Hey Michael,

On 5/18/06, Michael Meiser < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, Micheal V. I wanted to point out, apple's so called "glossy screen" available on the new 13inch Macbook is in fact a VERY unforetunate name. It's specifically an ANTI-GLARE screen. Sony and other display makers have been using it on various displays and even some TV's. It's very good and increases contrast. I have no idea what apple was smoking using the term "glossy". In most people's books glossy implies the opposite of anti-glare.

Secondly, this is the same technology they us on photographic and video camera lenses. It's often called "anti-flare". It cuts down on lens flare. Not the same thing as a polarization lens though.

Okay. But I went to the store yesterday to look at them and found that lights and whatnot (your own face) gets reflected in the screen. Yes, they improve color and contrast but they do relect all kinds of stuff. I have a Toshiba laptop with a similar screen. It not bad to use (I only use it occasionally) and when you are concentrating on something you kind of don't see the relections until the work or image you want to look at can't been seen. I think it's fine for most uses - simply changing the angle of your head or the screen fixes it - but I prefer the matte finish that you have the option of with the Pro version. If my only issue had been the screen I'd have probably bought one on the spot.

Overall the graphics card was the biggest factor for me but didn't tip the deal in favor of the Pro version without the addition of the screen and keyboard.

Thirdly, as you imply the apple apps are optimized for the new intel MacBook's so far as I know. This includes both their video editing apps. Secondly any secondary apps that aren't optimized (and most are) soon will be and even if they aren't they still run much faster than on even the best G4's like the absolute top of the line 1.67ghz Powerbook I mentioned at the start of this thread (still for sale, only $2k). I think the term is Fast and getting Faster.

Fourth, there's only one major difference between the 13" Macbook and the 17" Macbook Pro in my opinion.  Other than the screen size that is.   The performance is negligible, they have the exact same architecture and bus.  The one issue is the graphics card.  The 13inch graphics are more than powerful enough for any application except high end 3d gaming, though I'm curious what sort of effect it would have on video editing... the 13" has an "integrated video card" meaning it uses whatever ram you put on the motherboard. For some not doing high end graphics, gaming or heavy film this actually might be an advantage considering it draws significantly less power, therefore longer battery life. The 13" gets's 6 or is it 6.5 hours to the 15" and the 17" 5.5 or 5 hrs.  A lot of this is do screen size to, significantly less power is needed to light a smaller screen.

Anyway, my point is this, the 13" powerbook or damn near as powerful as the 17" in ALL areas except high end graphics. Other then the screen size and graphics they're basically the same. This makes the 13" Macbook a steal at $1099 or $1299.   And if your the type of person who most of the time uses it in an office hooked up to a big display, the screen size doesn't matter... in fact it's portability is an advantage.


Exactly. I thought that was what I was saying. We're not disagreeing, right?


Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains


Reply via email to