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.
Worth the extra for anti-glare?
- Thread starter colinthejanitor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Clearly you didn't read the thread again so I'll clarify:
My question was "Is the anti glare screen good enough to justify buying a 15" MacBook Pro instead of the 13" MacBook Pro which only comes in glossy". What you linked was asking simply wether to go anti-glare or glossy on the 15" MacBook Pro.
I'll say once again, if you plan to contribute then please commit to reading the content beforehand.
I read the entire thread. I know exactly what you are asking. Comparing the glossy on the 13" to the anti-glare on the 15" is no different than comparing the glossy on the 15" to the anti-glare on the 15", so the thread I linked to is relevant. If you elect not to read the thread, that's fine. You asked a question. I posted a link to a thread with relevant information. Get over it! If you don't like getting answers, don't ask the question!
I'm going to say that you're in the wrong here. His question was different from the one that you posted an answer for. His question is more complicated than "glossy versus antiglare" or "13" MBP versus 15" MBP." He was asking for an analysis of whether the upgrade to a 15" MBP was worth the extra money if he only wanted the antiglare screen.I read the entire thread. I know exactly what you are asking. Comparing the glossy on the 13" to the anti-glare on the 15" is no different than comparing the glossy on the 15" to the anti-glare on the 15", so the thread I linked to is relevant. If you elect not to read the thread, that's fine. You asked a question. I posted a link to a thread with relevant information. Get over it! If you don't like getting answers, don't ask the question!
Your post came off as condescending and was pretty much unneeded because the OP's question had already been answered.
Personally, I don't care what you say. Find ONE condescending word or phrase in the following post:
I stated a fact and posted a link to a thread with information that related to the question. I didn't offer any chastisement or comment. I didn't say "search before posting" or "you should have searched" or "there's no need for this thread". I stated fact. If someone has a problem with that, let's call the WAAAAAAamulance!
Sounds like someone's maf.
It isn't what you said, it's how you said it. You posted a link to MRoogle well after the question was answered. Posting rolleyes smilies isn't going to change that.Find ONE condescending word or phrase in the following post:
I stated a fact and posted a link to a thread with information that related to the question. I didn't offer any chastisement or comment. I didn't say "search before posting" or "you should have searched" or "there's no need for this thread". I stated fact. If someone has a problem with that, let's call the WAAAAAAamulance!
No, you're reading something into the post. I made no comment about this thread, the OP or the validity of the question. I suggest you read the Forum Rules for the suggestion on how to respond to repetitive threads, which I quoted earlier. I responded to this thread exactly as suggested in the Forum Rules. If you have a problem with that, talk to the moderators about changing the rules.
Are you seriously going to suggest there's a time limit for when to post a link to MRoogle? That's ridiculous! If anyone is that sensitive, they have personal issues. Many who are new to this forum have never heard of MRoogle, and appreciate it when they get a tip on using it. Because a small minority get bent out of shape because someone posts a response that doesn't give them warm fuzzies is no reason to stop doing what helps the majority of members.
This isn't one of those threads where people are worried about their battery's CoconutBattery readings. This thread had specific concerns that were not addressed in other posts regarding the glossy/antiglare debate.
Look, it makes sense to post a link to MRoogle before the OP has had their question answered, but it isn't worth the time or effort to post the link once they have made a conclusion. I would agree with you in most other cases, but here MRoogle doesn't really apply. If it did, no new threads would ever be made.
definitely agreed. 1680x1050 antiglare or bust. i would never settle for anything less now that i have it.
I believe that the best screen currently is the antiglare 17". I find it to be better than the antiglare 15" high res.
But either of these antiglare screens are better than the glare screens. It's worth the premium even though I think it's insulting that Apple has to charge a premium for them. Adding the glass is covering costs them more money. It's like baggage fees for airlines. What used to be free is now an premium option. But with Apple it's one step worse for them--they actually do more work to put in the glass covering and not charging the premium for it. They have it backwards if you ask me. If everyone prefers glare that much as their market research shows, they should just charge a premium for the glare screens.
But either of these antiglare screens are better than the glare screens. It's worth the premium even though I think it's insulting that Apple has to charge a premium for them. Adding the glass is covering costs them more money. It's like baggage fees for airlines. What used to be free is now an premium option. But with Apple it's one step worse for them--they actually do more work to put in the glass covering and not charging the premium for it. They have it backwards if you ask me. If everyone prefers glare that much as their market research shows, they should just charge a premium for the glare screens.
Agreed. There are other threads about this issue, so this is getting closed.
- Status