Laptops Screens, Glare or Matte? 663
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.
Not an issue (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel your pain (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Bigger issue than glare (Score:5, Insightful)
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:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Agreed- glossy sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Glossy and outside use (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Glossy is more like reading paper (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Glossy is more like reading paper (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, anyone remember 16-color EGA?
Re:Not an issue (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, I picked one up at the grocery store for cheap, and it works perfectly.
Another quality Internet discussion (Score:1, Insightful)
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:Bigger issue than glare (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I feel your pain (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Bigger issue than glare (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:2, Insightful)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=521830&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=23065156 [slashdot.org]
Re:ThinkPads still use non-reflective screens (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:I feel your pain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bigger issue than glare (Score:1, Insightful)
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...
16:9 is pooched (Score:3, Insightful)
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) (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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.