Matte Display = Grey not black Bezel?

[SmokyD]

It's matte. Even my early 2008 matte MBP looks shiny at that angle. Furthermore the article from which the photo is taken is italian (as am I) and it clearly says "a normal matte screen". No reason to not trust them.

I read that too, and I hope you are right. I'm not so sure though. It seems that people have adjusted their conception of what 'glossy' is. Now that apple has added glass on top of their screens, *that* has become the new meaning of glossy. Remove the glass and suddenly you have matte. It seems that people are thinking this way. But that is dead wrong.

If you remove the glass, you have glossy. Put a matte coating on it and you have matte. Put an anti-reflective coating on in instead and you still have glossy, with a bit less reflection and no glass.

At this point everyone is calling this matte, including journalists who seem not to know the difference.

I guess we'll have to see what this really turns out to be. I think the grey-bezel option is just a glossy screen with no glass, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[dal20402]

Its like they can't win no matter what they do.

If you judge their success by reading forums full of whiny crybabies, they can't.

If you judge their success by reading sales results, they're doing just fine.

Seriously, though, I honestly can't believe some of the myths that have built up around the question of matte vs. glossy. The idea that color is better on matte screens is simply wrong; matte screens are undersaturated and can't display dark colors well. The idea that glossy screens are unusable for serious work is even more wrong. And matte screens are inherently blurry. The *only* thing matte screens do better than glossy is deal with reflections, which may be important for a lot of people, but is hardly all that matters in a screen.

 

[PeterQC]

The *only* thing matte screens do better than glossy is deal with reflections, which may be important for a lot of people, but is hardly all that matters in a screen.

I have YET to heard a glossy screen that is able to display accurate colours better then any calibrated matte screen.

 

[SmokyD]

I have YET to heard a glossy screen that is able to display accurate colours better then any calibrated matte screen.

Folks, this may be a moot point. The $50 antiglare option is a glossy screen, not matte.

There is no matte option.

 

[iVoid]

Folks, this may be a moot point. The $50 antiglare option is a glossy screen, not matte.

There is no matte option.

And where do you get this idea?

Having seen the anti-glare at MacWorld, it looks like all the old matte screens to me. Now I don't know if it's just because they put an anti-glare film over the screen panel or if it was matte from the factory, but the screen I saw was very nice and didn't seem glossy at all.

 

[SmokyD]

And where do you get this idea?

Having seen the anti-glare at MacWorld, it looks like all the old matte screens to me. Now I don't know if it's just because they put an anti-glare film over the screen panel or if it was matte from the factory, but the screen I saw was very nice and didn't seem glossy at all.

Anti-glare is not matte. Matte is matte. This is anti-glare.

Any glossy screen can have an antiglare coating and it will still be smooth and glossy. A matte coating is far heavier and has zero reflections and has a slightly rough, tangible feel, while an antiglare coating is super-thin, reduces reflections to a bearable level for most people, but still reflects some. It's so thin you don't even know it's there. The screen remains smooth and glossy.

If Apple meant matte, I'm sure they would have said matte.

 

[dal20402]

If Apple meant matte, I'm sure they would have said matte.

Apple has never referred to any screen as "matte." For all of the old matte screens, they used the term "anti-glare."

It is true that they've used a variety of different parts, with the variety of anti-glare finishes that implies. I have a Core Duo Macbook Pro with a replacement CCFL-backlit Chi Mei screen. That screen is coarsely matte, as was the Samsung part originally installed in the machine. I also have an Early 2008 MBP with a Chi Mei LED-backlit screen (not glossy), which is glossier and looks more like it has a CRT anti-glare coating.

I actually prefer glossy, but it wasn't available yet in early 2006, and I got the early 2008 machine on a special that applied to matte machines only.

 

[rick3000]

I think they should offer the antiglare screen on all MacBooks, with grey trim, a grey seal, and a white/grey keyboard. The iPhone comes in two color schemes why can't the MB and MBP.

 

[uiop.]

I think they should offer the antiglare screen on all MacBooks, with grey trim, a grey seal, and a white/grey keyboard. The iPhone comes in two color schemes why can't the MB and MBP.

The MB did come in two colors.
I doubt Apple would bring matte screens to the MBs as the previous generation didn't even have it and Apple is clearly trying to go all-glossy.

 

[SmokyD]

Apple has never referred to any screen as "matte." For all of the old matte screens, they used the term "anti-glare."

No, they used to refer to matte as matte, glossy (with antiglare) as glossy. Now that they use glass on top, they call that glossy and what used to be glossy is now 'antiglare'.

There is no matte. It's glossy, just less glossy than than it would be with glass on top.

 

[mrkgoo]

No, they used to refer to matte as matte, glossy (with antiglare) as glossy. Now that they use glass on top, they call that glossy and what used to be glossy is now 'antiglare'.

There is no matte. It's glossy, just less glossy than than it would be with glass on top.

And what makes you so sure? Have you been there? Reports from people who have been there are saying otherwise. How come you seem to be so sure - because of the naming convention?

 

[detz]

Holly crap, step back and listen to yourself's...you sound absolutely ridiculous bitching back and forth about something so completely pointless as what is defined as matte and what is not. If you want "matte" get the anit-glare or don't get anything...Yes, it's that simple.

 

[raymondu999]

in Macworld, and I quote, Phil Schiller said, "the same display properties fora anti-glare as our last 17" notebook." If you subscribe to Apple keynotes, in the video it's at time: 1:10:02

 

[SmokyD]

Holly crap, step back and listen to yourself's...you sound absolutely ridiculous bitching back and forth about something so completely pointless as what is defined as matte and what is not. If you want "matte" get the anit-glare or don't get anything...Yes, it's that simple.

Not trying to bitch about it, and if you don't like it, read a different thread buddy - that's what these forums are for.

Actually, I don't care about the screen, I have a glossy mbp and love it. I'm just trying to inform the thickheads out there who don't get it that the new mbp antiglare screen is probably glossy.

And no, I'm not 100% sure about this yet - that's what I'm trying to find out. It's just that people who think they are getting a matte screen that looks like the matte screen from the previous mbp might be surprised to find that it actually is the glossy screen from the previous gen (which always had an antiglare coating on it).

These two screens would be totally different in appearance, so the point is not a small one for those who think Apple has returned to the option of a matte screen. I believe they haven't. This will probably will be more understood when somebody with better communication skills than me makes the point clear to the fans of matte screens out there.

If you still can't understand what I'm talking about, that a matte screen is a very different beast from an antiglare glossy screen, I'm sorry, I can't help you any more, you are just thick.

 

[eXan]

No, they used to refer to matte as matte, glossy (with antiglare) as glossy. Now that they use glass on top, they call that glossy and what used to be glossy is now 'antiglare'.

There is no matte. It's glossy, just less glossy than than it would be with glass on top.

Where did they use "matte"?

I love how you are so sure that "there's no matte" when you haven't actually seen new MBPs in person. What are you smoking, SmokyD?

>>

 

[SmokyD]

in Macworld, and I quote, Phil Schiller said, "the same display properties fora anti-glare as our last 17" notebook." If you subscribe to Apple keynotes, in the video it's at time: 1:10:02

Yes, but he may be referring to the glossy screen, not the matte, since it was the glossy screen which had the antiglare coating on it.

The matte screen had a matte coating, which is a coarse film.

Apple has never used the term "antiglare" until now. Previously, it was "widescreen" vs "widescreen glossy".

as in:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/clearance?mco=MTE3Njg

So it still remains to be seen which screen they are talking about with the new antiglare option.

 

[SmokyD]

Where did they use "matte"?

I love how you are so sure that "there's no matte" when you haven't actually seen new MBPs in person. What are you smoking, SmokyD?

>>

Something you can't buy at the Apple Store.

 

[HLdan]

Folks, this may be a moot point. The $50 antiglare option is a glossy screen, not matte.

There is no matte option.

Sorry to tell you that you are dead wrong. I am at Macworld and the 17" matte unibody is indeed the same matte finish when Apple was offering it as an option on the previous 17". I am posting pics of it later tonight.

 

[RexTraverse]

I'm just trying to inform the thickheads out there who don't get it that the new mbp antiglare screen is probably glossy.

And no, I'm not 100% sure about this yet - that's what I'm trying to find out.

You're pretty adamant about something you're also not 100% sure about.

Was at Macworld earlier. Was admiring the new anti-glare MacBook Pro against the glossy one right next to it. Even compared it to my current 15" anti-glare MacBook Pro. If they're not the same thing, then Apple went to a whole mess of trouble to make them look and feel exactly the same. (which, in your defense, I guess they do sometimes. see: feel and texture of the all-glass trackpad vs. feel and texture of every non-glass trackpad that came before it)

 

[SmokyD]

You're pretty adamant about something you're also not 100% sure about.

Was at Macworld earlier. Was admiring the new anti-glare MacBook Pro against the glossy one right next to it. Even compared it to my current 15" anti-glare MacBook Pro. If they're not the same thing, then Apple went to a whole mess of trouble to make them look and feel exactly the same. (which, in your defense, I guess they do sometimes. see: feel and texture of the all-glass trackpad vs. feel and texture of every non-glass trackpad that came before it)

You are right - I'm not sure, and I originally posted this as a question in another thread, but when it became clear that people thought I was splitting hairs with antiglare vs matte, I realized that the perception was that they are the same, which they may not be (or at least they used not to be).

Before the unibody MBP all glossy MBPs had an antiglare coating to help reduce reflections, while the 'matte' screens had a matte coating (which was not advertised, as matte screens up until 2006-7 were considered the norm, so people just called those 'screens').

I don't know for sure that the new MBP antiglare is just the old MBP glossy screen without glass, but from the few photos I've seen, it appears that way.

I look forward to HLdan's additional photos, which hopefully will 'shed some light' on this issue. I don't mind if it 'reflects' poorly on me if I'm wrong, as long as we get some definitive answers.

 

[RexTraverse]

Before the unibody MBP all glossy MBPs had an antiglare coating to help reduce reflections, while the 'matte' screens had a matte coating (which was not advertised, as matte screens up until 2006-7 were considered the norm, so people just called those 'screens').

All I can really say on this is the lone demo is located in a darker area with the black Apple cube on the right and a giant iWork poster behind to block out light. However, if you turn the machines to the left, where the rest of the expo is and there is a LOT of glare, it reflects about the same as my old MBP with the matte display at the same angles whereas the glossy unibody (can't give you a comparison against the previous glossy anti-glares since no one had any when I was testing them out) completely washes out in glare. Worthy to note that the colors on the anti-glare unibody did look significantly more dull than the glossy, just like my MBP. All were on highest brightness setting.

Now, I didn't have one of the glossy anti-glare MBPs to compare them all too, but I couldn't imagine that the old glossy anti-glare MBPs would be that indistinguishable from the old matte MBPs.

 

[tMac85]

Whoosh, there it goes over your head...

god i laughed out loud on this comment.

well said...well said.

 

[kastenbrust]

If you look at the technology behind matte screens you can see all it is, is a normal screen which would appear glossy with a coating on top that disperses the light, and thats what Apple is advertising the anti glare to be, the only real way we're going to find out the truth is when the laptops are released and we'll be able to compare the model numbers of the old Macbook Pro screens to the new macbook pro anti glare screens.

 

[SmokyD]

the only real way we're going to find out the truth is when the laptops are released and we'll be able to compare the model numbers of the old Macbook Pro screens to the new macbook pro anti glare screens.

Just looking at them should be enough to tell if they are matte, but they're an endangered species at the moment, so nobody seems to know.

The model numbers will be different anyway, since the new MBP has a nice new 72% gamut LCD. Should look very very nice with or without glass.

 

[dal20402]

No, they used to refer to matte as matte, glossy (with antiglare) as glossy. Now that they use glass on top, they call that glossy and what used to be glossy is now 'antiglare'.

There is no matte. It's glossy, just less glossy than than it would be with glass on top.

The word "matte" appears nowhere in Apple's historical tech specs.

The word "antiglare" appears in a number of monitor specs.

You can repeat these results through searching http://support.apple.com/specs
.