Oh, like the MacBook Pro's? Thanks for the correction. I've noticed that Apple has dropped the refurbished price of the last generation model. Very tempting but I have too many boxes connected to my TV as it is!
Thanks for pointing this out. Just go Labs in my Google Apps account and was hoping there would be html support for signatures as the 'Better Gmail' firefox plugin stopped supporting it. Skipped over the canned responses feature at first until I read your post.
I looked it up and .dlm is Adobe's Download Manager. Are you sure it's done downloading? I downloaded it directly but if I remember, the Download Manager should have a resume button.
Also try renaming it to just .dmg. Let me know how it goes.
They are clearly making products for a wider audience now, not just to "pros". What percentage of their current market do you think are pro's? Face it, apple left the pros and went after the big newb market. And that is the reason for a lot of their recent success. Speaking for newbs everywhere, I am grateful that they did.
As with any calibration, it's somewhat subjective. I do agree that glossy displays really make the colours pop but I think we're being groomed to accept over saturated, overly bright displays. I'd argue that a small percentage of people even calibrate their screens, beit their computer or TV screen. The argument of glossy v.s. matte is subjective. I think that the matte crowd (myself included) just want the choice, especially since Mac's and the MacBook Pro is so widely adopted by design professionals.
As someone who works in print during the day, I was "anti-glossy screen" since LCD's took over back in the day, until I got my new iMac.
I couldn't imagine going back. Really the only difference is that harsh reflections on a glossy screen are pretty much localized in one hot spot, as opposed to diffusing across the matte screen and washing out the entire display.
After working with a glossy screen for 3 months, going back to a matte screen is like putting a sheet of wax paper over a regular monitor. If you do any design work, the colors are so much easier to calibrate since it's easier to dial the richer/more saturated colors of a glossy screen back rather than try and bump up ones that are already muted out on a matte screen, and the added clarity really helps reduce eyestrain when you're parked in front of one.
I know a lot of people who are "designers" (read: retouch the occasional photo in photoshop for their blog) are griping about the lack of a matte option, but honestly as long as you're calibrating things properly, it shouldn't be an issue. The added brightness due to not having a matte screen suck up all the backlighting should combat any reflections from the glossiness by actually letting all the backlight show through.
It may have been an issue back in the day when LCD's had crappy backlights, but nowadays with today's "burn your retinas" level of light these things are capable of putting out...Let's put it this way: It's sunny here in FL, and I'm sitting next to a window, with my screen between 1/3 and 1/2 up on the brightness...so there's still PLENTY of headroom, so to speak.
Obviously on a laptop screen you shouldn't be doing super color-sensitive work anyways, since there's no way you're ever going to have yourself and the screen in the same position (and environment) twice, but I digress...
I know that the Master Collection includes extended but it's huge. I'm not sure if they release trials for the extended version alone. If I find it, I'll update this post. Thanks for the comment.
I didn't say I was a pro, I said the laptop is a professional product targeted to pro's. I consider myself a pro-sumer, which is somewhere in between a pro and a consumer.
The pitfalls of a glossy display mainly have to do with the amount of reflection, not color reproduction. The glossy vs. matte debate ultimately comes down to preference.
My main argument is that there should be a choice, especially since it's a professional product.
I didn't mean that glass is for cheap products. I meant that expensive, portable electronics should be designed to be durable. Slapping a plate of glass on the iPhone and now the MacBook's doesn't really help with this. I am not completely opposed to glass or I would have brought up the iMac's.
The premise of your argument revolves the idea of a Pro, and that you are one. Yet, you use a 22" Acer screen. Please tell me you are kidding. More important than the issue of matte or glossy is panel type. I am sure your Acer uses a TN which is a 6-bit panel with terrible viewing angles. In other words, your "Pro," credibility has taken a hit given that as a Pro you are willing to use a 22" TN panel with poor color reproduction and viewing angles, yet you want to argue that glossy is not a "Pro" feature.
On the topic of glossy displays, the only argument that can be made against them is reflections. The idea that they produce colors that are off is completely overblown. As the owner of a Mac Pro with a 30", 20" iMac and 24" iMac; I can say they the only factor that changes color results is the panel type. In my test, the 20" iMac could not produce colors as well as the 24" iMac given the fact that it uses a TN panel. The 24" actually performs better in color because it uses an H-IPS panel as opposed to the older S-IPS of the 30" ACD. The point here is that the glass is not a significant factor in terms of color, the 24" can be calibrated to perform equal and in some cases better than the 30" ACD (better in terms of black level), the 20" never had a chance.
Besides, it looks like you are mostly do web work. I want my stuff to look as close to the real color as they should, however, most people do not calibrate their displays and their colors are completely off anyway. So when I produce graphics that are color accurate in terms of how they appear based on a numerical value, I am only doing so for myself and for other designers. Now, if we are doing print work, glossy could be an issue but so can matter displays. In short, most printing shops do not rely on a screen to get their colors right. They rely on the numerical value they chose to use to produce said color. In fact, I do computer support at my uni and am the main support for the marketing and publications department (I am the only one who knows Macs). These people do not calibrate their displays yet produce beautiful printed work. This is because they rely on numerical values as opposed to a screen.
Moving on. What is this about glass being for cheap products? You say the 2G should not have had glass because it was expensive? And presumably the 3G deserves glass because it is cheap? The first problem with this argument is that the 3G iPhone is still just as expensive as the 2G, it has been subsidized to get the price that low. This fact invalidates this portion of your argument as the 3G is just as expensive as the 2G.
Moving on, what other material could they use for a phone? Most phones have plastic over the screen. Which is pretty much the only material other than glass that could be use to cover the screen (ignoring the option of leaving the screen unprotected). What is the problem with plastic? Scratching. Plastic screens get scratched to hell. And they look like crap as a result. Take a look at the previous iPods which used plastic, within a few weeks the look terrible. Plastic is not an option for an expensive device, simply because scratching on an expensive device would be ridiculous. The same applies to the Macbooks, Apple decided they wanted glossy and they choose to do that with glass as opposed to plastic, I personally would rather have glass than plastic which again would be prone to scratching. Glass is a much better material to use as a screen covering given its durability and also its recyclability.
Those smashing their phones would be doing the same thing, iPhone or no iPhone. Those people are simply careless with their devices. However, take this into consideration. If I drop my iPhone and crack the glass the chances of the display not being damaged are much higher than with a plastic covering.
I apologize for any spelling and grammar problems, given the length of this I did not want to proofread. Do not let simple mistakes detract from my argument. Thank you and Good day!
"Positioned at the high end of the MacBook Family, the MacBook Pro is aimed at the professional and power user market."
I don't mean to say that it's only meant for media professionals but I do believe that the majority of users are in the media field. Beyond that, professional laptops or business laptops aren't made with frills and cheap sells like "glossy screens". I feel that apple has blurred that line both with the screen and the fact that new MacBooks look identical to the MacBook Pro's.
"The MacBook Pro is marketed to and adopted by media professionals who do graphic design and video production on the run."
This simply isn't true. The Pro in MacBook Pro does not equate to Media Professional. The primary group I see buying Apple Pro laptops these days are developers. And frankly they couldn't care less about matte screens. And I think Apple realizes who their primary market is and is catering to them perfectly.
Home.gif){kind=small}
ForSolutions.ca
Oh, like the MacBook Pro's? Thanks for the correction. I've noticed that Apple has dropped the refurbished price of the last generation model. Very tempting but I have too many boxes connected to my TV as it is!
It comes with digital audio out... It is a combo port, has been like this for quite some time.
HDMI on the other hand..
J.
hey i have got same list here..... i think these are mostly used and very useful and i just love them
Thanks for pointing this out. Just go Labs in my Google Apps account and was hoping there would be html support for signatures as the 'Better Gmail' firefox plugin stopped supporting it. Skipped over the canned responses feature at first until I read your post.
glossy screens are great!
I looked it up and .dlm is Adobe's Download Manager. Are you sure it's done downloading? I downloaded it directly but if I remember, the Download Manager should have a resume button.
Also try renaming it to just .dmg. Let me know how it goes.
Lead Designer // LemonLime Designs
when downloaded to desktop on mac the file extension is .dmg.dlm and wont open. any advice? thanks.
all I got to say is... why the spaced out keyboard? I hate that keyboard! :(
worked fine try deleting your cookies and do it again
Love ~R~
Excellent blog! Interesting article and very informative! I will necessarily subscribe for this blog. http://lowsalego.com/map.html
Thanks Daniel, they were put back online a few days ago.
Lead Designer // LemonLime Designs
The trial downloads are still working, see http://forums.ebuyer.com/showthread.php?p=489570 for detail.
Thanks! This looks great. It doesn't seem to have the numbers as Design Float but it does look to have more stories.
Lead Designer // LemonLime Designs
What about http://www.wscoop.com. Its is a simlar site but Its is dedicated to web design and development.
They are clearly making products for a wider audience now, not just to "pros". What percentage of their current market do you think are pro's? Face it, apple left the pros and went after the big newb market. And that is the reason for a lot of their recent success. Speaking for newbs everywhere, I am grateful that they did.
doesn't work anymore...
As with any calibration, it's somewhat subjective. I do agree that glossy displays really make the colours pop but I think we're being groomed to accept over saturated, overly bright displays. I'd argue that a small percentage of people even calibrate their screens, beit their computer or TV screen. The argument of glossy v.s. matte is subjective. I think that the matte crowd (myself included) just want the choice, especially since Mac's and the MacBook Pro is so widely adopted by design professionals.
LemonLime Designs
Lead Designer
The mac isn't working...
It goes to a page that says resume downloads
As someone who works in print during the day, I was "anti-glossy screen" since LCD's took over back in the day, until I got my new iMac.
I couldn't imagine going back. Really the only difference is that harsh reflections on a glossy screen are pretty much localized in one hot spot, as opposed to diffusing across the matte screen and washing out the entire display.
After working with a glossy screen for 3 months, going back to a matte screen is like putting a sheet of wax paper over a regular monitor. If you do any design work, the colors are so much easier to calibrate since it's easier to dial the richer/more saturated colors of a glossy screen back rather than try and bump up ones that are already muted out on a matte screen, and the added clarity really helps reduce eyestrain when you're parked in front of one.
I know a lot of people who are "designers" (read: retouch the occasional photo in photoshop for their blog) are griping about the lack of a matte option, but honestly as long as you're calibrating things properly, it shouldn't be an issue. The added brightness due to not having a matte screen suck up all the backlighting should combat any reflections from the glossiness by actually letting all the backlight show through.
It may have been an issue back in the day when LCD's had crappy backlights, but nowadays with today's "burn your retinas" level of light these things are capable of putting out...Let's put it this way: It's sunny here in FL, and I'm sitting next to a window, with my screen between 1/3 and 1/2 up on the brightness...so there's still PLENTY of headroom, so to speak.
Obviously on a laptop screen you shouldn't be doing super color-sensitive work anyways, since there's no way you're ever going to have yourself and the screen in the same position (and environment) twice, but I digress...
I know that the Master Collection includes extended but it's huge. I'm not sure if they release trials for the extended version alone. If I find it, I'll update this post. Thanks for the comment.
Lead Designer
LemonLime Designs
nice information did you bring here. thank you very much
but i miss photoshop extended here
could you please...
Now THAT'S a comment!
The premise of your argument revolves the idea of a Pro, and that you are one. Yet, you use a 22" Acer screen. Please tell me you are kidding. More important than the issue of matte or glossy is panel type. I am sure your Acer uses a TN which is a 6-bit panel with terrible viewing angles. In other words, your "Pro," credibility has taken a hit given that as a Pro you are willing to use a 22" TN panel with poor color reproduction and viewing angles, yet you want to argue that glossy is not a "Pro" feature.
On the topic of glossy displays, the only argument that can be made against them is reflections. The idea that they produce colors that are off is completely overblown. As the owner of a Mac Pro with a 30", 20" iMac and 24" iMac; I can say they the only factor that changes color results is the panel type. In my test, the 20" iMac could not produce colors as well as the 24" iMac given the fact that it uses a TN panel. The 24" actually performs better in color because it uses an H-IPS panel as opposed to the older S-IPS of the 30" ACD. The point here is that the glass is not a significant factor in terms of color, the 24" can be calibrated to perform equal and in some cases better than the 30" ACD (better in terms of black level), the 20" never had a chance.
Besides, it looks like you are mostly do web work. I want my stuff to look as close to the real color as they should, however, most people do not calibrate their displays and their colors are completely off anyway. So when I produce graphics that are color accurate in terms of how they appear based on a numerical value, I am only doing so for myself and for other designers. Now, if we are doing print work, glossy could be an issue but so can matter displays. In short, most printing shops do not rely on a screen to get their colors right. They rely on the numerical value they chose to use to produce said color. In fact, I do computer support at my uni and am the main support for the marketing and publications department (I am the only one who knows Macs). These people do not calibrate their displays yet produce beautiful printed work. This is because they rely on numerical values as opposed to a screen.
Moving on. What is this about glass being for cheap products? You say the 2G should not have had glass because it was expensive? And presumably the 3G deserves glass because it is cheap? The first problem with this argument is that the 3G iPhone is still just as expensive as the 2G, it has been subsidized to get the price that low. This fact invalidates this portion of your argument as the 3G is just as expensive as the 2G.
Moving on, what other material could they use for a phone? Most phones have plastic over the screen. Which is pretty much the only material other than glass that could be use to cover the screen (ignoring the option of leaving the screen unprotected). What is the problem with plastic? Scratching. Plastic screens get scratched to hell. And they look like crap as a result. Take a look at the previous iPods which used plastic, within a few weeks the look terrible. Plastic is not an option for an expensive device, simply because scratching on an expensive device would be ridiculous. The same applies to the Macbooks, Apple decided they wanted glossy and they choose to do that with glass as opposed to plastic, I personally would rather have glass than plastic which again would be prone to scratching. Glass is a much better material to use as a screen covering given its durability and also its recyclability.
Those smashing their phones would be doing the same thing, iPhone or no iPhone. Those people are simply careless with their devices. However, take this into consideration. If I drop my iPhone and crack the glass the chances of the display not being damaged are much higher than with a plastic covering.
I apologize for any spelling and grammar problems, given the length of this I did not want to proofread. Do not let simple mistakes detract from my argument. Thank you and Good day!
"Positioned at the high end of the MacBook Family, the MacBook Pro is aimed at the professional and power user market."
I don't mean to say that it's only meant for media professionals but I do believe that the majority of users are in the media field. Beyond that, professional laptops or business laptops aren't made with frills and cheap sells like "glossy screens". I feel that apple has blurred that line both with the screen and the fact that new MacBooks look identical to the MacBook Pro's.
Thanks for the comment, Jason.
"The MacBook Pro is marketed to and adopted by media professionals who do graphic design and video production on the run."
This simply isn't true. The Pro in MacBook Pro does not equate to Media Professional. The primary group I see buying Apple Pro laptops these days are developers. And frankly they couldn't care less about matte screens. And I think Apple realizes who their primary market is and is catering to them perfectly.