OMG, Apple. Glossy screens? What were you thinking???

timelessbeing

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 15, 2009
76
4
And your cinema displays too. Otherwise genius products (albeit overpriced) have been rendered absolutely useless! I will skip this generation thanks.
 

burningrave101

macrumors 6502
Mar 4, 2008
384
0
They only become rendered useless in the hands of those that try to use the products in the wrong environment.
 

knewsom

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2005
949
0
Mods, oh, Mods, where the devil are you???

Seriously, for the love of god and all that is holy, do we really need another pointless thread of this nature??? Comment on one that already exists and stop cluttering up our forum with rubbish.
 

Travisimo

macrumors 6502a
Dec 22, 2009
985
223
This argument has been beaten to death... there's advantages and disadvantages to both. Certainly, there are many who have been clamoring for a non-glossy screen, but if you don't like it, cast your vote with your $$$ by buying something else. Or better yet, send an e-mail to Steve Jobs...
 

burningrave101

macrumors 6502
Mar 4, 2008
384
0
My home is the wrong environment?
If you're placing the iMac in a brightly lit location in the home where there are lights or windows directly behind you to reflect off of the screen then obviously you need to find a better location to put the computer if you want a 27" iMac.
 

Stuart in Oz

macrumors 6502
Jan 16, 2008
271
3
Sydney, Australia
The only thing wrong with the glossy screens is that the sun was created by God and not Our Steve - He would have made it a dimmer sun so as not to impair the perfected glossiness of the revealed iMac.

God really needs to get with the program.
 

theoski

macrumors member
Oct 20, 2008
56
5
Here is the funny thing. I look now at matte screens and after working with gloss I cant stand them. The color reproduction just aint this same.
 

SnowLeopard2008

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2008
6,772
8
Silicon Valley
Macs are cheaper than PCs. Fact. The same hardware specs on a PC would cost roughly $200-$400 more than the Mac equivalent. As for the 24" LED ACD, it's not the average TN panel for cheap displays but the high quality S-IPS type.

I'm not seeing (literally) any problems with glossy displays. In the car, at home, at school, etc. Matte displays are a problem, it distorts light so color gamut is affected. Apple's "glassy" displays is just glass, which doesn't hinder light passing through it as much as the matte finish.
 

The General

macrumors 601
Jul 7, 2006
4,826
1
go get two 2" suction cups from home depot, pull the glass off (it's held on with magnets) enjoy your 27" matte imac
 
Aug 26, 2008
1,339
1
Macs are cheaper than PCs. Fact. The same hardware specs on a PC would cost roughly $200-$400 more than the Mac equivalent. As for the 24" LED ACD, it's not the average TN panel for cheap displays but the high quality S-IPS type.

I'm not seeing (literally) any problems with glossy displays. In the car, at home, at school, etc. Matte displays are a problem, it distorts light so color gamut is affected. Apple's "glassy" displays is just glass, which doesn't hinder light passing through it as much as the matte finish.
Dude what are you smoking? The same hardware on PC is more expensive?? Please cite a SINGLE source.

And you can get IPS 24 inch panels for nearly half the 900 dollars the ACD costs, AND you can hook it up to any machine you want! :)
 

The General

macrumors 601
Jul 7, 2006
4,826
1

PutzMan

macrumors newbie
Feb 19, 2009
12
0
London
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005115

Then build a Core i7/4GB/1TB/Radeon 4850 512MB PC to plug that into.

Behold the bargain of the 27" iMac.
No, really. Do not compare PC prices to a high-end iMac. Compare them to the mid-range at most... the Core i5.

I also hate to break it to you, but that monitor is 30" and is not the same resolution as the iMac.

Saying that though, I'd bet that 20% of the i7 iMac sales are because people want the i7, not because they want the 27" screen. Throw the i7 into the 21.5 (I know it's not possible, I'm just hypothesizing), and they will sell just as well.

You do pay more for MOST Apple computers. The 13" Macbook I am typing on right now for instance - I bought a Dell laptop 2 years ago that had the same specs as this (except the trackpad, which I use a mouse most of the time anyway and the backlit keyboard, that frankly, because I touch type, I don't need at all) for £450. This Macbook cost me £900.

The 21.5" iMac I have in my other room replaced a Dell PC of the same power. iMac = £949 (at time of purchase), Dell = £500.
 
Aug 26, 2008
1,339
1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005115

Then build a Core i7/4GB/1TB/Radeon 4850 512MB PC to plug that into.

Behold the bargain of the 27" iMac.

Errr....that's not the same LG panel, and the iMac isn't a 30" with that res. Wait until Dell releases the u2711, then build a BETTER i7/i5 system around it, and I can practically guarantee it's cheaper than a current iMac by a few hundred at the very least. And it will be more reliable, easier to fix, and will probably have more features (like usb3, which you can get now, esata etc. Plus the Dell is going to be Matte if you want that).

Apple is more expensive. Always. Otherwise they wouldn't make the massive profit margins they do. I mean come on, think about it.
 

crut

macrumors regular
Dec 26, 2009
144
0
And your cinema displays too. Otherwise genius products (albeit overpriced) have been rendered absolutely useless! I will skip this generation thanks.
Before getting a MacBook, I'd have agree. I was very uncomfortable getting a glossy screen when my old iBook died and I needed a new laptop.

However my experiences have generally been really good.

The picture does look better, the colour seem richer. You do tend to find in bright lights etc. that the screen is less viewable vs. being washed out of a matte display.

Cleaning it is a little more complicated than a matte display.

As for the talks about hardware, I've tried on several occasions to spec up similar hardware level laptops on Dell, Sony et al, and the Apple price is broadly speaking on par. It is of course an academic exercise as I really use Apple hardware because I love OSX so don't have much choice (I've zero interest in a 'hackintosh' - I did all the hardware/software fudging for many years when using Linux 10 years ago!)
 

crut

macrumors regular
Dec 26, 2009
144
0
Errr....that's not the same LG panel, and the iMac isn't a 30" with that res. Wait until Dell releases the u2711, then build a BETTER i7/i5 system around it, and I can practically guarantee it's cheaper than a current iMac by a few hundred at the very least. And it will be more reliable, easier to fix, and will probably have more features (like usb3, which you can get now, esata etc. Plus the Dell is going to be Matte if you want that).

Apple is more expensive. Always. Otherwise they wouldn't make the massive profit margins they do. I mean come on, think about it.
Regardless of whether Apple are more expensive or not, a Dell doesn't run OSX out the box. It could have a coffee maker, twice the resolution and dance an Irish jig, but it isn't an official mac and therefore will always require tweaks, custom kernels et al to run OSX.
 

BelowTheBelt

macrumors regular
Aug 16, 2009
137
0
Never been happier with screen as I am now with my glossy screen.
Stunning color and defined dark blacks.

Screen lights up bright enough to kick out the glare from the window during the daytime.

Best kind !