So you want MacBookPro in PDA size?
No, I want Apple to foster innovations in hardware instead of being a me-too PC hardware maker.
So you want MacBookPro in PDA size?
No, I want Apple to foster innovations in hardware instead of being a me-too PC hardware maker.
They already did quit a big step forward in build quality with new MacBooks, you can't ask for the moon every time Steve go live. Give them some time.
There is an anti-glare coating for glasses called Crizal that works amazingly well. It's expensive but it works. I don't see why it wouldn't work on the MB screens if you could get someone to apply it.OK, so far the consensus seems to be that reflections in and of themselves are not desirable. What is desirable is the saturation and contrast. So: if we could divorce reflections from the equation, then everyone would be happier.
Therefore, Apple (or some screen manufacturer) needs to innovate a solution, like laser-etched glass or something. There must be a way to have the best of both worlds.
That's why I mentioned Crizal. Trust me, there is no washing out of colors. If I look at tree without my glasses it's vibrant. If I then put my glasses on it's just as vibrant. The coating is absolutely amazing (better be for the price). However, I'm not sure if it only works within an inch of your eyes though as faint reflections can only be seen when the glasses have been taken off.The point is that reflections are an indication that the screen you are using will reflect/transmit all of the light it receives (better color/saturation), rather than absorb and scatter the light (the washed out look). So if you want a screen that allows colors to pass through with little absorption, then you need the glossy/you will also see reflections. As of now, you cannot have the one without the other in the world of laptop screens. By nature, making the screen NOT reflect will also mean that the picture is going through a surface that absorbs or scatters the light, and things will appear more washed out.
The point is that reflections are an indication that the screen you are using will reflect/transmit all of the light it receives (better color/saturation), rather than absorb and scatter the light (the washed out look). So if you want a screen that allows colors to pass through with little absorption, then you need the glossy/you will also see reflections. As of now, you cannot have the one without the other in the world of laptop screens. By nature, making the screen NOT reflect will also mean that the picture is going through a surface that absorbs or scatters the light, and things will appear more washed out.
None of this really matters. I'm sitting in front of a MBP with LED backlit matte screen, and I'm really happy with it. It doesn't look washed out to me, despite all the facts that say I'm full of it. To me... it looks just the way I want my laptop screen to look. It's really that simple. If I were to buy a new MBP I would want it to have at least a screen I am as comfortable with as the one I'm using now... and that would definitely exclude the new glassy/glossy ones. No amount of scientific number crunching or physics explanations is going to make a difference. It's all just argument. In the end, it doesn't make me like looking at a shiny screen under most normal everyday lighting conditions. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer the more smooth tones of the matte screen. Why does this bother glossy fans so much?