Oh No, It's Glossy

Glossy screens are in, unfortunately. They look cooler and can improve contrast ratio in normal lighting conditions, but they are extremely reflective. Apple offered a matte option on the previous generation MacBook Pro, but both the base MacBook and the Air came with glossy screens standard. With the new MacBook and MacBook Pro Apple switched to a thin glass covering in front of the display, giving the system a more updated look. I'm not sure functionally if there's any benefit to the glass exterior but it looks cool. Both the MacBook and MacBook Pro have this glass outer layer, although the two notebooks use different physical LCD panels (more on that later).


That's not a mirror baby, it's a display

People have complained about the new glossy screens a lot, but let's see how bad they really are. While the obvious comparison would be between the old and new MacBooks I want to start by comparing the new MacBook to the first generation matte MacBook Pro to put the glossiness into perspective for those of you who don't have a previous generation MacBook:


MacBook Pro matte (left) vs. the new MacBook (right)


MacBook Pro matte (left) vs. the new MacBook (right)

Hello reflections! If you're used to a matte screen, this thing is going to bug the hell out of you. Now let's toss the old MacBook Pro's glossy option into the mix:


The old MacBook Pro matte (left) vs. the old MacBook Pro glossy (right)

The older glossy screen is definitely harder to read outdoors, but indoors (or in the shade) I actually prefer it to the matte screen. Let's look at how the old glossy display compares to the new glass covered glossy one:


The old MacBook Pro glossy (left) vs. the new MacBook Pro on the right (do I even need to call it glossy?)

Reflections-a-plenty on the new display; while the brightness somewhat makes up for it the display is still more distracting than not when outside. I still prefer the glossy displays indoors thus in my opinion the best balance was actually the previous generation MacBook Pro's glossy display. The new one is just a little too nuts - unfortunately you don't really have a choice.

Compared to the previous generation MacBook we have the same problem: the new display is extremely reflective:


MacBook old (left) vs. MacBook new (right)

There are definitely situations where the new displays are unusable outside, especially compared to a notebook with a matte display. Note that these pictures were taken with the sun behind the screens, not in front, so simply turning your torso won't fix these problems. The best solution is to find some shade to work in, or to pick a laptop without a glossy screen. My MacBook Air has a glossy screen that pretty much guarantees writing in direct sunlight is impossible, so I'm used to working in the shade but it is a valid concern.


MacBook old (left) vs. MacBook new (right)

Note that there are also situations where even the older MacBooks aren't usable outside:

Part of the problem is the black border around the display. This part is also covered in glass but it's not backlit, making reflections even more visible there. Compared to the aluminum or plastic border in the previous MBP/MB notebooks, this border looks great but makes reflections seem worse.

I tend to do most of my writing indoors, but if I were still in school and writing on campus the glossy screens would be a definite issue. I saw a quote from Apple saying that the new displays are bright enough to make up for the additional glare; as the pictures above show there are definitely situations where this isn't true.

Baby Steps: The New Trackpad Display Analysis Indoors
Comments Locked

66 Comments

View All Comments

  • joey2264 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Uhm, Apple charges $150 to upgrade from 2 to 4 GB. A 2 GB 1066 DDR3 notebook dimm is about $60 on Newegg. What are you smoking??
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    He didn't mention how many slots are populated in the standard configuration. If standard is a pair of 1GB sticks, then you need a pair of those $60 2GB sticks to get 4GB.
  • joey2264 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    It doesn't matter. 2 GB of memory (2 Dimms) cost about $80, and 4 GB cost about $120, as stated in the article. But Apple is charging $150 to upgrade from one to the other, when it only costs $40 more.

    Thanks for correcting me, because Apple is raping their customers even more than I thought.
  • strikeback03 - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link

    Might be true, but as you can't choose zero RAM as a shipping configuration, from the customer perspective (assuming 2 2GB sticks are needed) you either pay $120 to Newegg and do the work yourself or pay $150 to Apple.

    Also, I highly doubt Apple is paying Newegg prices for components, so even more profit. But RAM upgrades seem to always be something the manufacturers have raped customers on.
  • Brucmack - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    It'd be nice to provide a couple of extra data points...

    - Macbook battery life on XP
    - Lenovo battery life on XP & Linux
  • wolf550e - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Anand, please perform same test on Ubuntu 8.10 and tell us whether it's closer to OS X or Vista.
  • R3MF - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    but i live in hope of a response:

    Is this integrated nvidia chipset the same as was rumoured to work with the Via Nano CPU?

    Kind regards
  • boe - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    I'm curious to how XP would compare to Vista/ OS X.
  • snouter - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    No 1680x1050? When will Apple step up and offer this? This is even more egregious than the lack of an SSD option, although, an SSD could be added to the MBP later, and the screen is forever.

    The MBP should only offer the CPU models with 6MB cache. This would have been one more way to differentiate the MBP from the MB. Put the Pro in Pro dammit.

    No matte option on the MBP? Please.

    ====

    I upgraded my 2.16GHz Merom to a 2.4GHz Penryn, largely for the LED screen, but, now I've even more glad that I did.

    If Apple does not add some flexibility to the 15" MBP build options, I'll be waiting for the 17" MBP. My workplace bought me one, and... 1920x1200 LED is pure love, though I could live happily with a 1680x1050 on my preferred form factor, the 15".

    Apple has a knack of diminishing their gains with some weird regresions and non-moves. It's love hate for sure.
  • iwodo - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link

    With much increased battery life, ( not that it uses that much less power, but you accomplish the same task in less time would means less power usage )

    I hope Intel hurry up with their controller chip.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now