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.

Comments

Not an issue

[Junks Jerzey]

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.

Re:Not an issue

[morgan_greywolf]

. In fact, ANY time there is ANY light source brighter than the panel at your back, you will have glare.

It depends all on angles and lighting. In a properly designed work environment, glare will never be a problem because there should never be any direct lighting that can't be repositioned by the end-user.

If this isn't the case for you, then your work environment is substandard and a threat to your health, especially your eyes. In which case, you should notify your employer, with all of the appropriate hints that if they don't fix it, you'll sue them.

I feel your pain

[Orange Crush]

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.

Re:I feel your pain

[rnelsonee]

Glossy screens like mine (or any TruLife, XBRITE, UltraBright, Brightview, etc.) have sharper images, more contrast, and a wider viewing angle than a typical matte screen. Sounds pretty usable to me.

Look, the same light hits the screen no matter what type of screen it is, and some of that is going to get reflected back. The light can be diffused before it's bounced back, which means at any one point, you see less light from the object behind/above you, but you also see reflections from all over the room. The other option is to not diffuse it, in which case you only get reflections from the source right behind/above you. Personally, I like the second option since you can avoid reflections completely by simply moving the screen. Can't do that with matte.

Don't think people that prefer glossy are some sheepish ignorant consumers just because they have different preferences. You go on enjoying your washed out screen while enjoy my great contrast.

Re:I feel your pain

[node 3]

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. They sell better because they look better? Oh, the injustice of it all!

Bigger issue than glare

[LehiNephi]

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.

Re:Bigger issue than glare

[dfghjk]

"...and you sacrifice vertical resolution to get the widescreen."

No you don't. A widescreen is created by taking a normal screen and adding width to it. A 4:3 version of that 1920x1200 screen you refer to is 1600x1200. There's no loss in vertical resolution at all.

If you are comparing diagonal screen size then that's a different matter, but it's your failure to understand what's going on that's the problem. Widescreens do not inherently sacrifice vertical resolution.

Re:Bigger issue than glare

[nmg196]

> A widescreen is created by taking a normal screen and adding width to it.
> A 4:3 version of that 1920x1200 screen you refer to is 1600x1200.

No no NO! - Look at the prices. At any given price point, you get LESS screen area for your money with widescreen monitors:

Instead of 1280x960, you typically only get 1280x800 on a similarly priced wide-screen. Your screen is about the same width but you've lost an inch or two of vertical space! On laptops, this is even worse because it means you get black plastic strips where you would previously have had ACTUAL screen area. If they're going to be black bars when playing movies, I would far rather they were virtual black bars that were ONLY there when viewing movies, rather than physical plastic bars caused by the fact that they've shrunk the screen vertically to make the laptop look more modern! The Dell XPS series is a good example of this. A 4:3 screen would have fitted perfectly, but instead I've got two one inch black strips glued on where my screen should be.

Re:Bigger issue than glare

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea they are still using a 4x3 form factor for the base of the notebook rather than making it skinnier to accomodate a 16x9 screen. It's just lack of good product design.

A 16x9 form factor would also benefit keyboards. What bothers me is even more is the standard 15.4" notebook has 1" of space on either side of the keyboard because it uses keyboards sized for a 13-14" notebook. There is enough width left on either side of the keyboard (again at least an inch) where they could have spread out the keyboard to make it more ergonomic or functional. Why not put desktop key spacing specs on a notebook where space is available? Who really thinks that putting ins/del/home/end/pgup/pgdwn all in a single column is at all intuitive or useful? Only some of the 17" varieties come with a use for this space in the form of the numeric keypad. How many of you attach a desktop keyboard to a notebook whenever you can? Exactly...

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[electrictroy]

My work computer has a glossy screen. I have to put a "roof" on it to block the glare of the flourescent lighting. WORSE: The stupid glossy material was scratched by the company's IT guru, so now all I see is a giant smudge on the bottom 1/8th of the screen --- unusuable.

I still prefer CRTs. They may be "old fashioned" but at least they were scratch-proof (real glass, not plastic), could be easily cleaned (windex), and made brighter pictures.

Glossy looks better

[eebra82]

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.

Re:Agreed- glossy sucks

[phpmysqldev]

I think most of it comes down to screen quality overall. While I prefer a non-glossy screen, I would much rather have a bright, quality glossy screen over a sub-par matte screen. I have two laptops, one glossy one matte and the matte screen has a far superior viewing angle which I enjoy because I use my laptops for watching movies on trips a lot and hate having to adjust the screen angle to see the picture.

Glossy and outside use

[QBasicer]

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.

Re:Glossy is more like reading paper

[friendofthenite]

I guess it is down to personal preference, which is why it's pity that many manufacturers have stopped even giving the option of a matte screen. Personally I find that glossy screens offer a poor viewing angle and unwanted reflections - but they seem to have won the battle for mass appeal.

Re:Glossy is more like reading paper

[jyoull]

*nod*. I don't wear glasses, and was recently "forced" into a glossy screen because the rest of this laptop was exactly what I wanted. I perceive it as brighter and cleaner than the several non-glossy displays that preceded it. This surprised me as I thought I'd hate it. But on the balance i am not at all unhappy, after an adjustment period of maybe a week or two. For a while I had both laptops and the "old one" seemed dim and less sharp. I agree with posters who have written that reading dark text on white has a sense of "text on paper" on the glossy screen, while the matte screens look like computer displays.

Hey, anyone remember 16-color EGA? :)

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[cp.tar]

I couldn't get a T61, so I got a MacBook Pro.

Anyway, Macs also have matte screens, and for the love of FSM, I cannot see the reasoning behind glossy screens. They look like fscking mirrors.
If I wanted to see myself or what's behind me, I'd have invested in a mirror. I want to see what's on the screen, thank you so very much.

It appears only the high-end stuff still gets matte screens; I hope they don't go out of style.

Re:I like glossy

[SpryGuy]

Get a micro-fiber cloth. It cleans the screens quickly and easily, without requiring any cleaning agent.

Heck, I picked one up at the grocery store for cheap, and it works perfectly.

Another quality Internet discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apple

[digerata]

While I am now a Macbook Pro user, I came from Dell laptops and Dell also offers the option of matte or glossy. So I don't really think there is a problem here. Does anyone actually buy anything other than Dell or Apple? ;)

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[proc_tarry]

Widescreen is a downgrade. See my full post below.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=521830&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=23065156

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[Xyverz]

Well, think about it from the other side of the street. Why pay $700 less for the Lenovo when you want to run OS X in the first place, and your only option is to run a pirated version of the OS (aka Hackintosh), or have to pay extra for Windows XP because Vista is so *shudder* gastly different (read: flawed) from XP. Sure, you've saved $700, but you get no support from Apple. Buy the mac hardware and get support.

For many people it comes down to choice. They chose to buy one over the other, mac or PC hardware.

I'm not going to advocate one over the other. I always say "get what works best for you" when people ask me what they should get.

I personally have a new MBP 15" which I use as my main machine. At home, I have a XP box for gaming, and my linux webserver. At work, I my main workstation is a linux box, my secondary is a Mac. I have a Windows XP PC because it's my job to support that platform at work. There are things that one may do that the other two won't. I still say, "get what works best for you" and "use the right tool for the job".

Side note: This is a far departure from my linux fanboy days when everything else (including macs) sucked because you couldn't get them for free.

Anyway... Just my 2c worth.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[ahabswhale]

Sorry but that's simply not possible. Phosphors fade over time. It's not debatable because it's a fact. (Feel free to google it.) If you haven't noticed it, it's simply because it's happened over time but I guarantee you that if you bought a brand new copy of that exact same monitor, the difference would shock you. The only way what you're saying could be true is if you have a monitor from 1993 that you rarely use, otherwise, it's just not possible. A work monitor that's used for 8 hours a day will have dramatic color loss in 5 years.

It's also a myth that CRTs simply have better color. The truth is that photographers and graphics artists had to use high-end CRTs to get accurate color representation (just like they have to do with LCDs). The typical CRT had poor color representation and even the high-end ones required frequent recalibration to maintain color accuracy due to the fading of the phosphors.

So, I will admit that expensive, high-end CRTs (top 1% at best) have better color than LCDs, this really isn't true for the vast majority of the population. Most users, including /. users, don't even know how to color calibrate their monitors.

16:9 is pooched

[swb]

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?"

Mac users =! Douchebags (well, not all of us)

[InadequateCamel]

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.

Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens

[whit3]

Phosphors don't 'fade over time'; fade means "lose color saturation", and the
time-dependent shifts in a CRT affect the color BALANCE, not the saturation.

The bleaching of color filters in LCDs might conceivably result in a 'fading'
time characteristic. More important though, LCDs are affected by the
character of the backlights, and THAT makes them a nightmare to fully
characterize. I've done it, as a service tech, and it's just amazing what
a graphic artist will notice; they were often VERY particular, and they
weren't imagining the problems, just noticing things that I could only verify
with meters...

The best bargain in color is the old Macintosh "Moby" monitor; the rainbow
button on the front panel initiated a full automated self-calibration.