but was too hasty before christmas...

what should i do i really could do with the portability

I'm not the most knowledgeable person here, so I won't lend any advice on this one except to say that I'm waiting for Merom (and hopefully for Apple to work a few glitches out of the MBPs). But take that with a very big grain of salt. It all depends on your needs and preferences, really.

I'm curious, though: anyone know how the MBPs (with, i suppose, the 2.16ghz core duo) would stack up against a quad G5 in terms of speed/performance? Apple's statistics only compare the MBPs with the last PowerBooks (justifiably, I suppose, but, hell, I'm curious)...

 

[neatokino]

As a so-far relatively happy customer who bought a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro just last week, I'll weigh in on my opinions about glossy screens, quality control, new chips, etc. I went to buy a MacBook two days after it was in the stores. Wanted to replace my 3 year old original 12" G4 powerbook which is painfully slow.

Even though I thought the new MacBooks were extremely nice little machines, I found myself HATING that glossy screen in the store. All the ceiling lights were reflected in the screen, and my eyes just couldn't settle on anything. It was hideously distracting. In my home office, there's a window with venetian blinds behind my desk, so there's no doubt in my mind that reflections would drive me crazy. So, I went ahead and bought the MacBook Pro, which really suits my needs better anyway.

The machine I brought home exhibited many of the typical problems I've read about on the forums:

it wouldn't wake up from sleep

it crashed repeatedly while updating software

I had two kernel panics within an hour

The fit on the lid was pretty lousy.

Not very confidence inspiring, is it?

So I took it back to the store (MacMall, around the corner from where I live in Santa Monica), they gave me another machine, and, well, here I am five days later and I haven't had a crash or a whine or a sleep problem, or any problem, really. It's warm but not hot. No noises at all. And I love how fast this thing is. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, however....

So there will be faster, cheaper new chips in these things in two weeks. Maybe? I figure you buy when you're ready to buy. There will always be something new and better around the corner. I got a $150 rebate on this one, so I'm ok with it all. And not only does this suit my needs better than the MacBook, I think the aluminum case, the better speakers, the bigger screen, the backlit keyboard, the matte screen, are all big big plusses.

My 2 cents.

 

[MarkAlanEis]

I see no Core Duo 2.33 in Intels Roadmap... where did you get any info on a 2.33 processor? Where's the Facts Man!

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060518PR209.html and there are many other websites with the same report. Because Apple isn't known for reducing the price of their computers, you would think they would have to use the new 2.33 ghz in their higher priced models and move the 2.16 ghz to the cheaper.

 

[matticus008]

Well, I hate to nit-pick, but since I was the one who raised the anecdote, I think that probably puts me in a better position to explain what the point of it was.

...except that you also tried to tell me what MY point was, which I clarified in the post you quoted.

But the problem with your argument is that there's degrees of glare. It's not simply glare or no-glare.

Yes, but I'm working under the assumption that no glare is acceptable, because it's easy to be in such a position with either type of notebook screen. If some glare is acceptable, then it's simply a matter of degrees.

And the glare is easier to escape with the anti-glare screen. I mean if moving four inches is what makes all the difference with an anti-glare screen, you're going to have to move a lot further to find ideal conditions for a glossy screen.

Not true in the slightest. If the glare is being caused by a point source of light, you only have to move it to reflect away from your viewing angle. The glossier screen isn't going to have a wider scope of glare, only more intense and less diffuse reflection. Both screens have to be moved the same amount. Your argument mischaracterizes physics.

I'm not trying to sell you on a glossy screen. I'm just trying to keep you from scaring off other people who might write off the MacBook (or any other glossy screen) without ever even seeing one, much less using one...very much like the conclusion you've drawn without using them in person.

 

[absurdio]

...except that you also tried to tell me what MY point was, which I clarified in the post you quoted.

Alright. Perhaps I mistook your argument. If I put words in your mouth, I apologize. I didn't intend to.

Yes, but I'm working under the assumption that no glare is acceptable, because it's easy to be in such a position with either type of notebook screen. If some glare is acceptable, then it's simply a matter of degrees.

We're agreed here. The less glare, the better. If no glare is possible, that's ideal; if not, we hope for the least glare (least frequency and the least severity of glare) possible.

Not true in the slightest. If the glare is being caused by a point source of light, you only have to move it to reflect away from your viewing angle. The glossier screen isn't going to have a wider scope of glare, only more intense and less diffuse reflection. Both screens have to be moved the same amount. Your argument mischaracterizes physics.

Alright. I'm wrong again, and I apologize for the injustice I have done physics. But here, if I am wrong, I'm wrong in more of a semantic sense than a realistic one. Glare is more of a problem on a glossy screen than an anti-glare one. That seems obvious, just by definition. Whether that's mainly got to do with the scope of glare or the frequency of having to avoid glare, I'm not sure. When I observed the faint glare on my PowerBook, my point was that the situation i was in (i.e. trying to avoid glare) would be a much bigger problem (again, both in terms of severity and frequency) if my screen were not anti-glare. That's undeniable. It took a lot of bright sunlight from behind me to produce that faint glare; with a glossy screen it would (and does) take much less to produce much more severe glare.

I'm not trying to sell you on a glossy screen. I'm just trying to keep you from scaring off other people who might write off the MacBook (or any other glossy screen) without ever even seeing one, much less using one...very much like the conclusion you've drawn without using them in person.

Y'know, I think I've been pretty fair in this respect. I've said this is really a matter of opinion. I've confessed to not having seen the MacBooks in person. I've linked to pictures that show MacBooks both with and without glare. And I've offered up a few reasons why I am (I think legitimately) suspicious of glossy screens (pictures, other users' reports, and the glossy-screened PC laptops I've seen). I'm not interested in scaring anyone off, just voicing reasonable concern. As always, I encourage everyone else to form their own opinions; there's no sense taking my objections (or anyone else's) as a sacred decree. I think glare is a reasonable concern, though, and I don't think I've wronged either Apple or their users by mentioning the issue.

Again, I encourage everybody (myself included) to go check out a MacBook in person and see what they think. Until I'm able to do that, I've got only pictures, user testimony, and the history of glossy PC laptops to base my decision on. That's substantial enough to cause some concern. I admit to not being any authority, but I defend, as I did initially, that people's apprehension regarding the glossy screens is well-founded. Everyone is entitled to value that apprehension as they wish.

 

[matticus008]

Alright. Perhaps I mistook your argument. If I put words in your mouth, I apologize. I didn't intend to.

Of course. It's hard with determiners like "the" instead of pronouns, and everything written on the Internet always seems standoffish somehow.

But here, if I am wrong, I'm wrong in more of a semantic sense than a realistic one. Glare is more of a problem on a glossy screen than an anti-glare one. That seems obvious, just by definition. Whether that's mainly got to do with the scope of glare or the frequency of having to avoid glare, I'm not sure.

That's fair.

And I've offered up a few reasons why I am (I think legitimately) suspicious of glossy screens (pictures, other users' reports, and the glossy-screened PC laptops I've seen). I'm not interested in scaring anyone off, just voicing reasonable concern.

Right, and my only concern with that is that the pictures don't really speak to the truth of glare in actual use, and suspicion can easily appear as personal experience and not the conjecture it is. It's a worthy concern when posed as a question, not when presented as fact (another disadvantage of Internet communication). Again, I'll point to the window effect. Shiny car windows look awful as you drive by or photograph them, but you can see right through the glare when you're looking straight through it (and of course curved surfaces are far worse than flat ones in this regard). Camera flashes are also notorious for exaggerating surface glare.

 

[Coyote2006]

Got my MBP 2.16 today

 

[conditionals]

You are all crazy. Except for the guy who likes TISM. He's not crazy because he likes TISM and knows the benefits of a glossy screen.

 

[zync]

Regarding glare, I think those of us arguing against it are not trying to deter people away from it, but instead let it be known that it's an issue. Too many people see the latest and greatest and just go and buy it before considering what they're buying.

Also, since most of us see these laptops in an Apple store we must realize that they can—note that I said can—place their laptops in the best way possible to avoid problematic glare, which is not always indicative of the real world depending on how you will use your laptop.

Anti-glare screens simply absorb and diffuse the glare which makes the screen somewhat brighter in those areas. Glossy screens do no absorb or diffuse glare, so they reflect the full light of the source back—probably at the same, or nearly the same, angle at which they entered depending on the amount of refraction.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

If the glare is being caused by a point source of light, you only have to move it to reflect away from your viewing angle.

That's a big if - most of the problems I've had with glare-type screens have been from ambient light sources. Near windows is particularly bad. It's not the direct glare of the sun, it's just the brightness of natural light.

Some people say, "well don't sit next to a window," but others of us consider it absurd to rearrange one's furniture to help a supplier save money on anti-glare coatings.

I'm writing this at the kitchen table, next to a window. It's fine on a last-generation screen (the right side of the screen is somewhat brighter from the diffused glare). It would be a problem with a new MacBook. I'm not going to start working in the dark to accomodate a new screen.

Hopefully the Mermon models will offer anti-glare as at least a BTO.

 

[freeny]

I personally checked out the new glossy screen via a co-workers new MB. I must say they are NOT annoying. Yes you can get a reflection off them but it is not noticable while the screen is on.

Also, the usual viewing angle that "most" people look at the screen would have the screen reflecting the keyboard. Which, strangely enough, is not a source of extreme light.

I would say I get more glare from the matte screens because of ambient light. While the matte screen collects light from just about every angle the glossy would only reflect a direct light source.

 

[aristobrat]

I personally checked out the new glossy screen via a co-workers new MB. I must say they are NOT annoying.

This seems to be what most folks who've had hands-on with the MacBook are saying.

 

[absurdio]

I would say I get more glare from the matte screens because of ambient light. While the matte screen collects light from just about every angle the glossy would only reflect a direct light source.

Wait, I'm mischaracterizing physics?! Now anti-glare screens collect glare? Come on, man. If you want to defend that the glare on the MacBooks is avoidable, okay. If you want to argue that glare on a glossy screen isn't that much of an incumbrance, fine. But if your argument is that anti-glare coatings (note: that's Apple's terminology, not my fabrication) attract more glare and make glare more problematic than their glossy counterparts... well. You're wrong.

Of course. It's hard with determiners like "the" instead of pronouns, and everything written on the Internet always seems standoffish somehow.

I think we're on more or less the same page, Matticus. And you're certainly right about everything seeming more standoffish in type. It's nice to be able to argue civilly every once in a while. =)

 

[matticus008]

That's a big if - most of the problems I've had with glare-type screens have been from ambient light sources. Near windows is particularly bad. It's not the direct glare of the sun, it's just the brightness of natural light.

I'm writing this from a Dell, sitting right beside a window and it's a sunny afternoon. I can see everything clearly. The reason I'm not using my PowerBook in this room is because I can't. There are too many large windows and too much bright ambient light, causing the whole screen to wash out.

I believe that, word choice aside, this is what freeny was talking about wrt "collecting glare" on the matte finish displays--not actually collecting glare, but very poor performance in bright ambient light situations (especially outdoors/natural light). Of course, he's the only one who really knows what he meant. I love my PowerBook, but it sucks outside and in my back room.

Hopefully the Mermon models will offer anti-glare as at least a BTO.

I expect it's the matte finish that'll go the way of the dodo when Merom comes. I think it's only a BTO on the MBP because they're transitioning their stocks.

 

[absurdio]

I expect it's the matte finish that'll go the way of the dodo when Merom comes. I think it's only a BTO on the MBP because they're transitioning their stocks.

Y'know, secretly I hope you're right. If the anti-glare finish is still an option, I'm quite sure I'll get it. But I admit I'm getting curious about the glossy screens, and I know I won't ever buy one if i have a choice. ...But I'm still only secretly hoping that.

 

[adroit]

Since Intel will be reducing the price of its chips on May 28th people wanting to buy a new Apple computer should wait out till Apple makes its changes as well.
The lower end MacBook Pro will then have the 2.16 ghz chip and the other 2 models will get the new 2.33 ghz chip. Also the MacBook is most likely to get the 2 ghz chip on its cheapest model and the 2.16 mhz on the other two.
If Apple makes these changes next week I will laugh at anyone that has bought a new MacBook or MacBook Pro in the past 2 weeks because they could of got more for their money.

With the introduction of MB and price drop in MBP, I bet apple already got the price dropped from Intel.

 

[Coyote2006]

I'm currently installing my new MBP 2.16 and I'm still blown away. I started working on Macs 1988 and own many diffenrt models. But what Apple produced with this laptop beats everything before. I do also work heavily on PCs and had an nice Acer laptop. But you can't compare it with this MBP.

I bought the normal monitor because I have the sun shining from the side into my new office. The normal monitor is absolutely perfect. Bright, well view from the side and perfect size. I first wanted to use my external monitor, but will probably sell it.

Back to my first impressions with my new beauty (my girlfirend also wants one now ). Setting up the main account using the iSight camera is really a nice idea of Apple. Internet connection was made without any problems. The first coffee break came with the 400 MB update

I'm on the way to install parallels and WinXP and will give some more feedback later.

And I'm happy that I bought the fastest one, it worth every cent. Well done Apple!