Slashdot Mirror
Laptops Screens, Glare or Matte?
An anonymous reader writes "This weekend I spent half a day surfing the web looking for a new laptop.
I just want (to be able to switch to) 1650x1280, or at least ...x1024, and a *non*-Glossy Display . To my surprise I found out that many vendors leave me not that much choice: ...x800, and glossy, i.e., higher-reflective type screens seem to have become the promoted defaults. Should I give up on my non-glossy wishes, or should I start flaming vendors?" I still can't understand the glossy screens. They make my eyes hurt almost immediately in any sort of ambient light, and do nothing in low light. Glossy laptop screens are like TVs on the shelf in the store with their colors all whacked out to look brighter. Once you get them into the real world, you realize that the colors are just wrong.
The ThinkPad T61's still use a non-reflective screen, and are now available in wide screen models.
My newest laptop has a glossy screen for lack of a matte option, and while I don't hate it with a fiery passion, I do prefer the matte screen of my old computer. Unfortunately, Apple only offers matte options on MacBook Pros, and not MacBooks. =(
I find a glossy display gives better blacks and dark colours, though I completely agree that they are terrible unless in perfect lighting.
-- All your booze are belong to us.
No doubt this is hugely a matter of personal preference, but after using a glossy screen for 3 years, my preference is definitely for glossy. True, one must get used to positioning the screen to avoid reflections, but this becomes automatic very quickly. The experience of a glossy screen is far easier on my eyes, and the higher contrast feels much more like reading on paper.
For the record, I'm officially over the hill, and have used glasses all my adult life.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I read all the bashing of glossy screens and even started to repeat the propaganda. But in reality, it doesn't matter. The glossy screens tend to have better contrast and be easier on my eyes, and glare isn't an issue in practice. You do tend to notice glare in a store, looking at a big row of laptops, but it's a total non-issue for me.
Glare-type displays have better colors unter some conditions (dark environment), but will often be pretty bad. Their primary advantage is that they are cheaper to manufacture.
For the resolution, don't get something below your standards. If the product you want is really not available, then refuse to buy.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I have a glossy laptop and a matte LCD. The problem with the matte screen is it can make things appear grainy.
The glossy screen has a much sharper image but the reflections are annoying.
That said, bad colour exists in both desktop LCD's and laptops. The only real deterrent for this is to spend a lot of money to get a colour accurate display.
The HP pro series, business lvl, has matte screens. That's what im using.
Beer.
Even flat panel displays for desktops are jumping on the glossy bandwagon. I suspect it's because glossy models sell better. People see them on the shelves, "oooooh, shiny!" and buy them without regard for actual useability.
I could be wrong, but I believe Thinkpads are still mostly, if not all, matte screns.
My Toshiba M70 is ridiculously glarey (if there is such a word). On some web pages I have to tilt the screen back and forth until I find an angle that I can read the text at, otherwise everything's way too light.
Now that I know I'll be avoiding any laptop with a screen that might be too shiny...
Summation 2
not much help to you, but I find the glossy screen on my MBP to be superior to it's non glossy counterpart. The only real problem I experience is fingermarks being tricky to simply rub off.
Available in non-glossy by order. Some Apple stores may even stock the non-glossy versions.
Who is going to argue with that? Just buy your machine from a trustworthy manufacturer, i.e. IBM/Lenovo. :]
Ezekiel 23:20
Nearly every vendor offers some laptop models that have a non-reflective screen. Unfortunately you haven't given us much else to go on other than a couple of desired resolutions and non-glossy screens. First question is what is your budget? How high are you willing to go, since most of the non-glossy options are towards the higher end of the model ranges (i.e., professional-use machines). Also, do you have any other specific requirements? Non-integrated graphics? Processor type/speed?
This guy's the limit!
I'm a little ambivalent about the glossy vs matte issue, but I have a bigger issue with notebook screens: It's either very hard or relatively expensive to get a laptop with a 4:3 aspect ratio screen. Widescreens are good for two things: movies and (some) games. They're no good for web browsing or viewing documents. Anything less than 1920x1200 is too narrow to fit two windows comfortably side-by-side, and you sacrifice vertical resolution to get the widescreen.
Unfortunately, it seems that the manufacturers have decided that normal-aspect-ratio screens, along with docking connectors, Windows XP, and optical drive slots that can take a secondary battery, are a feature that only business users might need. Accordingly, those features are only available on the drastically-more-expensive business market laptops.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Well, for what it is worth, the MacBook Pro line of Apple laptops have the free choice of glossy or matte displays. Not sure if that would be your cup of tea, but at least one vendor is giving the option.
Glossy screens look more attractive when sold in stores. I guess that's why so many manufacturers choose such screens over matte screens, simply because presentations look better. Furthermore, black looks better on glossy screens, which seems to be a huge selling-point with both TV sets and monitors nowadays.
Full Tilt
If I recall correctly, thinkpads still come with a matte finish. I agree, the glossy finish isn't good for much except preventing people from sneaking up behind you.
I bought a used big-screen last year. I quite liked it except for the glare.
After a while I found a local plastics shop that could sell me a large enough sheet of the anti-reflective stuff used in framing. And I mounted it to the front of the TV myself. That completely solved the problem.
You might be able to buy the laptop with all the other features you want, then go to your nearest framing shop and get their nice anti-glare "glass", and mount it to your display.
"We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
I ordered my laptop from Dell a few months before several of my friends ordered. Sometime in the spring of 2006, Dell decided to switch all over standardly to their "TrueLife" display. Thankfully I missed it.....but now it's very hard to find a cheap laptop without the new anti-glare shine.
Sometimes I find it relaxing to use my laptop on the back deck, however, if it's really sunny, I have to struggle with the screen because pretty much all I can see is myself in the extremely glossy toshiba screen. I'm not sure if the matte screens are any better, but in reality laptops probably aren't designed for bright outside use. The glossy screens remind me of the tube tvs, where if there was a window in the room, you lost part of your screen to glare. Much the same here. On the bright side, sometimes you can use your screen to see who's peeking over your shoulder.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
If you use a glossy screen, you will realize that it is superior in most cases.
With a matte screen, light from any vector to the user will create glare. WIth a Glossy screen, only light vector opposite to the user will create a reflection.
Glossy screens have much higher contrast and brightness, meaning you are much more likely to see them in poor lighting conditions, and at least you have the choice to orient your screen so you don't have reflections. With a matte screen, no matter what you do, you will have glare - eating into your already reduced contrast and brightness.
I bought my MacBook Pro about 7 months ago, and when I did, the clerk asked me which I wanted, saying they had every configuration in that line with either option (though the store was sold out of glossy in the 15' 2GB/2.8GHz model at the time of purchases, which was OK since I wanted non-glossy.)
;)) on the device. The clerk said that for word processing, internet, and design work that most folks prefer the non-glossy one as the color can be misleading. I don't know if that is true (or why/why not), but sounds belivable.
I never really thought about it, but they said that glossy is popular for folks watching a lot of movies or gaming (I know I'm going to get some replys for insinuating that one can game on a Mac...
When I have spec'd Dell or HP for work, I've found that usually you have to search for non-glossy ones, and it is usually a seperate model number, not a selectable line-item option on a machine. I usually had to select the box I wanted based on the machine size/style/monitor, then customize the internal specs like CPU, RAM, disk.
The Apple method (machine, then monitor) made more sense to me, but it isn't exactly a direct comparison to evaluate a retail and online experience.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Go for a Panasonic Y7. Decently sized non-glossy screen there. Plus Panasonic has wonderful warranty service (oh, and it's not China-made, if you care about that).
OSx86 FTW
The ad on the page(yeah, I'm not cool enough to use adblocker :p) is for the Samsung series of glossy LCD displays. Sorry dude, this might be a battle that you wont win
Monstar L
Dell Latitudes have matte screens and offer 1680x1050 as an option. Check out the D830.
When I was deciding on what laptop to buy I had the same problem.
I didn't really care about the glossy/matte thing (but matte felt more right as I've understood that glossy screens are a pain in sunligt, and I wanted to be able to use my laptop outside at our summer house).
But finding a good laptop with more than 1280x800 was a pain.
In the end I took a 15" HP 6710b with 1680x1050 (I would rather have had a 1400x1050 as my first HP laptop though, but that choice wasn't possible).
Glossy is better for looking at scantily clad ladies. Makes them look like they do in them thar magazines!!!!! :)
http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml
With matte screens, emitted light is more diffuse, a disadvantage (less color accuracy, potentially more long-term eyestrain). With glossy screens on the other hand, you have the disadvantage of specular reflections, which some people may find distracting. At any rate, the conventional wisdom that glossy screens are just a fancy way to sell computers to unwitting masses is uninformed. There are engineering tradeoffs both ways. I personally find the diffuse light transmission of matte screens more tiring than specular reflections, but it obviously depends on the person.
Dell Latitudes have the matte screens. Mine's 1680x1050. The resolution you asked for is 4:3, which they still have a few models with that kind, otherwise, move to widescreen.
Most users simply don't notice, or care, that there is a difference in screen. Thus, these users do not complain. Of those who do notice, and have problems, most do not complain. To the industry, there is no problem. Most users, to their knowledge, are fine with it.
The two machines I use at work have glossy displays. I only notice the minimal glare from the overhead lighting when I look for it. The shelving attached to my desk has some recessed lighting built into it, which offsets the glare a little more.
When I ordered my MacBook Pro for home use, I selected the high-resolution matte display option. I did this for more accurate color representation. Unlike my employer, I researched the differences in display before I made the purchase.
All that aside, it doesn't really matter to me which type of display is used. Each has their advantages—My boss loves to proof artwork on the glossy displays, as he thinks they look so shiny. I prefer to work on matte displays as they display the colors more accurately.
If I only had a moose...
My laptop has one (I had to choose it as an option), and it gives much richer colors and blacker blacks, and I don't have any problem reading it in any light at all. I'm not sure what problem people have with glossy screens, but I go out of my way to get them. When I got a wide-screen HD TV, I got one with a glossy screen (and got a huge boost in contrast by doing so at no extra cost).
Maybe it takes some getting used to, and maybe there are some lighting situations that cause issues that I just never seem to run across, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
Just my two cents.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
has anyone tried converting a glossy to a matte? i'm thinking 1200 grit sandpaper might do the trick.
all the screens in my life are matte, so i've not a reason to try this.
mr c
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html
HP is rumored to ship a Linux laptop.
Here's a decent list that's a bit dated, but probably helpful http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168
Finally, blow away that Microsoft partition and install it yourself!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
How about a Dell Latitude 830. You can get: 1920x1200 1680x1050 1280x800 I believe they still use the matte screens. I personally like the matte screens, but must admit that the vibrant colors of the glossy screens are tempting. The cost (in glare and reflection) of those vibrant colors is just too high, they made the screens matte for a reason.
There's a company called Nushield www.nushield.com that makes a non-glare film that can be inserted behind the bezel. You cut it about 1/4" larger than the display area, and it slips in.
It worked well for me, but you need to be careful when inserting it. It took me a few tries to get it to fit right since I didn't want to cut it too much. I scuffed some of the edges.
I currently own a Dell Vostro 1700. It has a 17" widescreen @ 1440x900, and it does not have the glossy screen. I purchased it a little over a month ago. Perhaps you could try one of those?
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
I can't wait until OLEDs become commonplace.
America, Home of the Brave.
I did an experiment a while back and used the exposure meter on my DSLR to measure the difference in contrast between a normal picture and a "black" on a glossy screen. I got a contrast ratio of 80:1
To put this on context, I was looking at LCD TVs claiming contrast ratios of well over 1000:1 - absolutely no way, in a normally lit room. Even 80:1 means that you don't get the full dynamic range of an 8-bit display and I blame a large part of this crappy contrast ratio on the reflections from the glossy screen.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
my flatmate put a glossy film on his Macbook Pro glossy screen. He did what? The glossy film is less glossy than the MBP and is a balance between matte and glossy.
As a grad student, almost all of my classmates have Macbook Pros. Several of the matte screen users have said they'd now regret the choice.... mostly for vibrant colors. I work next to a sunny window and rarely have a problem. I don't work outside often which is the only time I've had a problem.
And here I just settled on amber.
Get pure acetone and hydrogen peroxide. Mix together and heat to 50 centrigrade. Add a few drops of sulphuric acid. Allow to cool. Place the laptop screen down and pour the mixture onto the lcd until it forms a pool the depth of the bezel - you might want to place sellotape to protect the bezel from any splashes. Leave overnight. Remove any crystals that have formed by rubbing firmly with a microfibre cloth.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Well, yes, but trying to find that is probably going to be harder than trying to find a screen that does true 24-bit or 32-bit color, instead of 8-bit or 16-bit with dithering.
Where do we start?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
As far as I've been able to see, people that display their technology (but don't actually use it) prefer glossy displays. They look much prettier and "high tech" and catch the attention of casual passersby. Those that use their machines prefer the non-glossy screen, to avoid glare. You only have to work in a normally lighted environment for a few minutes to get annoyed by a glossy screen. I find the glossy screens useful as an indicator. In the old days it was the person that had their secretary print out their emails - but had the most expensive computer on their desk. Today, it's the folks with glossy screens.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
With any company I always recommend dealing with their small business department. You get better warranties and less of the cheapo skimp hardware (like gloss screens) than you do through retail or home user departments. Check out the D830 from Dell. Default it comes with a 1680x1050 screen or for $150 you can bump it up to a 1920x1200. D830
Mi vostro es vostro vos... whatever. Anyway, it seemed like most of the Dell Small Business lines have a matte choice. It's amazing to go into a big box store and not see a single non-glossy option. I'd consider it - maybe - with a desktop screen, but for a laptop, glossy seems idiotic. Any kind of situation where you'd have constant moving reflections (like a train on the LIRR, say) would just drive you nuts. (And by "you," I mean "me.")
:-)
I went with the matte. It's comforting, and traditional.
Haida Manga
I've been told that the glossy screens are appealing to companies because they make for a more eye-catching presentation in stores. They tend to make colors appear more vibrant; I'm not sure why, and I guess most people are impressed by shiny things.
I personally don't like them. I have one of the current iMacs at work with the glass screen. I happen to be sitting in a spot where reflection and clare is minimal, but even then I can see reflections of things around me in the screen.
I have matte LCD screens at home which I much prefer. Obviously those have no issue with glare. And if I were to get a laptop no way in hell would I get one with a glossy screen. Given that they might be used anywhere it's going to be inevitable that there will be issues with glare.
Yet another person coming forward to say, "I don't like x, I prefer Y. Anyone who likes X must be retarded."
It's a situational preference, get over it. If you don't like one buy the other. It's pretty simple, we have based our entire commercial system on it.
I have an Asus "asmobile" with a 1680x1050 screen (15.4 diagonal), and I LOVE it. Yea, I get some reflection, but the screen is bright enough that I don't notice is much -- or at least no more than I did with my previous Dell laptop with the mat finish screen. I couldn't see that one at all if I was outside.
I think it's more a matter of the display technology BEHIND the mat/glossy finish than it is how reflective the finish is.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Glossy laptop screens are like TVs on the shelf in the store with their colors all whacked out to look brighter. Once you get them into the real world, you realize that the colors are just wrong.
-----
Just about every modern video card has a color calibration/gamma utility. If the colors are off, calibrate it and adjust the gamma. There are limitations but you can usually get the color balance right.
-AC
I have both a Dell d830 and d620 which have non-reflective screens. The D830's native resolution is 1920x1200. I think you haven't been looking around enough, there are plenty of options. However, you typically have to look towards the business-class models for non-reflective (corporate cubical farm) models.
Aside from what happens when I actually have a movie to watch, there's the fact that I often can find a few columns to fill that space.
Current example: Kate, a text editor, with a filesystem browser on the left, and a list of open documents on the right, with the actual editing space between them. Maximize it, and I don't feel like any space is wasted. Certainly not as good as if I had a full 1920x1200, or 1920x1080, but I can usually find a way to fill any decent screen.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I tend to use a privacy filter on all my laptops anyway and that tends to reduce the glare by a bit.
This post may or may not contain cancer causing materials.
"...with their colors all whacked out to look brighter. Once you get them into the real world, you realize that the colors are just wrong."
Ouch. Kinda reminds me of the time I was asked to leave the store. I was adjusting the color.
The Nekid lady was just too orange.
Get your digital camera and put it on auto-exposure. Position it so the image from your screen completely fills the camera's view (kinda difficult on a 16:9 screen, but do your best). Display what you reckon to be a "normally" bright image on the screen.
Now measure the exposure time from your camera's light-meter.
Turn the screen off, place the camera in the same position as before and check the readings from the camera's auto-exposure display.
When I did this, the difference between my normally bright, ambient light image from the display and the light reflected off the display when it was turned off gave me a contrast ratio of 80 to 1
This value doesn't even give you the full dynamic range from an 8-bit display (255 to 1), let alone the 1000+++ to 1 that LCD TV manufacturers claim. On my glossy screen I could see distinct reflections through the viewfinder and these are what gave the laughably bad contrast ratio. I'll never beleive manufacturers specifications again, and I'll never, never buy another glossy screen.
Try this yourself, and see what results you get!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I thought I would prefer matte, but got talked into a Sony XBRITE (glossy display) laptop a few years ago after hearing rave reviews and being impressed in person. I liked it well enough, but wasn't sure it was really that much better.
I replaced it with a Fujitsu with a matte display, and immediately regretted it. The matte display was SO much harder to see in nearly all lighting conditions. It was practically unusable.
I just ordered a new Sony last week with an XBRITE glossy display. I will never go back to matte on a laptop.
I work at a WISP, and do a lot of field service on wireless bridges, at tower sites and on customer rooftops. I find the glossy screens all but useless. I need to throw a jacket over my head and the screen to use it. Totally useless in sunlight of any type - and I know I am not alone in needing a laptop outdoors and on the road. Give me a matte screen any day!
You get a bluetooth mouse and use that. You don't actually plan on using the touchpad, do you?
It turns out that most laptop demos to major fortune 500 companies don't involve the laptop being on.
So stupid execs decide and shiny wins.
So I'm guessing a class action suit involving anyone who wears glasses is about 3 years off.
The consensus so far seems to be that glossy is better if you have control over the lighting, say in your own home office (to avoid glare), and matte is better in environments where one has no control over the lighting.
Glossy screens just don't work on laptops. Glossy screens are like the emperor's new clothes. People think they are better, but in the real world, they aren't. Glossy screens are a poor choice for photographers.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Was I the only one who rolled-eyes when, a few years back, 99% of store laptops went from matte to glossy overnight, as the manufacturers made a lame attempt to 'follow the market'?
I vaguely remember it being (2000/2001)ish when one or two glossy screens cropped up, but once one manufacturer decided to put 'style' over usability, well...the 'coolness' trend couln't be stopped
The majority of purchasers thought that 'if the manufacturers were making it then it must be usable', not realising that (many) manufacturer will happily build something with less usability if it means that for the 30 seconds or so that most people would look at a laptop in-store, they think 'cool' and then lay down the cash.
...And Apples "edible" OS-X icons didn't help either.
My laptop came with a matte screen and looked great. After the screen broke, the replacement came in glossy. They must have made a universal shift over to them, mattes could not longer be found.
I HATE IT!!!
Sure, the screen looks nice in a darkened room but in any real-world situation, I'm seeing glare all over the place. It's like a perfect mirror, I could shave by it. Why why why why why?! The colors don't look any better than on the original screen and the glare drives me nuts. If I did not know the history of these screens and saw glossy and matte together, I would say "Wow! Matte! What a breakthrough! You guys are geniuses!" Instead I say "Grr, morons all!"
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I just faced the same problem you are dealing with. I just bought a macbook. I almost bought the macbook pro just for the screen, but there are just too many design problems to justify the higher price. Design rant aside, I found the solution was to buy an anti-glare screen protector. I love it! Installation requires a lint brush or some masking tape or a clean room, but once you get both screen and protector lint, dust, and hair free it works wonderfully! Plus if it gets messed up (key marks, scratches, etc. Just take it off an put a new one on. Decide you want the glossy screen - just take it off! They vary in quality from brand to bran (some look horrible and make everything blurry. check the reviews and some of the smaller vendors and you can find one for around $10-$15 that is well worth the investment!
Tapping with two fingers on the touchpad is right-click on Mac notebooks.
I see a lot of comments indicating that the color is not right on glossy displays. Is there any reason that color calibrators such as Spyder would not work on a glossy display?
Many new models of monitors are glossy, so this isn't just a laptop problem. But monitors don't have their screen inside the case of the computer, so it's an easier fix :)
It's tough to get a decent laptop with a non-glossy screen without buying a Thinkpad (or figuring out which few Dell models don't have it). I just bought a System76 Pangolin, which is awesome except for the glossy screen (and the Windows logo on the keyboard)...
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
I just bought an MacBook Pro with all the bells and whistles; I tried out both, glossy and non-glossy screen and must say, the glossy made my eyes hurt. Ended up gettin Matte ....
I for one, prefer the glossy screen to the matte. There are a couple of downsides to having a glossy, such as the glare, and also when the screen is off, or when you are looking at a full screen of black, having fingerprints and dust on it. But in practice, like many others have said, these are non-issues. You get used to moving the screen to avoid a major glare, and I don't even notice the small ones. And as for dirt and fingerprints, when using it, and looking at websites (like Slashdot), you don't see them. I have had a glossy screen for the last three years, and I would personally never go back to matte. I feel the matte gives images on the screen a fuzzy feeling, and when hit with direct sunlight, the matte finished monitors are completely washed out. I do not get that on my glossy. It's hard to see the screen, but I can still see it. Finally, glossy allows for a much brighter, much clearer picture. I get a lot more detail and clarity in my games and in general use.
No matter what the primary use of a laptop is, it should always have a matte display. The matte display allows for increased visibility under various lighting conditions. For a desktop display, you can go both ways. If the primary use of a display is to render color accurately (i.e for a graphic designer, web designer, digital artist, etc) one should ALWAYS go for the matte display. I have yet to see a professional display with a glossy surface. If the primary use is any other than the above, go for glossy. It renders more vivid colors, has a higher contrast ratio which makes reading easier on the eyes, and everything looks better.
I always disable tapping and scrolling on all my touchpads. I find it to be quite annoying.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Hint: you're not supposed to watch TV/Movies in a "normally lit" room. I suggest you read up on how to setup a proper viewing environment. ALL screens, glossy or otherwise, suffer from inappropriate lighting.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
I decided early on I wanted at 1680x1050 display on my new 15.4" laptop to resolution match my 22" 1680x1050 that I use for work. I looked at Dells and other big brands, but I ended up getting a Sager NP2092 with a 1680x1050 screen that they only offer in matte and I love it. With such high resolution on only a 15.4" screen it is just beautiful, "liquid" was the first word that popped into my mind when I seen it.
You can check it out here http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np2092-custom-laptop-built-compal-jfl92-p-2347.html.
Nevermore.
try it on a mac , I doubt it will be annoying.
.. really give it a chance. I bet you will like it.
While I dont use taping and scrolling on windows laptops , because I also find it annoying. I do use the two finger right click. and the two finger scroll on my MBP.
even to the point that I try and two finger scroll when using other computers.
Trust me , if you use it
If that happens you have bigger problems than lighting conditions.
It would be interesting to know how this would work for tablets. I'd like to see a matte effect for tablets but the writing surface has to be nearly smooth. It would certainly help, however, as nothing is worse than trying to write on your tablet and all you see is how bad your hair looks.
This has been bothering me for some time, so here it is:
/rantoff
WIDESCREEN DISPLAYS ARE SMALLER THAN SAME-DIAGONAL STANDARD 4:3 DISPLAY AND MOST BUSINESS APPLICATION ARE DESIGNED AROUND 4:3.
For a rectangle with a given diagonal the maximum surface area would be a square. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem For the same diagonal, as length and width are further apart surface area decreases.
A widescreen display 16:9 has 11% less surface area than a standard 4:3 display for the same diagonal. They are duping us into believing we're getting more when we're actually getting less!
Also, many work applications still use standard aspect, including PowerPoint and VNC. If I were to change to widescreen, I'd be forced to use a lower resolution in VNC. This bothers me the most.
The only thing widescreen is good for is watching DVDs, which I do on my widescreen TV, not my laptop.
The worst part is they only sell widescreen displays now! (Both laptop and desktop.) Standard is going the way of the dodo, and the few left cost a $hitload.
I suspect the difference here is ambient lighting. When you pointed the camera at the screen, the screen was reflecting stray room light. So your black showed up as a "real life use" black. When manufacturers measure these things for the specs, they do what my colorimeter does - sit on top of the screen blocking out any stray light, and measure the brightness.
So don't blame the specs, my measurements say they are pretty accurate for what they represent. Take them to mean the best contrast ratio you can expect under ideal (completely dark) conditions. If it bothers you that the contrast ratio in your room sucks, then turn off the lights.
Mine is set up so that holding two fingers on the track pad makes the mouse button behave as a right mouse button. This was one of my biggest concerns when considering getting a Mac ( really ) and it's turned out to be a total non-issue.
I guess it depends on where you want to use it. If you use your computer outdoors a lot glossy will probably have annoying reflections, but this really isn't an issue indoors ( at least not for me ), and I prefer glossy. Can't quite put my finger on why, but the picture seems to look better on glossy screens ( assuming no nuisance reflections).
I have found the I prefer the glossy screens because they clean better. No matter how much I snap at people for touching my screen, inveriably someone get their fingers in their within a month or two of having the monitor. With the non-glossy screens, I just end up having to live with the fingerprint on the screen, as cleaning it often ends up just making things worse. With the glossy screens, I have been able to wipe the fingerprints off.
I got bitten by the glossy screen thing on the lenovo ideapad that I bought recently. I'd heard good things about it running linux (fedora, ubuntu, etc) and didn't even think to investigate this issue with what I assumed was just a low cost ThinkPad. For an otherwise fine laptop, I hate the glossy screen. I think it is in response to Apple's use of glossy LCD screens on their iMacs and notebooks.
Salut,
Jacques
What? You could afford EGA? All I could muster up was enough for a (used) CGA (8-colors, IIRC) card and 10- or 11- inch monitor on my 8086 PC AT2. But it was quite a step up from playing pong on a green screen.
CGA cards sometimes had tv-out rca jacks, but the display looked terrible on my TV: the screen was too glossy.
... in my acer travelmate 8102wlmi.
1680x1050 resolution in a non glossy screen.
Well, I wouldn't think you'd want to put tape on your laptops, especially on the touchpad.
I had a Dell Inspiron with a 1920x1200 glossy "true life" screen. I hated it for work - since lights and windows reflect terribly (it was OK to use in a dark room). Since Dell never saw fit to offer a matte screen at 1920x1200, I was more or less forced to switch to using a MacBook Pro since they did offer the matte option. Now a year later I'm even a bit of a Mac fanboy after being solidly in the Dell camp for years.
People think this is a matte vs. glossy debate. In reality, it's a matte vs. cheap glossy vs. expensive glossy debate. The better glossy screens have better anti-reflective coatings on them. Go to an Office Depot and look at the glossy laptop screens. Some of them will look like mirrors. Others will hardly show any reflection. The higher end Sonys in particular seem to be very good at reducing reflections on their glossy screens. My first glossy screen was my Sony S360P and it was wonderful - I hardly ever noticed any reflections. My next glossy screen was almost like a mirror, and I had to change to dark shirts to use the thing comfortably.
If you are so worried about reflections I highly suggest that you check your lighting too. If you set it correctly you won't get reflections from any display. The most important thing is that there should be no light source opposite the screen.
I just bought a 17" Dell Vostro for one of my customers, it had a 1920x1280 non-glare screen.
I only get matte. I don't want a mirror/print magnet.
More than that though, I want a transflective screen on a laptop. I have an XO (OLPC) now and it's great being able to read it easily outdoors. I'm amazed no one else has tried this (other than ridiculously expensive conversions I've seen.)
You need to get a better monitor.
Since you obviously had difficulty reading his post.
IMO, having a glossy laptop screen is redundant. I have a 17" macbook pro that I've used for all sorts of creative design work and can honestly say the matte screen will leave you much less annoyed. Laptops move around to different lighting conditions; matte looks good or is at least usable in all lighting, glossy will look better in a dark setting but anywhere else is a pain..
Unfortunately apple is the only company I've seen offer up a matte display as a standard configuration option.(although the last time I really checked was awhile ago) I guess glossy had gotten into the "vogue."
the chance for a poll with 98% / 2% outcome :)
Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
Windows trackpads that set the right hand side for vertical scrolling, the bottom for horizontal scrolling, and special zones for other actions?
Yeah, unusable, primitive and pointless.
It works far better on the Mac, two finger scrolling is the best and that came out three years ago. I don't know why PC laptops are so far behind. Honestly. Then again I don't understand people who like that nipple laptop controller, how do you do any sort of scrolling or clicking with that? Who moves their mouse to the scrollbar these days!
I actually find Mac touchpad and its gestures to be worse than on a regular setup on Linux or Windows, especially the scrolling. IMHO it's much more comfortable and intuitive to move your finger on the right edge of a touchpad to do this. Also, having a two physical buttons means you can set third button to be easier accessible by double-finger tap.
You can also flip it vertical (so that it is tall instead of wide) and fit more lines of terminals than you otherwise could, which is great for sysadmins or programmers.
As for VNC.. I didn't have any issue VNCing from my work's widescreen into my home 4:3, but I had no reason to try to fullscreen it. rdesktop was fine too. I can see where doing it the other way around could be a bit of an issue, but it's really only an issue if you DONT have a widescreen -- widescreen can display 4:3 fine, but if you only have a 4:3 and your clients have widescreens..
Never needed to use Powerpoint, so I can't say anything about that.
Damn, somehow I have replied to this post while I wanted to reply http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=521830&cid=23064620
Actually, the Synaptics driver for X also enables the scrolling parts on the right and bottom of touchpads, at least on my laptop.
Personally, I'm so fed up with the touchpad that I use RatPoison as my WM and the Vimperator extension for Firefox.
Rubbing one's finger against a piece of plastic like that really doesn't seem like the best idea. Too bad laptops with trackballs haven't been around for ages, and it's difficult to find portable trackballs. The smallest trackball I know of is about the same size as a regular mouse.
The glossy screens are intended for the averageuser who is a "media comcummer". This is someone who uses his computer mostly as a media player either for DVD movies, games or internet. I think 90% of all computers are used this way now and for that the bright "out of whack" colors are what they want. If you are creating digital content you want "accurate" color and an anti-glare screen.
Apple's Macbook Pro comes with thescreen you want. Even if they do cost a bit more than something else, it is worth paying an extra $1K just so you don'r have to use MS Windows.
Quick! Get some tin foil and just wrap this guy in it until the Reality Distortion Field strength dies down a bit! Anybody close to this guy? We need to act fast.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Terrible post.
Nobody is being duped but you, the rest of us learned about the area of rectangles a long time ago.
You can get widescreen displays that will do 1200 pixels vertically, which is enough height for just about everyone.
Guess what, 4:3 video is an artifact of celluloid movies and has no particular intrinsic goodness. Widescreen is a much closer approximation to the viewing angle of the normal two-eyed human (sorry, Leela).
I am too broke for a fancy widescreen display, but I simulate one with two monitors. The virtual screen is not even rectangular because the two monitors are not the same size. EVERYTHING works great. VNC, VMWARE, browsers, DVD player.
Widescreen rules for development. I edit code on one side of the screen, and I put documentation on the other side. I'll never go back.
..if you like 640x480.
...if you like 640x480.
With a ThinkPad, you'll end up using the trackpoint 100% of the time you need to move the pointer. Yes, it's that good.
c++;
you'll look less dumb.
I have a MacBook. They only come with glossy screens. And I like it. Seriously, this is obviously just a matter of taste, and just as obvious is that consumers like glossy screens more than matte screens. Otherwise we wouldn't have all these glossy-screened laptops around. Maybe the anti-glossy folks shoould start shouting louder at Dell, Apple, HP & al.
They are 16:10, not 16:9 which is in fact the golden ratio to two digits (1.6).
You can turn a glossy screen into matte by applying a $0.5 protective film.
You cannot turn a matte screen into a glossy screen without replacing the entire screen.
If laptop manufacturers start to ship matte protective films with their machines it'd be perfect. But it's not like I cannot go get one for less than $2.
I work a lot with laptops outdoors, and I have laptops with both glare and matte screens. My finding is that glare and matte are different things and one does not replace the other. Glare is good when you go outdoors in a sunny day, as the screen is still readable while matte is impossible to read because of the light. Matte, on the other hand, has better colour reproduction than glare (even compared to expensive glare models), so when you have to work on something which is colour-critical, by all means prefer a matte screen. So, if you buy lots of laptops, buy both glares and mattes as they can do different things. If you want to buy just one laptop, touch, the choice should be guided by whether you work outdoors a lot or not: If you go outside, you may find the glare screen readable under conditions which would render any matte screen unreadable. Take care, though, as if your work environment is one where you are not able to change the viewing angle or position of your laptop screen then the glare option may yield difficulties.
I do not need a computer mirror to look at myself Apple is loosing customers here, hope Jobs will change his mind, only fool don't...
My Thinkpad T60 has a matte screen. My father had a Toshiba Satellite with the glossy screen and (never mind the rest of what I didn't like about the satellite) the dimmest light would cause a blinding glare over whatever you're working on.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
LOL I almost pissed myself laughing when I read that. Seriously, think of the possibilities!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Right.
I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down at the mill, and when we got home, our dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah!
You can't tell the young people of today that. They won't believe you.
What if I have only one finger you insensitive clod!
I have a nice 42" plasma that is virtually unusable for movie watching during peak day time due to insane reflections. I'm never home during the day except on weekends, so it's not too bad, but I would love to get rid of the annoying reflections.
I had an 04'ish HP laptop with a matte, and it was great. The ms' bought a Toshiba with a gloss and it was painful, couldn't use it for more than a few hours.
On my new machine I wanted a matte finish as well, but same predicament... I eventually gave up, and went with an 07 LG model (gloss screen). To my surprise it wasn't that bad actually... no issues like the Toshiba.
The only snag is using it outside around sunlight can create too much ambient light, and the screen can't get bright enough to offset the glares (have to operate in the shade).
I don't know what LG did differently, but may be worth looking into. Best of luck!
In addition to the effects of ambient lighting, a matte screen diffuses light generated by the display. Fine details lose more contrast on a matte screen than on a glossy screen, and you can't read the intensity levels of fine details with a camera's light meter.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Since you obviously had difficulty reading his post. I think you're the one who needs the better monitor. Since he addresses the original point eventually. Quite insightfully, too.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Also, how about 15" standard screens? I have been trying to buy one and all I get is either 15.4" or 15.1" widescreens or 14.1" standard screens. I prefer 15" (or 15.1") standard screens so that I can see more code/document at any instant. Don't know why nobody wants to make them?
16:9 is such a pooched standard.
Its wide enough that 4:3 content generally looks out of proportion when stretched, but its not wide enough to show the most common current 2.35:1 movies without letterboxing.
"Gee, nice wide screen. Why are movies still letterboxed?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The grid of all those tiny little liquid crystal cells is where you need to focus to see the image clearly. In addition to that, you need some kind of cover over those cells to protect them. Thinner covers provide less protection than thicker covers. When the cover has a matte surface, a thicker cover increases the fuzziness caused by the matte surface. So a tradeoff is between fuzziness vs. physical protection. The glossy surface avoids the fuzziness and allows the eye to focus below the cover surface, right where the cells are. Glossy avoids that fuzziness vs. physical protection issue and allows a thicker cover to provide better protection.
Glossy also works better in higher ambient light levels, except for the few cases where the reflection angle is at its worst.
A laptop screen needs more physical protection than a desktop monitor screen. That favors choosing thicker glossy for the laptop when thin matte would otherwise be preferred for the desktop.
A laptop is easier to move to a less problematic light environment than a desktop. That favors matte for the desktop when glossy would otherwise be usable.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/products.asp
A lot less preinstalled crapware. I'm ppretty sure they all have matte screens. Many of the extra rugged models are explicitly intended for outdoors use, rather than viewing DVDs (which seem to be the main motivation for glossy screens).
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
This is the only explanation I can come up with (People impressed by shiny things). I remember the period where CRT makers fell over themselves to make antiglare coatings (fairly successfully). Then we got LCD and matte screens fixed reflections totally.
I have a Trinitron next to my matte screen LCD. The matte screen is not muddy or blurred by the matte coating and it has NO reflections at all. Where the Anti-glare screen on the CRT is halfway, it has some reflection in some cases, but no where near the glossy mirror that are the latest monitors. There is nothing anti glare or anti reflective at all. They are like mirrors.
People seem to be keying off the reflections and being impressed by the shininess. Much like glossy vs matte photos.
I was in a big box electronics place with about 30 monitors. I noticed a few on the lower shelf and I couldn't tell if they were glossy or not because at that angle there were no reflections and both glossy and non glossy screens looked the same.
It is only when you see reflections in the black, that you notice the "deeper blacks", much like reflections on a well waxed car make it look deep black/color.
I see not advantage to glossy screens, it is the fashion of the moment and impresses those who like shiny things, but I expect 5 years from now, we will start to swing back the other way as people realizing what a pain looking into a mirror screen is, and the industry will start to push matte screens again.
It is not just light sources that reflect. These new Glossy screens are mirrors. Everything in the room reflects, but hey it is shiny and apparently that impresses some people. Buy a matte screen while you can.
My point is that you can scroll anywhere on the trackpad, just by using two fingers.
:) I've found I prefer it to a mouse, for desktop work. Maybe I'm odd.
You don't have to use a special area nor do you have to move the mouse cursor to the scroll bar.
You can scroll in any direction, not just vertically or horizontally.
This simple three-year-old multitouch is effective and works. I doubt there is any difference in the touchpad than on a standard one, it's just the software. Someone should write a driver for Linux
The MacBook Air does three fingers, I guess the hardware is different there.
Please don't lump us all in with those drooling troglodytes. Some of us switched platforms for good reasons and are perfectly honest about the flaws inherent to our system. I've convinced many friends/colleagues to switch but I've probably dissuaded just as many because there was no real tangible benefit to their switching.
There's a lot of Mac hate out there too my friend. It's just that the neophytes who feel morally/socially superior because they have the same white laptop as every other person in the coffeeshop are much louder.
(Disclaimer: I am writing this on a MacBook at a coffeeshop)
P.S. If youget modded as flamebait it might have something to do with the "Mac fangirls" tone of your post.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not to feed trolls in either the pro or anti-Mac direction, but it's actually pretty easy to right click on a Mac laptop sans external mouse...
With the two-fingered scrolling features, you can actually right click by putting two fingers on the track pad and clicking. You don't have to enable tapping or scrolling, and it's surprisingly easy to get used to.
Anyway, all this is by way of saying, there may be problems with Macs, but can we please stop the smartass "but you can't right-click!" comments? They're just annoying and get in the way of taking any valid complaints about the platform seriously.
You can actually enable two-finger right clicking without enabling tapping - you just have to put two fingers down and click the button. It's surprisingly easy, since the trackpad layout makes your thumb the logical finger to click the button.
Glossy displays look pretty in the store shelves, but they do not offer more or less protection that standard screens. They may offer a "crisper" image but the con of annoying glare outweigh that pro very easily.
The matte finish is for glare reduction only. It's not an indication of more or less protection.
A laptop screen needs more physical protection from behind - period. Manufactures are starting to add better protection from behind to withstand the abuse laptops go through - like my T61p that has a magnesium cage to prevent the display from getting shoved into the keyboard in transit.
If you're bashing your display from the front - you probably shouldn't be using a laptop and go get yourself a nice helmet to wear on the short bus.
It doesn't seem to be enabled by default. Same with Control and mouse wheel for zooming, you have to turn it on yourself.
Apple's come as "one button" by default, if you know what a second button is you can turn it on in System Prefs but it's done not to confuse grammas. Remember that Control clicking always works if you're using someone else's laptop and they're used to single button operation.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
obligatory disagreement. I never could get comfortable with the clitmouse. Touchpad is better for me, or an actual mouse if there's room to use it.
I actually prefer the Windows trackpad setup *because* you can scroll with one finger, or rather, one thumb. I normally use the trackpad with my thumb, so my hands never have to leave the keyboard. It's so much faster to work this way, even compared to a mouse. If you closely, you'll notice that most PC laptops have the trackpad centered under the alphabetical area of the keyboard specifically for this reason. Macbooks have the trackpad centered on the chassis, which makes it awkward to reach with your thumb. And i don't seem to have the coordination needed to scroll with two thumbs, either.
You jest, no? It's the worst pointing device in the world and achieves nothing but getting in the way of the surrounding keys. Thankfully they can be removed. Each to their own, I guess.
HP downgraded my notebook's LCD during a repair ticket and refused to fix it, despite that I sent them a copy of my original purchase order. Now I'm stuck with a POS low-rez, reflective screen which is annoying with any sort of light behind me, and is practically useless outdoors.
Probably a good idea to avoid them.
You don't compare the diagonal measurement when comparing screens. You compare price, resolution, and pixel pitch.
Let's compare 2 screens that have similar specs
Samsung 943BX, 19" 1280x1024 $260 (newegg) 4:3
Samsung 2043BXW 20" 1680x1050 $270 (newegg) 16:9
These are 2 very similar screens in terms of performance specs. Both are 5ms, have the same inputs, and have a pixel pitch within 5% of each other.
For 4% more money, I get 34% more resolution.
A good number of the glossy screens are 24-bit color displays, the matte screens generally are only 18-bit.
Yes, I know, back when the Dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
Your 20" wide has a height of 9.8", while the 19" std has a height of 11.4". With nearly identical vertical resolution, everything on your screen appears 14% smaller in scale than the 19" std. Additionally, the 20" wide has 1.5% less surface area than the 19" std.
For 4% more money, you get to squint your eyes more.
This is the only reason I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro instead of on a MacBook. And I actually know a person who switched to a PC notebook simply because there are no cheap Mac portables with non-glossy screens.
What the hell is wrong with the people who prefer portables with mirrors for screens? When I was a kid, tech stores actually sold screen filters which you could attach to your CRT to get rid of glare. I thought we had managed to produce screens which don't need these anymore, but apparently, there will soon again be a market for attachments which make screens actually usable.
I was shopping for a new monitor recently and commented to a friend that it's like going in circles. Everyone had a big old glossy CRT with a glare screen over the front so they could actually read it. Then with the flat paneled fronts they started using a matte coat. For a while with LCD screens I remember nearly all being matte and only a handful of glossy screens. Now the store shelves are all shiny with the glossy monitors again and I wonder how long until I walk around an office of monitors covered in glare screens once more.
Glossy looks pretty, but unless you control the environment it's in it's more hassle than feature. I'd take a matte screen on a laptop over glossy any day.
400 for a non glossy finish 1.5GHz Celeron M... JK lol
HP downgraded my notebook's LCD during a repair ticket and refused to fix it, despite that I sent them a copy of my original purchase order. Now I'm stuck with a POS low-rez, reflective screen which is annoying with any sort of light behind me, and is practically useless outdoors.
Probably a good idea to avoid them.
I'll take that machine if you don't want it. I could use a good laptop to download my photos onto while I'm shooting. A matte screen in a bright environment makes it hard to analyze my images unless I cover myself and the computer with a dark blanket.Don't wait for a Mac tablet. You'll probably be waiting for a long time :-)
Either get a modbook, or get a Windows tablet if you need that form factor.
In my experience, the difference between matte and glossy usually is linked to the display's resolution and color depth. I like higher-performance laptops, so this probably isn't the absolute rule, but...
I have a Dell XPS m1730, the resolution is WUXGA (1920x1200) for a 17" screen and based on the published specifications, it seems to definitely be a 24-bit color display. It's also glossy.
I have a Thinkpad Z61p, also WUXGA, but based on the specs, it's definitely only an 18-bit color display. It's a matte 15.4" screen.
The most cited reason I've seen for this difference is that the matte screens diffuse each pixel's output, which masks defects and also helps blend colors better despite the lower color depth. The tiny bit of diffusion can also help blur out the pixel pitch a little in lower resolution screens. When a display has high pixel density and 24-bit color depth, glossy screens do make for sharper images and blacker blacks, despite the annoying glare.
As for obnoxious color, most manufacturers and consumers seem to turn chrominance up too high and have the luminance out-of-whack too, regardless of the display type. The 24-bit screens tend to have a much higher contrast ratio than the 18-bit screens as well, which means the picture will look lousy if it's not adjusted. Turn the chrominance down. Turn the luminance down. Turn the contrast down. Your eyes will thank you for it. A blue gel (available at video production and some camera stores) is really nice to have for calibrating monitors and televisions, if you have a good test pattern you can output to the screen.
Or, with tapping off, touch the trackpad with 2 fingers and click the button. Tapping the trackpad is incredibly annoying.
I still can't understand the glossy screens.
They give you a bit higher contrast, as long as you avoid reflections. I'm typing on one right now, and I don't see a problem.
If you don't like it, put a matte screen protector on the glossy screen and it will behave like a matte screen. The reverse is not true.
I use glossy at home and regular CRT .....
OH MY GOD. I'm participating in an online discussion about computer displays. It's official. I HAVE NO LIFE.
I'll be modded down to hell and back for this, but what the hell? What kind of gimpy eyes do so many people have that glossy screens "hurt" your eyes? I hear so many fellow geeks bitch about glossy screens as if they were stabbing daggers in their eyes. Do you people live in caves and need a screen that dulls the image so your mole-eyes aren't offended? Yes, low end crappy screens are glossy to mask problems, but spend a few extra bucks to get a GOOD screen and the gloss makes it shine literally and figuratively. As for glare, LCDs are FLAT. Do you have some giant spotlight behind you so that the screen manages to shine the spotlight DIRECTLY into your face? Don't give me excuses about glasses either, I wear glasses and find glare to be an easily manageable problem by focusing on the plane of the monitor rather than the reflected objects several times further distant. But then, I don't have problems talking to girls either...
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Sorry, I had the aspect wrong. PC monitors are not 16:9, they're 16:10. (this still shows there is a 9% difference in DPI between the 2 screens)
I guess I should have used the Samsung 2243BXW 22" screen.
It's $310, which is 19% more for 34% more resolution. The 22" has the same 90dpi as the 19" screen. You still get more for your money with the widescreen. Just not as much as my first post made it out to be.
Basically your argument is still bunk. You don't get less for your money going with widescreen..
It is actually not difficult to find a laptop with a matte screen these days. Most brands sell them in their business line (except Sony), glossy is left for the consumer line usually. On the downside though, business laptops rarely have dedicated 3D graphic chips so it's not a real choice for a gamer.
Sorry, but in the glossy vs. matte argument, glossy wins every time.
Think about it. You're deep into your work, focusing intently on your screen despite the glare of the sun coming in though the window behind you. Squinting slightly, just as you start a complex cut-and-paste operation, you see reflected in your desktop the image of an axe murderer who is right behind you!
Thankfully you had the foresight to choose a glossy screen, which reflects everything behind you with perfect fidelity! You can easily judge the angle at which the attacker is sneaking up on you, and with a simple twist you suddenly rotate the screen to bounce the sunlight right into his eyes! He screams with pain (since the glossy screen reflects nearly all of the light that falls on it), and involuntarily raises his arms to ward off the photonic assault, giving you enough time to reach under your desk, grab your old CRT (which you had the foresight to keep), and smash him over the head with it.
Try THAT with your matte screen.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
On the contrary, any laptop that doesn't have a nipple is worthless trash. Touchpads are terribly inefficient for mousing.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Glossy screen + scotch brite pad = matte screen
Thank me later.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Can't you buy one of those 3M anti-glare films? You would be able to get the best of both worlds.
Organic Light Emitting Diode Display
I'd be interested in hearing general remarks about
..jim
- observed vs claimed viewing angle
- backlight bleed-through
- color change sith viewing angle (depends on both of above?)
You don't have to use a special area nor do you have to move the mouse cursor to the scroll bar.
You can scroll in any direction, not just vertically or horizontally.
I do that too, except with just one finger.
Any useful laptop comes with both a nipple and a touchpad. The touchpad is of course useless for mousing, so you turn the entire touchpad into a scrolling device. Thus, you can mouse with the nipple, and scroll with your thumb on the touchpad, all without taking your hands off the home row!
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
http://www.buyviewguard.com/
Enjoy.
I know the feeling.
I only buy non-widescreen laptops. My previous laptop was a Toshiba Tecra M3. It died late last year, and I've been wanting to replace it with a Santa Rosa notebook. Imagine my surprise when the M3's successor's successor was widescreen. In fact, _every single Santa Rosa notebook_ is widescreen.
Well, Fujitsu makes a non-widescreen tablet, but it has integrated graphics, which wreaks havoc on system RAM (I always run without swap, so I need RAM). I think Lenovo released a non-widescreen T61 a month or two after I started searching, but it's still pathetic that only one manufacturer offers a non-widescreen notebook with discrete graphics (and they also happen to be the one manufacturer I have moral objections to buying from, what with them being headquartered in Red China). When I bought my M3, I had a choice between Toshiba, Dell, Lenovo, and probably a few others.
C'mon people, I don't want a laptop with a fucked-up aspect ratio.
I suppose it's a moot point now--I bought a new desktop a few months ago, and I want to pay it off in full before buying any more big-ticket items (and chances are, my next expensive purchase will be a 360, not another $2000 computer).
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I don't really think your work is appreciated... ... if you got multiple axe murderers a year behind you screaming in pain.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
This only holds as long as you aren't looking at a reflection of the sun itself, and is a manifestation of the main difference between glossy and matte (which seems to be completely missed here): Glossy screens favor high ambient diffuse lighting situations, while matte screens will fair better against specular lighting. Diffuse lighting will wash out a matte screen and reduce effective contrast, but would be neutralized by reflective gloss. However, gloss will act like a mirror if there is a light bulb right behind you (quite obnoxious), while matte will pleasantly diffuse it out.
If you're stuck with one or the other, keep these qualities in mind when you choose where to work/play...
I got dragged into the shiny thing, and I have to say, that I am unhappy with the reflective screen. My Macbook (which I am happy with) is sporting this screen, and while it is visually impressive if you are a bystander, it has crappy performance all the way .... There is virtually no angle that the monitor can be viewed without seeing any artifact from the wrong angle.
We have a new Compaq in the family (no I do not buy HP or Compaq, or use them even if they were free), and I can see the same thing.
My 5 year old Samsung flatscreen has a nicer image, and a bigger tolerance for angle viewing than all these fancy shiny piece of craps.
Well, I should have bought the pro with matte screen I guess.
I am using an old 24' Cinema display at work, true 1080p, and this far that is the nicest monitor I have ever used. At home my AOC 22' and 19 AOC are OK. Cheap brand, and still better than my expensive macbook reflective....
Well just my 2c.
Since when does ugly mean 'business looks'? MacBook Pros are certainly sleek, svelte, good-looking machines that are actually designed before being built; I didn't know that meant non-business. For my part, when I see a Windows user, I assume incompetence and sub-middle management, MacBook Pro users I allow myself a bit of hope that they have a clue, quite often I'm pleasantly surprised.
..such as the Barco Reference Calibrator (21" CRT, about $6.5k new) has a layer of silk over the CRT face to minimize reflections. Users who actually care about proper color and contrast would never even consider using a glossy screen.
CRT never needed "glossy" -- glossy provides the illusion of better contrast, which LCD sorely needs, at the cost of being a massive distraction.
It is purely consumerism at work! much like widescreen displays; if anything, a VERTICAL display is preferential -- and the common PC-widescreen formats (such as 1920x1200) do not conform to broadcast widescreen standards anyhow.
You only want widescreen for gaming, which you are not doing on a laptop.
I was surprised to find that in every situation that the glossy screen was unreadable, so was the matte screen. In fact, it was usually easier to angle the glossy screen to eliminate the glare. The matte surface reflected glare at much wider angles.
I've now been using the MacBook for two solid years under every imaginable condition and at this point I can say I'd be ok with buying another glossy screen.
I also had the misfortune to have had a glossy desktop screen after the matte version of the monitor up and died. It was a disaster. I would never buy a glossy desktop display unless there were no windows in the room I was using it. I ended up shifting my whole workspace to put the windows behind the monitor, and disabling overhead lights.
I think the difference between desktop and laptop has to do with two things: The monitor position on the laptop is lower, leading to a natural upward angle that tends to reflect background light away from my eyes rather than toward them; and it's easier to change the angle of the laptop display to avoid glare.
That said, I am not entirely happy with my MacBook's display but the problem has nothing to do with glare. It has lousy red reproduction.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
Glossy or matte is just part of the problem. The bigger problem that actually hurts eyes is increasing color temperatures of both colors and the backlights. Effectively this leads all colors to appear more blue. Our brain perceives it as much brighter and from a distance we think the display with more bluish temperature looks a lot brigher. Now an older display with yelowish or reddish tint will look "old" right next to the new bluish one. The problem is - when you sit infront of a screen with bluish colors - a lot of the times it hurts eyes because this is not quite the same as daylight that we are used to. You can go into graphics properties, adjust color temperature (or decrease gamma/brightness/contrast for blue) and see the difference. The colors will not be as good. If your TFT panel is a "thin-film" type you will also get different color reproduction in the vertical axis, but it will be much easier on eyes. You can also download a program called PowerStrip (free evaluation), run it with any new laptop, assume whatever the default is at 6500K and lower color temperature to be 5200-5600K - you will find that your eyes don't hurt as much. ---- Regarding the colors on the stand-alone LCD monitors - you have to make sure that LCD/TFT you get is IPS or PVA. They have the same colors across the vertical viewing angle. Thin-Film (TF) doesnt. DELL 2405 and 2407 are good ones. Dell 247 is not. FRY's doesn't sell any non-TF monitors. Best Buy only has 3 PVA monitors and most others regular TF. It just happens that TF technology is a lot cheaper to manufacture. As such people who notice the problem - suffer. Some people who don't have to sit in front of the monitor for 4+ hours straight would never notice.
why is it always on or off?
that said while my gloss laptop screen seems crystal clear i have a dirty hand 3 year old and a wife thats not much better
matte does seem less sharp but that could be my memory i use a sun 20 inch crt and my last laptop was a p2 presario dual scan at 800x600
Technology will default in society to its most rudimentary level:::stupid computers for stupid users:::
Have to agree with the trackball option. Found myself a nice logitech trackman wireless to use with my laptop so I don't have to torture myself with the abomination that is the touchpad. Of course it's intended for desktop PC's, not laptops, so the the 4 feet of USB cable bundled to the oversized wireless receiver looks like a huge electronic tick sucking the life out of the back of the LCD. I don't mind that it's a full-sized trackball at all, since it's wireless I can set it anywhere I damn well please. Only problem that remains is Vista's bizarre inability to remember my mouse settings after logging out, switching to a different user, rebooting, or hibernating. Retarded. Win95 could remember my mouse settings after a reboot. (Just now confirmed this by firing up my ancient Compaq Contura 420cx laptop running Win95, and after 3 years of neglect, it STILL retains the settings for my mouseman marble which is now dead, but the built-in trackball uses the same settings just fine.) How in the Hell does MS screw up something so simple and basic as saving the user's mouse settings? Anyway, if you don't mind your laptop looking a little less sexy, I highly recommend picking up the wireless trackman, they're only about 50 bucks from Best Buy so I'm sure you can find a better deal elsewhere, and if the track record of my first trackman marble is any indication, it should be good for about 10 years of continuous use.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
Scrolling with 2 fingers also is the same as a scroll wheel.
when I first discovered that I went "WOW! THAT IS SO COOL!"
I now freak people out that have used Mac laptops for years that did not know it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Just Windex and a paper towel. Ok, now back to it. fap fap fap...
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
You cannot turn a matte screen into a glossy screen without replacing the entire screen.
incorrect. most "glossy" screens are matte screens with a shiny plastic cover. you can add that by going to home depot, buying a sheet of clear plexiglass and sticking it to your screen. a Co worker did just that. he cut it carefully, sanded the edges so it was a perfect fit and converted his D840 into a glossy screen that freaked out the IT people.
it looks stock. and Cost him 2 hours of time and $3.95 in plexiglass.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The protection is a matter of degree. The thicker cover can protect to a high level of impact ... not infinite, but higher. Matte and thicker means more fuzzy, so those are basically incompatible. Ultimately what is needed is a multicoated surface that eliminates the reflections much like a top quality camera lens. But then you can't touch it until they find material that can't be scratched off.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I just got a Macbook from this dude, and I'm mortified of taking the damn thing around other idiots (i'm an acceptable annoyance). So I got this thing.
Screw the glossy screen. If you email me, I'll let you know how it is when it gets here (the 18th or so).
-Nathan
I use matte LCDs both at work and home (standalone monitors, not laptops) and for a brief time I used laptops with both types of screen.
I do prefer the feel of the matte, but you can't deny that glass is way easier to clean.
Once you get a thumbprint on your matte screen, it's pretty much there for good. Unless someone can enlighten me with a decent way of removing thumbprints from matte without damaging the screen or leaving unsightly streaks... damp cloth doesn't seem to work very well for me.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
Yeah, and a $2 matte piece of plastic is just as good as matte, acid-evaporated glass (or whatever the hell they do)...
Come on, grow a clue: any film laid over a display reduces the light output, muddies the colors, and almost certainly scratches the display by sandwiching dust against the display glass.
I think there's a simple bottom line here if you wade through all the posts (and do a little research).
If you are in the business of creating, that means photographers, graphic designers, web developers, film/video editors, and the like, you belong on a matte display. Matte means you don't have visual 'noise' on the display from reflections, color display is much more accurate and expressive of the true color, not a 'liquid' version of the color. Glossy displays really don't do 'subtle' well.
If you're a consumer of content, that means web browsing, watching movies, and the like, get a glossy display. Blacks will seem darker, colors will pop, and overall the 'wow' factor is higher.
The special situation of outdoors, its a tossup:
Direct sunlight glossy is better because matte will scatter the light in all directions and drown out the light from the display.
Indirect sunlight outdoors, a matte display is better, because the random reflections from well-lit objects behind you will be overwhelming, and matte won't reflect them.
Ultimately what is needed is a multicoated surface that eliminates the reflections much like a top quality camera lens. But then you can't touch it until they find material that can't be scratched off.
No, what you need is a taser or other obviously painful weapon to show the next moron who waves a finger towards your brand new 15.4" 1900x1200 LCD screen.Go ahead... smudge my monitor.
CRTs only cause eyestrain when the refresh rate is too low.
No sig today...
Shiny things sell more.
Same goes for "panoramic" screens - mostly a downgrade (almost all computing activities are vertical-page oriented) but you just watch people's eyes light up when you tell them they're getting something with a panoramic screen.
No sig today...
Glossy screens are like glossy photos - they reflect all the room lights and if you happen to get your grubby paws on them by mistake, the fingerprints can be seen a mile away. They are a stupid "innovation".
THis sounds like a poll, but i am not seeing poll options.
I now have my Dell Latitude D820 for about a year and I absolutely love it. It has a 15.4" widescreen at 1920x1200 non-glossy. Everybody who sees the screen is amazed by the detail and resolution. I can easily get two source files (80 columns) next to each other and still have room for an IRC client and some shell windows. And Ubuntu loves it too (just no good binary driver from NVidia to be found - the bastards) You can still get them with XP so that you at least have something speedy for the occasional drop into windows ;)
the glossy notebook displays was the main reason why i bought a desktop lastd december instead of notebook after my old one broke
Ok, welcome to the 70s. Care to add a middle click and join the 80s?
I use the touchpad almost entirely exclusively (unless I'm doing something like photoshop, quark, etc)
two finger scroll, tap click, vertical+horizontal scrolls. Very nice. Haven't used the new multitouch ones either.
The 'clit mouse' is the greatest thing in the history of laptop pointing. Ever.
Mainly, you don't need to lift your finger and re-move it. Plus you have the big button beneath the clicker that will scroll the contents under the pointer. Marvelous
Although, touchpads aren't so bad... especially with the side-scrolling
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
check it out if interested:
http://www.buzzillions.com/x/s?Ntt=laptops&N=0&D=x&x=0&y=0
actually a glossy screen *enhances* the contrast ratio compared to a matte one.
and, no offence, but i seriously doubt your ability to interpret the exposure reading on your camera properly...
There...
I said it.
FWIW, I have three glossy LCDs. The glare can be a hassle when I'm mobile, but the one at my desk is outstanding.
Vendor: Why would you not want glossy? It looks cool! ...but I want to *use* the product. ...but it looks cool! Everyone wants cool, right? ...
Customer:
Vendor:
Customer:
Did anyone bother to ask the customers what they want?
I have yet to see the 17" WUXGA LCD monitors. Or really any WUXGA monitor smaller than about 22". The 17" panels don't appear to have ever been used in the desktop LCD application. They may not be common, in that they're typically only used in higher-end laptops, but they're obviously laptop screens.
Also, you could also get 24-bit displays in Dell's 15" e1505 Inspiron laptop and derivatives like the XPS of the corresponding size. Other manufacturers no doubt have similar choices. The e1505 is far from an oddball, it was one of the more popular and inexpensive general-purpose consumer laptops on the market, and it has a 15" 24-bit WXSGA display. Yes, the newest 15" Inspiron has an 18-bit display, but that's because Dell cheapened it to compete on a price point. That's basically what Apple did with the smaller eMac LCD to increase their profit margin, only they didn't really tell the full truth about the change and they weren't honest about the actual hardware color depth of that model.
If you want to confirm, go check Dell's website: go to Support, Manuals, locate the owner's manual, view it in HTML, and jump to specifications. Dell is quite honest about their specs, listing the 6bpp displays as 262,144 (or 262k in some manuals) colors, and the 8bpp displays are of course the 16.7 million colors.
There are 8bpp laptops, and they're not oddballs.
So are you saying you should adjust your lighting for your viewing, or buy a display that best suits how your environment is lit for other purposes.
For what I would guess is the vast majority of people, viewing isn't the sole activity that is taking place in the room the display is in. I don't care that a display looks better in the dark if it looks worse when there's lights on, because most of the time when I use the display I have the lights on.
I'm talking about getting an optimal experience (assuming that's a concern). Also, it's not hard to get light into a room such that it's not glaring off the screen. Just make sure the light is behind the screen and not turned way up.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
I'm also talking about getting an optimal experience. I'm just saying that it's more practical to pick a display that performs well in your environment than it is to alter your environment for your display.
Placing lighting *behind* a flat panel display, especially one that is wall mounted isn't practical. If somebody in the room wants to read a book or something while you watch, it's even less practical. Better, at least from my perspective, to get a matte display which will perform better under those lighting conditions.
I myself am debating this question for my next laptop. I do a lot of image processing on astronomical images, so having that dark definition that glossy gives is nice. However, glossy tends to saturate more easily and has a worse greyscale response, which means that the display of the relative brightness of things is skewed--it kind of ruins the data. If only there were something in between...
You can do two-finger scroll in X.org, at least my laptop can do it and it's old as dirt. Enable the synaptics driver in X and use synclient to turn on VertTwoFingerScroll and HorizTwoFingerScroll.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
I've been using pure IPA for years to clean video-heads and tape-heads, which are made of metal.
100% IPA can leave nasty marks on a plastic surface. When using with plastic it's advised to delute with water for atleast 50%.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I suggest forcing yourself to use it for a day or two. You'll quickly find that it's not only more conveniently-positioned than the trackpad, but both faster and more accurate.
The only thing better than a trackpoint is a high-quality mouse or trackball -- and even those are only better for serious mousing work; for quick stuff the fact that you don't have to move your hands off the keyboard more than overcomes the slight speed and accuracy advantages of the external pointing device.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I've tried using one in the past when the tackpad was knackered on a previous laptop. It drove me mad. If I'm using the keyboard, I can usually find a keyboard shortcut that will do the trick.
TBH, I don't particularly like the trackpad either - I almost always have a portable mouse with me if I'm going to be using the laptop for any length of time.