MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

From the article:

"Apple isn't always on the leading edge, however.

One useful neat-freak upgrade was to add "tabs" to the Safari Web browser. This is already a popular feature on the Firefox browser."

Huh??!?

tabs! brilliant. i'll definitely use tabs. what are they?

'Aging" Macs? whatever . . . . .

All these reviews are getting boring. In a good way, of course, but boorriinngg. I hope MDN, or someone else, is somehow wrapping all of these positive reviews into one package to send to the clueless and Doze apologists when they troll this forum.

what the heck happened to those awesome hologaphic, upside down and mouth placement effects in iChat go?

WHAT?! Still no telepathic functions in Mac OS? Pfff! And where is the new 3D holografic tuch screen?! And everybody is getting that much blissed out with this "upgrade"? It's ridicus!

lol Well someone had to say something nasty ! lol

Apple has destroyed the music buisness and now they are about to destroy the phone and computer buisness.

Way to go Apple!

Still won't buy a glossy screen though, the reflections obscure the viewing of Mac OS X in all it's glory.

What was Apple thinking?

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: WGN - World's Greatest Newspaper

My friend is a Apple Store manager and had this to say:

"We attempt to provide all customers with a notebook that suits them. We strive to discover what they'll be using it primarily for and in what environment. We generally recommend, unless the customer is adamant about purchasing the glossy, to purchase the matte instead. Unfortunately, we've heard since the release of the glossy screens many complaints about glare issues. Apple in California has suggested that we recommend the matte displays for all customers who are not positive of their decision."

Glossy reflections do lead to eye fatigue, which some people may be more susceptible to than others, with younger folks being more likely to disregard it. Eye fatigue is very easy to overlook or, most likely, you'll assign the symptons to other causes, such as the beer you drank, or staying up too late and getting too little sleep. All these things do contribute, naturally, but the glossy screen will keep on giving you eye fatigue if you tend to do most of your computing in highly reflective environments.

I agree that there should be a choice of screens but form me the glossy is much better. I don't use my MacBook in a brightly lit environment with light sources coming in from several directions. I can never see even the slightest of reflection on my screen.

" Aging" Macs? whatever . . . . ."

I remember when I upgraded from OS9 to Panther, it really was like getting a brand new Mac.

@ Kneejerk

I really can't understand all the hullabaloo about glossy screens. I've had many many laptops with matte screens and they were all pretty much unreadable outdoors. It wasn't until I got my Macbook with its glossy screen that I've been able to more easily see and read what's on the screen.

I think some of you guys are just being curmudgeons and are simply opposed to change.

I don't think the "aging Macs" comment is meant as a swipe against the entire platform, simply a statement regarding older systems that maybe didn't make the upgrade to Tiger.

I've used CRT glossy displays for years and have no problem with them at all. I like the glossy screen on my new AL iMac better than than the matte screen on my iMac G4 laptop, I have to agree with "The Mac that roared", although I'm not sure what a curmudgeons is, I assume it's like some one who bitches if they are hung with a new rope. I base my preferences on 20 years with the Ampex Corp. including final systems test and customer acceptance on professional audio and video equipment.

i just bought the new imac. i am 53. i dont reccomend it. not only is it glaring because of the glass, and also too "bright", but the exposure is brighter on the bottom than on top. I have to constantly tilt the monitor up and down to get an idea if my photo is over exposed or not. I have 2 20" side by side , the old and new. the matt keeps the image constant from top to bottom no matter what angle i view it from. in the store it is subtle, but at home looking at it carefully, it is obvious. the colors are more vivid in the glossy which look fine for watching movies but not for juging and working with photos. The Glossy looks "clean" no "reflective" dots like you see on the matt screen when you move from side to side, but the ecxposure changes with the angle of view on the glossy. I found the glossy harder to view for long periods of time. the matt is easer on the eyes. Voila, my experience. hope this helps. i am off to the apple store in santa monica to return my very good looking new iMac that is useless to me.

Give it a REST already. Sheeze, your constant whining is really getting old. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Can you imagine how bad a glossy 30-inch monitor would be? Bleh, keep the matt ones coming Apple.

"Can you imagine how bad a glossy 30-inch monitor would be?"

I've had my new glass 24" for exactly 24 hours now, and i'm not sure i CAN keep it. I want to, and i like the glass....

The problem is, it is too bright. Without exageration, it hurts my eyes, even when i'm not looking straight at it. I put a black desktop on and any window is like a flashlight. I even caught myself since yesterday, actually keeping with the distractions, unconsciously avoiding going back to the computer.

can only image what a 30 inch glossy will do to my productivity

For when the brightness is too much, try:

Control/option//8

Great for when it'd dark

Tiger was the most compelling upgrade, because it was the first OS to introduce desktop search - remember how upset M$ was about it?

This guy has got nooooo idea at alll.....

I do think that the 10.5 interface is ugly though. It's so Windows PC-like.

The folders look like crap and I hate to admit it, Vista looks a lot better.

I'm sure that others feel the same way.

Sorry.

Fish, like visitors, start to stick after a few days. The matte vs glossy "controversy" makes both smell like roses. Of course, we could tell if it was all one fixated troublemaker ... IF we had password-protected accounts here so the same person couldn't respond three, four, or more times with the same drivel. Jim, don't blame your age or the screen, learn to use it. If the illumination is un-even, bring it back and get it replaced. Bring your light-meter to prove how much it differs. People who'd rather complain than get the problem FIXED are just SO pitiful!
"Aging Macs" indeed! Is all of Chicago out looking for a clue? Or just this writer.
Dave

Hmmm ... my fingers seem to want to be nice, today. They transposed "stink" into "stick". How sweet-smelling" of them. :p
Dave

Of course by "aging Macs" they are talking about upgrading machines that are two or three years old with some new features and a fresh look so they will continue on for another two or three years. Some of the G4s that can be upgraded to Leopard are 4 years old - try upgrading a 4-year-old PC to Vista and see how far you get...

My Macs are aging, like all technology, but at least they are aging gracefully.

Hey anyone tried the text speech in Leopard yet? Is it as good as they said it would be.

Hey, I checked the net (easy if you actually try :-( ) and you can guy matte screen add ons cheap. You can make a glossy screen a matte one , but not the other way around.

Period.

R,

Thanks, I didn't know that one!

Not that I'll use it much of course, but I like all these keyboard 'tricks' on the Mac.
That was the first new one for a long time.

I have had a great deal of grief on all 5 of my Macs at home. I have two Intel machines and the others are pre Intel.

Upgrading the OS has been not so good. What has resolved all issues is doing a clean install. Perhaps Apple should make this a caveat?

The new features are not a compelling upgrade from Tiger. Yes, some kewl features but certainly not compelling.

It is fairly simple to make a glossy screen matte by adding a screen protector, but it is impossible to make a matte screen glossy.

It is likewise simple to make a screen less bright by dimming it using the screen brightness controls, but it is impossible to make one that is inherently dull more bright.

The same concept apparently applies to people who complain about things that are easily remedied.

Apple's computers have been about change for the better, not going backwards to ugly anti-glare screens and computer glasses just to use them.

"Of course by "aging Macs" they are talking about upgrading machines that are two or three years old with some new features and a fresh look so they will continue on for another two or three years. Some of the G4s that can be upgraded to Leopard are 4 years old - try upgrading a 4-year-old PC to Vista and see how far you get."

I've been debating whether or not to upgrade my 1Ghz 17" Aluminum powerbook, and I think I will. Leopard, 7200 rpm drive, new battery=$550. It should be god for another 2 years.

I never got past 2 years with any windows laptop, if only because they LOOKED dated. Forget about the fact that at the very least they needed a full Windows re-install by that point for performace purposes.

I know this is now off-topic, but has someone yet written Eric B. about a Tab reality check?

I've got both glossy and matte screens on my MacBook Pro and PowerBook and understand and appreciate the benefits of each. Under most conditions I prefer glossy, but under certain circumstances I feel that matte would be better. It is not a tipping point for me either way.

Why is it so hard for so many to understand that a layer of commonly available and inexpensive plastic anti-glare film will effectively eliminate reflectivity problems (on a flat screen, not a curved one like a CRT) for those who would rather have matte than glossy? Glossy-to-matte is quick and cheap, while matte-to-glossy is impossible.

Yes, selling both would be nice for those who prefer matte, but it doesn't keep you from getting what you want fairly easily.

q

Leopard is a leap above vista and a step below tiger.

I've got both glossy and matte screens on my MacBook Pro and PowerBook and understand and appreciate the benefits of each. Under most conditions I prefer glossy, but under certain circumstances I feel that matte would be better. It is not a tipping point for me either way.

I find glossy screens slight benefits don't justify the huge problems from reflections which make it hard to see the screen.

Why is it so hard for so many to understand that a layer of commonly available and inexpensive plastic anti-glare film will effectively eliminate reflectivity problems (on a flat screen, not a curved one like a CRT) for those who would rather have matte than glossy? Glossy-to-matte is quick and cheap, while matte-to-glossy is impossible.

Who wants to mar up their laptop with some cheap film that's just going to collect dirt to fix a problem that was already fixed with matte screens? Especially when over 86% of people responded prefer matte in the first place?

Now 86% has to fix on a nasty anti-glare screen to get matte finish to satisfy the 8% that prefer glossy?

Then how about all those ignorant people who eyes are getting damaged by glossy reflections?

Yes, selling both would be nice for those who prefer matte, but it doesn't keep you from getting what you want fairly easily.

Well the issue isn't glossy vs matte, the issue is Apple not providing a choice of either.

Rather they are forcing people to purchase glossy screens, slowly phasing out matte screens or only selling them in the high end products.

It's the lack of choice that's the problem. And with a investment in Mac OS X, it's not a easy thing to pack up for another hardware vendor that provides the products one needs.

"Who wants to mar up their laptop with some cheap film that's just going to collect dirt to fix a problem that was already fixed with matte screens? "

Ever see what happens to anti-glare film when it gets dried out by the monitor heat?

Ever try removing it?

Cheap films?

The decent anti-glare screens cost from $40-$60 USD, are a hassle and break easily.

Stupid Apple, bring back the matte screens.

I have neverliked that fish wrapper anyhow!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

I have tried the new text speech in Leopard.

For the first time a computer can read text sensibly.

Just try the new voice "Alex".

You will be impressed. I was.

Although not yet accessible to the user, resolution independence is something that developers have access to with Leopard. As LCD displays increase pixel density, this silly argument that matte screens are better will become irrelevant. Matte screens intentionally make the image less sharp as a by-product of being less reflective. While this was OK (and may have even made the image look better) when those pixels were large, it will NOT be OK when the pixel size decreases further. When the graininess of the matte finish significantly impacts the possible sharpness of the display, who's going to want a matte coating. We are at that point now with the most densely pixel'ed laptop displays. As soon as resolution independence becomes common, pixel density will increase rapidly in all LCDs. At that point, no one will want a "fuzzy filter" on their naturally glossy and ultra-sharp displays, just to block out reflections.

@ HG Wells,

The author responded to the comments in the comments:

"Thank you everybody for pointing out the Safari mistake. My bad. I have been using Mac's OS X since it has been available, as well as the Firefox browser. I have never noticed the tabs on Safari as clearly as they have been on Firefox. Nonetheless, an oversight I should not have made. But it is certainly clear to me there are improvements in how Safari operates in Leopard, and that's the key point to make.

Eric Benderoff"

I have 10 new al iMacs in my office and I just can't believe the screen. It's really reflective. I then went to an Apple store, trying to see if they look better in 'SET UP ENVIRONMENT', but they didn't.

I agree with Reclaimer, Leopard looks so Windows-like.

They only break if you forget to wear your tin foil hat and pocket protector while cleaning them.