Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Glossy is better, but so is choice.' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Glossy is better, but so is choice.
Authored by: ljharb on Oct 14, '08 08:24:22PM

I don't know what you people are talking about. Matte screens DIFFUSE light, making reflected light sources appear as indiscriminate fuzzy regions. The glossy screen is like a mirror, and light sources show up as actual images of the source.

The brain is MUCH better at viewing two superimposed images and removing one subconsciously, than it is at desaturating and adjusting colors in a nonuniform image (ie, that produced by a matte screen).

That being said, any company that EVER removes user choice is making a wrong decision. My (and the human brain's subconscious) preference for glossy screens does not mean matte should disappear.

Personally I'm more upset at the trend towards "tap to click" which is the most retarded "feature" I've seen on any laptop, and confuses WAY more users.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Glossy is better, but so is choice.
Authored by: robg on Oct 14, '08 08:31:29PM

I think the problem is that for some people -- like me -- the mirrored images are very disruptive. My mind finds it nearly impossible to just "filter out" the floating image; I find I have to move the machine around (if I can) to eliminate the floating mirror image in order to work without distraction.

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Glossy is better, but so is choice.
Authored by: tyip on Oct 16, '08 08:39:50PM

I see your point - where people who can't deal with the glossy screen are hooped; unlike having no floppy disk or the hockey puck mouse, where you can find a workaround if you really have to. The only option for you is to hook up an external monitor, which is not available when you travel.

While I've learned to love the glossy screen, I can see that different people's brains work differently.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Glossy is better, but so is choice.
Authored by: soundsgoodtome on Oct 14, '08 10:41:42PM

ljharb wrote:

"Personally I'm more upset at the trend towards "tap to click" which is the most retarded "feature" I've seen on any laptop...."

Perhaps you didn't absorb the full content of the news on the new trackpad. The trackpad is, itself, a *moving* button. You press on it, and it moves beneath your thumb, like any other button. No need to reply upon "tap to click."



[ Reply to This | # ]
Glossy is better, but so is choice.
Authored by: ljharb on Oct 15, '08 01:10:03AM

Yes, I understand - much like the entire-mouse-button on some Apple mice. The concern is, moving the cursor and clicking the button have always been and should always be two distinct hand motions, so that one never accidentally does one when intending the other.

If Apple does the mechanics well, it won't be a problem - but it's an easy one to mess up.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Can Click Separately
Authored by: doogie125 on Oct 15, '08 08:25:30AM

Jason Snell over at Macworld reports that the trackpad is smart enough to realize that if you have your thumb at the "bottom" of the trackpad and index finger in the main portion it will sense the click with your thumb and pointing with your finger separately without being confused.

This obviously doesn't cure the confusion of the user who doesn't try this and gets frustrated looking for a button!

They'll probably have to add a message, "Welcome to OS X! CLick the bottom portion of the trackpad with your thumb while...



[ Reply to This | # ]