Fascinating watching how people respond to this issue.
I wonder how many people who are voting are basing their vote on the experiences of other people, not on personal observation. The second thing that I would question is comments that indicate that they didn't like the gloss on an [insert computer brand X] therefore they now discount glossy completely.
Personally I have used both a matte PB G4 and a glossy MBP. I have also used glossy Toshibas and Acers (PCs running Linux NOT Windows). I do professional audio engineering. I have found that for waveform editing that I prefer glossy for the crispness and clarity and contrast of the colours. I have used a matte screen for over 4 years and have used glossy for about 1 year (concurrent).
For general use (i.e.: watching a movie or browsing) I have not had any issues with either screen type. The 'glare' that some people report as being an issue has not been noticeable with the exception of the Acer. (which is why I think that some people base their comments off of observations of other brands) The Acer seemed to have a higher level of "sheen" to its screen than the other computers that I have used but even there it did not bother me after about 5 minutes.
I have not experienced eye strain or fatigue with either screen type even after hours long editing sessions (4-5 hours at a time).
I think that a lot of people make a decision to go with matte because "professionals" mostly choose matte therefore matte must be superior.
In the PC world most of the laptops that I have seen have glossy screens and they are used by a lot of professionals as well. (I would be referring to audio, video, and photographic pros here) Not all "pros" use mac systems. (It would be nice if they did though )
My thoughts and musings, I hope they help someone.......