
Glossy vs matte screens: why the PC industry’s out of touch - jseliger
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/23/glossy-vs-matte-screens-why-the-pc-industrys-out-of-touch/
======
gst
The only valid argument that I'd find for glossy screens is that you can build
them more robust than matte screens. For example, it's much easier to clean
the glass on the new Macbooks compared to a matte screen, which you wouldn't
clean with a normal towel. Another example is Lenovo's new X1 laptop that uses
Gorilla Glass which should be even much more robust than Apple's screens.
Still, I prefer matte screens, as the reflections on glossy screens are too
much of a distraction for me.

Speaking of "out of touch" another issue with new screens is the format: On my
old IBM/Lenovo X41 and X61s laptops the 4:3 screen format was perfect for the
12" screen. Although the screen was small I used the X41 as my main laptop for
about half a year (without an external monitor). On my current X201 the 16:10
format is much worse: I'm a programmer, I don't need horizontal space, but
vertical space. Even for non-programmers I guess that for reading web pages or
other documents vertical space is also more important than horizontal space.
With Lenovo's new X210 they've introduced a further step in the wrong
direction by switching from 16:10 to 16:9.

~~~
bluekeybox
> I'm a programmer, I don't need horizontal space, but vertical space

Mostly agree, but my opinion on this matter was somewhat swayed after I
started using :vsp in Vim on my 13" widescreen notebook (combined with a full-
screen mode in iTerm). Not only had splitting the screen vertically right in
the middle helped me recover the "lost" space, but it also forced me to wrap
my code consistently to 80 characters, so now it looks/prints better. I guess
the moral is that sometimes a bad thing can lead to something good.

~~~
jerf
On my 1920x1080 laptop screen, I can comfortably fit 3 emacs sessions side by
side, all windows on the same process, all frequently further split one level
horizontally. This is a lot of code. I generally only use 2 and have a shell
on the left, which also comfortably fits, but if I need 3 I have it.

(I would generally consider the need to have 6 views of your source to get
your job done a code smell, but it isn't always my code, and lately we've been
doing some client/message-bus/server code where 6 starts to feel a bit
constraining.)

Technically I'm still neutral on the emacs v. vim wars and they're both good
editors. But looking around me, the vim users in my office really need to get
better about buffer management. I'm sure vim can technically do everything
emacs can do with buffers and splitting and windowing, but "nobody" seems to
do it.

~~~
ScottBurson
Ah! Another Emacs user who likes to spread 6 windows across a 1920-wide
display. I knew I couldn't be the only one :-)

I use XEmacs with the 6x10 font, and can get three windows across, each 100
characters wide, all in the same frame (it takes a little fiddling to set up,
but then I keep the session around a long time).

~~~
nunb
I use some revive mode code a friend wrote to revive my frame config.

Just like desktop-save, I do C-x S instead, and it saves all open frames, and
the buffers they contain (no frame size or position though, afair).

C-x F to load in the rare event I need to restart emacs.

The code is at <https://github.com/nunb/revive-mode-config>

------
fourspace
It seems to me that the reason for this shift is the same reason manufacturers
ship their TVs set to overblown saturation and brightness: it looks good in
the showroom.

As someone who has no office and works every day either from home or from a
coffee shop on a laptop, the glossy screen is pretty annoying. It's not
impossible to work on it and you do get used to it, but my next MacBook Pro
will be the matte finish. It's more annoying that a matte finish costs $50
more.

~~~
mattberg
i think technically it is $150 more, since the only way to get the antiglare
is with the hi-res option. definitely annoying.

~~~
chromablue1978
Annoying? Unsurprising is appropriate too. Remember the $100 'black' tax?
"Same model, specs, just in black, for only $100 more!" Apple knows that their
fans might moan a little, but in the end will hand over their credit card
regardless.

~~~
hexley
I don't remember that, and I owned a black MacBook.

------
ChuckMcM
It is sad they didn't ask the manufacturers why they do that. One reason is
that 'glossy' screens have higher contrast than 'matte' screens because off-
axis light is reflected mostly off screen, but on a matte finish off axis
light adds a 'glow' to the screen (which is a diffuse reflection rather than a
specular reflection) and that glow gets counted against the 'black level' and
the contrast.

Glossy screens in a darkened room perform demonstrably better in terms of
contrast than matte screens.

Matte films are easy to come by and I'm rather surprised that given this sort
of market research there isn't someone out there selling them by the boat
load.

~~~
po
I've looked into getting one but all of the matte films I have seen have a
'shimmery' appearance to them. It looks like the surface grain of the film is
not fine enough. Does anyone know of a good brand of film to use?

~~~
ChuckMcM
I used some 3M anti-glare film which I believe was this:

[http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Vikuiti1/BrandPr...](http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Vikuiti1/BrandProducts/main/marketsweserve/displayaftermarket/antireflectionfilms/)

On a 44" LCD television. I got it through a window tinting contractor who had
a relationship with 3M (they bought their window tinting film from them).

~~~
po
as aidenn0 mentions, I don't think a film that works well with a TV would
necessarily work well with a laptop. The pixel sizes are different but also
the viewing distance is much greater.

This 3M product says:

 _Anti-glare film, for example, incorporates a special roughened surface. When
external light is reflected on this surface light is scattered across many
different angles, giving the appearance of reduced reflection. Anti-reflection
film takes a different approach and actually reduce the magnitude of the
reflection by passing the light through specially engineered thin layers that
reduce the amount of reflection, not just scatter it._

I'm not sure that makes any sense but it sounds like it's the right direction.
I assume they mean they reduce the reflected light by absorbing it?

Anyway, thanks for the pointer.

------
waqf
Based on the title, I was hoping to learn from this article _why_ the PC
industry was out of touch, but I only learned _that_ it was, which I already
knew.

------
orangecat
See also the almost complete takeover of 16:9 aspect ratios from 16:10 or 4:3,
often with horrible 1366x768 resolution.

~~~
pkamb
Here's the blog post from Lenovo/Thinkpad as to why they switched to 16:9
screens: [http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/2009/04/display-
rati...](http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/2009/04/display-ratio-change-
again/)

They say that PC makers have no say in the issue, screen manufacturers are all
wide-screen these days.

Yet Apple had no problem sourcing 4:3 displays for their iPad? I guess when
there's a will there's a way.

~~~
kgermino
Aren't iPads 16:10? Honestly curious, I can't tell if 4:3 was a typo or if
there's something I'm missuing.

~~~
eridius
Funnily enough, Daring Fireball just had a bit on the 4:3 aspect ratio today:
<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/05/24/tall-and-narrow>

------
scott_s
I don't think PC Pro readers count as an accurate sampling of people who buy
PCs. And I must be in the minority that I like glossy screens. Colors are more
vibrant, and it's not hard for me to avoid situations which cause glare.

------
adestefan
Am I the only person here who doesn't care? I've used both a ThinkPad T61p
(matte) and 15" MBP (glossy) regularly in the past 5 years. The only time I've
had an issue with the glossy screen on my MBP is in full on sunshine. Even a
matte screen would have been terribly washed out in that situation.

~~~
Devilboy
It's really not a big deal to most consumers. Most people don't even notice
and will never use a laptop in direct sunlight.

------
djcapelis
PCPro is out of touch that their readers are not the average computer buyer.

~~~
jrockway
Who is a more important market? 5 people that buy a laptop every 5 years, or 1
person that buys 1 laptop a year?

The person that goes to Best Buy to buy an "ultra value" laptop is not the
same person that buys a $2000 laptop. And my guess is that $2000 laptops are
more profitable to make than $100 laptops.

~~~
djcapelis
Individual enthusiast consumers are an incredibly small portion of the people
who buy computers.

You're lucky if you can interest a computer manufacturer with the concerns of
the consumer market as a whole, much less the tiny fraction known as
enthusiasts. Most companies in hardware make their money on selling to people
who buy a lot more than one machine at a time.

------
Truxe
I think that the visceral reaction to the terms "glossy" and "matte" could be
a factor here. Glossy, by itself, is associated with cheap and shiny. Matte
sounds understated and elegant.

If the survey had been done with a picture of a glossy screen, and a matte
screen, and readers would have been asked to choose, I suspect the results
could have been closer.

------
aurynn
Personally, I much prefer glossy screens, both the glass-covered screen on my
Macbook Pro as well as the polished LCD on my old Aspire netbook. In general,
the higher contrast and more vibrant colours are a net win, and I find my eyes
less strained looking at the display.

------
dotBen
Video and computer games arguably look better on a glossy screen. A lot of
people play games on their computers.

Even in the mac world, I can see why Apple have gone glossy even though for
the HN-type crowd matte makes more sense.

~~~
chromic
I play FPSs very often, and a glossy screen really has no merits unless you
are playing in the dark with no other light sources to reflect. I'd much
prefer a matte display with good color reproduction.

------
Locke1689
Apparently PC Pro has a little trouble with the term "selection bias."

------
S_A_P
I dunno i really like the glass screen on my macbook pro. I dont mind the
gloss at all. I would say I prefer it even. Offering a choice would be nice
though.

~~~
rawsyntax
I would prefer a choice for the same price, no matte surcharge

------
ScottBurson
What I don't get is, on a display like an iMac where the front surface of the
display is glass, why doesn't Apple offer an optical coating (i.e., anti-
reflection coating) option?

Optical coating used to be standard on high-end CRT monitors. It seems like
the right solution here as well. I wouldn't miss the matte finish nearly so
much if I could get the glossy screen coated.

------
qohen
I was looking at an HP laptop online last night and saw it has a "Brightview"
screen. This description of it, apparently from the company that makes the
screens, suggests that, while glossy, it is also anti-reflective.

Does anyone know if that means it is more like a matte screen than a regular
glossy screen or not really? [http://www.screentekinc.com/hp-compaq-
brightview-lcd-screens...](http://www.screentekinc.com/hp-compaq-brightview-
lcd-screens.shtml)

------
kbatten
It doesn't seem to be a PC problem, it seems to be a laptop problem. My lcds
at home (and my TV) are all matte, its only my laptop (mac) that is glossy.

~~~
uast23
Isn't laptop a PC? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer>

~~~
technomancy
Bonus irony considering Apple basically mainstreamed the personal computer
revolution. Now they're trying as hard as they can to distance themselves from
the term.

------
beatpanda
I don't know about y'all but I got the glossy screen on purpose, it's damn
near impossible to use a laptop in sunlight with a matte screen.

------
efsavage
My last (windows) laptop purchase, in February 2011, was actually made easier
by the fact that only two manufacturers (Dell and Lenovo) offered matte/anti-
glare screens on high-end developer laptops. It was actually the default on
the Lenovo W701DS I ended up buying.

~~~
dimatura
Yes, I had pretty much the same situation. I finally got a T510.

Previously I had been using an antiglare filter, which works OK but is
impossible to apply without leaving bubbles in.

------
johng
I hate glossy finishes :(

------
aneth
I've used both on a Mac. When Apple started offering both, I agonized but
finally opted for glossy and haven't looked back. My preference on most things
is matte - I always opted for matte when people printed photos from something
called "film."

Here's why glossy screens are better, for me anyway:

1) It's better in sunlight. Counterintuitive I know, but it's far, far better.
Matte screens diffract light and render the screen unreadable. Glossy screens
can be made visible either passively (in very strong light) or actively if the
screen is bright enough (as many now are.)

2) Glare is controllable and not diffused on a glossy screen. With a matte
screen, glare manifests as blobs, and spread across the screen. With a glossy
screen, glare is localized and easily defeated by repositioning the screen.

3) Matte makes screens less bright. It's a translucent filter, so of course it
reflects and absorbs light.

4) Matte filters can be added, but a matte screen can't be made glossy.

The real solution: get rid of awful overhead florescent lighting. Ok, not that
easy for most of you, but I think Steve Jobs probably wants those gone as much
as he wants Flash gone. Any word on lighting at Apple?

~~~
keen
_It's better in sunlight._

I was initially skeptical; after using an iPad outdoors I found it hard to
believe matte could be worse! But some quick research seems to confirm your
point.

Does anyone know of a solution to using screens outdoors? I hear the Kindle is
good, but I'm thinking color screen.

~~~
ender7
My friend recently got a Sunbook, which he loves to use outdoors:
<http://www.cloversystems.com/SunBook.htm> (their website is horrific, but the
product is decent).

It's essentially a netbook with a special screen that can can work in both
daylight and indoor light. In the sun, most of the colors wash away and it
becomes a mostly black&white screen. But you can read it perfectly easily
(similar to eink, but I don't think it actually uses eink, despite what their
PR claims).

