i have a "sex in the city" inverted apple logo 1999 bronze G3 laptop and finally hv the funds to buy a new laptop. i've been waiting for a redesign 'cause i never liked the aluminum one's. the new laptops are great except for the glossy screens! i work in photography and design--yes i can attach a matte screen to it when working at home, but i do most of my work in coffee shops. plus i don't want the 17" one (they do offer a matte screen for $50. more). should i wait? or just buy a previous model. what do you guys think. i'm very disappointed. you just won't convince me that the glossy screen will work for me- and many other people are unhappy about this. it would be great to hear ur thoughts.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
waiting to buy new macbook 'cause of glossy screen
- Thread starter newrob
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sandpaper? 
You may be in for a long wait, it looks like Apple have said NO to matte screens even though a number of people (myself included) prefer them. If they actually listen to their buying public there may be a MacBook with Firewire re-introduced, and that would be an ideal opportunity for them to also re-introduce the matte screen. I doubt it will happen though.
Looks like the 17" with matte screen option may be your best (or only) bet.
Previous model.. well I bought the previous white MacBook model and that has a glossy screen, I don't know how far back you'd have to go to get a matte screen but personally I think processor speed is more important.
You may be in for a long wait, it looks like Apple have said NO to matte screens even though a number of people (myself included) prefer them. If they actually listen to their buying public there may be a MacBook with Firewire re-introduced, and that would be an ideal opportunity for them to also re-introduce the matte screen. I doubt it will happen though.
Looks like the 17" with matte screen option may be your best (or only) bet.
Previous model.. well I bought the previous white MacBook model and that has a glossy screen, I don't know how far back you'd have to go to get a matte screen but personally I think processor speed is more important.
There are a few options for you, if you're talking about macbook pros (15") than there's a company that was actually at macworld this year too, that would put a matte screen on it. The easiest solution, for both 13" and 15" would be a matte screen protector, check out some of them online and see for yourself the differences. The last solution would be to install it yourself, it has been done on this forum, of course you'd also have to take off the glass and order from somewhere an aluminum bezel, check out the threads on this forum about the mod. Don't get the older generation if you prefer everything else about these new machines, the sturdiness, looks and power if needed.
Go to the store and have a look for yourself, its a completely biased subject, for some people the glossy is an issue, for the rest of us it isnt. I prefer glossy because i think you get less glare and reflection from it, ok so yes you may be able to see your face, but on a matte screen you still get the same level of reflection, the light cant magically disappear, its just on a matte screen the lights diffused which i find annoying.
It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of how the glossy/matte screens display color. Glossy screens don't represent color as accurately as matte screens, which is important for someone who works in areas like photography and design like the OP states they do.
Thats not true, both screens are very innacurate anyway because the Macbooks and Macbook Pro's use cheap TN Panels. Anyone working in photography and design would calibrate their screen to start with and so both the glossy and the matte would be as accurate as each other
Waiting for Matt
I am certain that Apple will offer a matte screen version of the unibody Macbook Pro eventually, if only because thousands of people like me are not going to upgrade 'til they do, and because they're Apple, who always does the righteous thing.
It's not about perfect color rendition. It's much simpler. It's about being able to use the machine without twisting and turning to avoid reflections of windows and light fixtures behind you, or having bright light or sunlight on you, thus turning the screen into a vanity mirror (black T-shirt notwithstanding: there's still your face.)
I have friends who sprung for the new Macbook Pro and enjoy everything about them except the screen. That has them cursing, not just for reflectivity but fingerprint and smudge-showing.
The fix? Add a polycarbonate diffusing layer to the glass in the factory. Or produce a finely etched ('fritted') primary screen. You know it's not rocket science, Apple. Charge $50.00 bucks more.
I am certain that Apple will offer a matte screen version of the unibody Macbook Pro eventually, if only because thousands of people like me are not going to upgrade 'til they do, and because they're Apple, who always does the righteous thing.
It's not about perfect color rendition. It's much simpler. It's about being able to use the machine without twisting and turning to avoid reflections of windows and light fixtures behind you, or having bright light or sunlight on you, thus turning the screen into a vanity mirror (black T-shirt notwithstanding: there's still your face.)
I have friends who sprung for the new Macbook Pro and enjoy everything about them except the screen. That has them cursing, not just for reflectivity but fingerprint and smudge-showing.
The fix? Add a polycarbonate diffusing layer to the glass in the factory. Or produce a finely etched ('fritted') primary screen. You know it's not rocket science, Apple. Charge $50.00 bucks more.
Don't know if you have actually used the glossy screen in person. I have a glossy MacBook (polycarbonate) and it faces my window. No reflections. Even if you are using matte, there will still be a "blur" that is basically a dulled reflection.
Let's face the facts, I'd rather have glossy and have my images displays better than matte which messes with the light going in/out. Glossy is just glass vs. matte which has a special coating the diffuses light. It is not a vanity mirror, as I have friends with the polycarbonate and unibody MacBooks. It's fine unless the sun is directly (like literally the same angle) shining on the display, and when that happens neither matte nor glossy will do anything to make it magically disappear.
They already do.
They already do.
They have their solution and they don't care about changing the 15". Schiller said it himself at MacWorld.
What that guy says. It won't happen, as it will confuse the consumers (the ones the MacBooks are aimed at) and the glossy screens are always more "sexy" for them. Anyway, doing any kind of photography work is not best on any MacBook (Pro/Air) anyway. I mean afterall, a stupid little NET(!)book (Dell Mini) has a better screen for this kind of stuff than the MacBook PRO(!).
Exactly. Apple knows if you really, but really require the matte screen, you will have to jump for the more expensive one, which = more $$ for them
...looking at both 13 inch macbooks in the store...the uni glare was terrible... the poly wasn't nearly as bad but the color wasn't as good as on the uni's screen...
I don't know if the apple rep calibrated one screen and not the other for "display" purposes though as he wouldn't say...
I don't know if the apple rep calibrated one screen and not the other for "display" purposes though as he wouldn't say...
"less glare and reflection" yet you can "see your face in it"
I agree ,a 50$ optional matte screen on the pro books is an excellent idea.
You face facts , you can use a matte screen much easier out side in the daytime as quite clearly the unibody screen is as reflective as a mirror, you may prefer the glossy, your choice but I sent my macbook poly back because the screen is garbage and the unibody is a step backwards imo
Exactly. Apple knows if you really, but really require the matte screen, you will have to jump for the more expensive one, which = more $$ for them
Not necessarily, a lot of folks wont be robbed in the daylight and will simply go buy a PC, at the least a matte option should be offered on the 15" macbook pro's imo
I
Some further analysis, some links...
This is a great thread. I spent some time following up and found these three sites:
http://www.macworld.com/article/138137/mattescreen.html
http://www.techrestore.com/xcart/product.php?productid=18467&cat=273&page=1
http://store.apple.com/us/product/TR412LL/A
The first is a really sane discussion of the problem, especially if you read <all> the comments. The second is TechRestore's solution, which seems to me amazingly radical (a new display completely!) and has me concerned about screen quality and warranty voiding. The third is the Apple Store's quasi-endorsed solution, a film, which is much cheaper, but makes me think there's no way <I> could apply that film over such a large area, squarely and without bubbles.
The essence of the matter seems to be this: the total amount of light reflecting back off the screen from the environment is the same with either screen, and that amount depends on how and where you position it in the world. The glossy screen preserves the structure, or information, in that light, like a mirror does, meaning that parts can be darker (reflections from walls) at the price/risk that parts will be <much> brighter (i.e. coherent reflections from lamps and windows and other light sources). Matte screens destroy that structure, or information, distributing the light uniformly over the screen, at the price/risk of washing out deep blacks when the ambient light, in total, is strong. The matte screen also scatters the light coming <through> it (i.e. from the LED display) by an infinitesimal amount, which the glossy glass screen does not; and this might account for a small part of the clarity attributed to them--small, because the major part of the perceived clarity is the deeper black (increased contrast) made possible in the non-window/lamp-reflecting portions of the screen.
So yes, it comes down to personal preference and maybe even physiology. Distinguishing screen-originated information from world-reflected information depends on stereo depth perception, which some people are more senstive to than others. Some people can read writing on a window (or mirror) with ease, able to ignore the world beyond the window. Others find it hard to ignore, or bothersome to keep changing focus (close/far/close/far...). If the glossy screen bothers you (as it does Rob at MacWorld) it's because you have active (hyperactive?) 3D vision. I am an architect. I have that "problem." I cannot look at a dark glossy surface without looking through it to the world reflected in it. Sure, I <can> look at the surface itself, but it's an effort, and the coherence and space of the reflected world remains a constant distraction, making me focus back and forth between the information 18" away (on the screen) and the 6ft or more away ("behind" the screen).
So, solution? Make both kinds of screen available. Duh, you say. Right! There is one other solution. As someone on the MacWorld board noted, glasses (spectacles) come with optional anti-reflective coatings which diffuse light at a molecular scale, so that no milkiness is induced. Indeed clarity <through> the lens increases at the same time as reflections from the lenses (as seen by people looking at you, as well as from side of your head, behind the lens) decreases markedly, letting them see your eyes instead of flashes of reflected lights. The coating on my three pairs of glasses are from Zeiss (http://www.zeiss.com/us/ophthalmic/cons/home.nsf/Contents-Frame/2FB2DCD0F56EDF2C85256CE1007959DA ) and Teflon (http://www.solateflon.com/product/index.shtml ). This stuff however is expensive! Applying it over the area of a laptop screen might run in the hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. That's probably also why we don't see it on car windshields. For more on how anti-reflective coatings work, see http://www.edmundoptics.com/techsupport/displayarticle.cfm?articleid=247&search=1 .
One more remark. For some people glossiness itself, on anything, denotes cheapness; they "hate" shiny anythings, chrome, paint, mirrors, brass, whatever. They would have matte cars and motorcycles, preferably the color of exhaust pipes. I am not one such. I think the flash and liquid glint of polished and reflective things is fine if mixed with duller textures (eggshell, satin, fabrics...). So, ask yourself: is your problem with the MBP's new glossy screen an esthetic or visual one?
This is a great thread. I spent some time following up and found these three sites:
http://www.macworld.com/article/138137/mattescreen.html
http://www.techrestore.com/xcart/product.php?productid=18467&cat=273&page=1
http://store.apple.com/us/product/TR412LL/A
The first is a really sane discussion of the problem, especially if you read <all> the comments. The second is TechRestore's solution, which seems to me amazingly radical (a new display completely!) and has me concerned about screen quality and warranty voiding. The third is the Apple Store's quasi-endorsed solution, a film, which is much cheaper, but makes me think there's no way <I> could apply that film over such a large area, squarely and without bubbles.
The essence of the matter seems to be this: the total amount of light reflecting back off the screen from the environment is the same with either screen, and that amount depends on how and where you position it in the world. The glossy screen preserves the structure, or information, in that light, like a mirror does, meaning that parts can be darker (reflections from walls) at the price/risk that parts will be <much> brighter (i.e. coherent reflections from lamps and windows and other light sources). Matte screens destroy that structure, or information, distributing the light uniformly over the screen, at the price/risk of washing out deep blacks when the ambient light, in total, is strong. The matte screen also scatters the light coming <through> it (i.e. from the LED display) by an infinitesimal amount, which the glossy glass screen does not; and this might account for a small part of the clarity attributed to them--small, because the major part of the perceived clarity is the deeper black (increased contrast) made possible in the non-window/lamp-reflecting portions of the screen.
So yes, it comes down to personal preference and maybe even physiology. Distinguishing screen-originated information from world-reflected information depends on stereo depth perception, which some people are more senstive to than others. Some people can read writing on a window (or mirror) with ease, able to ignore the world beyond the window. Others find it hard to ignore, or bothersome to keep changing focus (close/far/close/far...). If the glossy screen bothers you (as it does Rob at MacWorld) it's because you have active (hyperactive?) 3D vision. I am an architect. I have that "problem." I cannot look at a dark glossy surface without looking through it to the world reflected in it. Sure, I <can> look at the surface itself, but it's an effort, and the coherence and space of the reflected world remains a constant distraction, making me focus back and forth between the information 18" away (on the screen) and the 6ft or more away ("behind" the screen).
So, solution? Make both kinds of screen available. Duh, you say. Right! There is one other solution. As someone on the MacWorld board noted, glasses (spectacles) come with optional anti-reflective coatings which diffuse light at a molecular scale, so that no milkiness is induced. Indeed clarity <through> the lens increases at the same time as reflections from the lenses (as seen by people looking at you, as well as from side of your head, behind the lens) decreases markedly, letting them see your eyes instead of flashes of reflected lights. The coating on my three pairs of glasses are from Zeiss (http://www.zeiss.com/us/ophthalmic/cons/home.nsf/Contents-Frame/2FB2DCD0F56EDF2C85256CE1007959DA ) and Teflon (http://www.solateflon.com/product/index.shtml ). This stuff however is expensive! Applying it over the area of a laptop screen might run in the hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. That's probably also why we don't see it on car windshields. For more on how anti-reflective coatings work, see http://www.edmundoptics.com/techsupport/displayarticle.cfm?articleid=247&search=1 .
One more remark. For some people glossiness itself, on anything, denotes cheapness; they "hate" shiny anythings, chrome, paint, mirrors, brass, whatever. They would have matte cars and motorcycles, preferably the color of exhaust pipes. I am not one such. I think the flash and liquid glint of polished and reflective things is fine if mixed with duller textures (eggshell, satin, fabrics...). So, ask yourself: is your problem with the MBP's new glossy screen an esthetic or visual one?
Well, as a graphic designer and photographer, I have to disagree with you. I do web work and print media, and find that I have no issues with the glossy screen.
Check other threads on this, as this topic has been beaten to DEATH! back before the laptop was king, we all used CRTs. They ALL had glossy screens, I never heard anyone complain about them however.
I find the colors to be truer and deeper. Any anything I have done over the last 2 years with a glossy screen does not effect my perception or color, especially in print media. What I see is what I get in print.
As mentioned by others, I highly doubt you'll see a matt screen on a MacBook. (As you know, the MacBook is a consumer laptop.) Your only choice will be a MacBook Pro with the $50 matt option, or perhaps another manufacture...(sorry to say that).
Good Luck!