[MichaelSullivan]

Can anyone that has used the following products please provide a short review? mostly interested in quality, effectiveness, and value. Thanks in advance!

Wrist Wrags: http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...hp?category=pb

Track Pad Film: http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...hp?category=pb

Crystal Film: http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...hp?category=pb

Bluetooth MacMice: http://www.dvforge.com/themousebt.shtml

[senseigmg]

Originally posted by MichaelSullivan:
Can anyone that has used the following products please provide a short review? mostly interested in quality, effectiveness, and value. Thanks in advance!

Wrist Wrags: http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...hp?category=pb

Track Pad Film: http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...hp?category=pb

Crystal Film: http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...hp?category=pb

Bluetooth MacMice: http://www.dvforge.com/themousebt.shtml

I would also like to know about the crystal film

[Muffin]

Their crystal film seems awfully expensive $$$.

If you are looking for similar protection, take a look at the Macally clear screen protectors: http://www.shaggymac.com//index.php?...products_id=23

3 sheets for 1/2 the price.

[CrazedVW]

The trackpad is appealing (Trackpad wear was a major issue on my TiBook) but the shipping is outrageous. $6 UPS ground for an $11 item that could probably be slipped into an envelope and mailed for much less. I think I'll keep looking.

[anamexis]

The crystal film seems to me more picture enhancement than screen protection. It looks like they're doing something similar to the XBrite technology, putting a tinted surface in front of the screen to enhance contrast.

I heard from someone on this board who said he had saw one and thought it looked very nice.

The price could easily be justified as they are meant to be permanent and picture-enhancing as opposed to temporary and protective.

[scgf]

I am in the UK and Power Support want to charge me $24 to ship the TrackPad film. Completely outrageous!

As you say, it would fit in an envelope.

[MichaelSullivan]

Originally posted by CrazedVW:
The trackpad is appealing (Trackpad wear was a major issue on my TiBook) but the shipping is outrageous. $6 UPS ground for an $11 item that could probably be slipped into an envelope and mailed for much less. I think I'll keep looking.

My 5-6 year old laptop has severe track pad wear, so I'll probably pony up for those... even with the silly shipping price.

[MichaelSullivan]

Originally posted by anamexis:
The crystal film seems to me more picture enhancement than screen protection. It looks like they're doing something similar to the XBrite technology, putting a tinted surface in front of the screen to enhance contrast.

I heard from someone on this board who said he had saw one and thought it looked very nice.

The price could easily be justified as they are meant to be permanent and picture-enhancing as opposed to temporary and protective.

If you find out where someone else reviewed the crystal film, post a link. I'm very interested in reviews.

Thanks!

[Ryan1524]

wow, i'm very interested in that Crystal Film. if it's anything like XBrite, $42 is a very good price. i wonder how perfect the fit is.

has anybody purchased it from them yet?

[Ruahrc]

I am not very impressed with the crystal film. I don't own it or have never seen it but the concept of the product is very gimmicky. First of all, LCD's do not emit UV radiation, or at least they do not do so in any appreciable amounts. That was one of the advantages of LCD monitors vs CRT monitors. And even so, modern CRT's have vastly reduced UV emissions from older CRT's where this "UV problem" really began. Also, I have never heard of UV light DEGRADING an LCD over time, have you?

Next of all I don't know now it increases contrast. It certainly does not work similar to X-Brite, which is a brighter/more powerful backlight. The Crystal film, (with it's tinted screen) is blocking more light than if it wasn't there, making the screen even dimmer. I don't really see where the visual quality is being enhanced here.

Lastly, have you guys ever used screen protection products similar to these? I have used them on my PDA for a long time and I can definitely say that you will probably get a large reduction in visual quality from using it due to the fact that getting it on "optimally" is nearly impossible. You must make sure there is NO dust on the back of the cover, and fit it on the screen so that there is NO air bubbles. Any air bubble will be very visible and a large detriment to screen quality. It was very difficult to get a good fit onto my small 2 or 3" hard-surfaced PDA screen (where you can press firmly to remove air bubbles), imagine how hard it would be to do it on a 12, 15, or 17" soft surfaced LCD screen (where you cannot push too hard or you will damage the screen)?

Lastly $50 for a piece of silicone rubber, or possibly a piece of thin vinyl that you can buy at Home Depot for like $0.50 a square yard?

I'm not trying to thread crap, but a little common sense should tell you to buyer beware.

Ruahrc

P.S. If you are looking for some kind of screen protectant I would recommend Radtech's ScreenSaverz. They are made out of a soft cloth which can double in use as a wipe to clean your powerbook's case and screen. You can even machine wash it when it gets dirty. I do actually own one of these and so far I have been happy with it. At $20 it was still a little pricey for my tastes but it's less than half of what that crystal film costs. www.radtech.us

[anamexis]

Originally posted by Ruahrc:
I am not very impressed with the crystal film. I don't own it or have never seen it but the concept of the product is very gimmicky. First of all, LCD's do not emit UV radiation, or at least they do not do so in any appreciable amounts. That was one of the advantages of LCD monitors vs CRT monitors. And even so, modern CRT's have vastly reduced UV emissions from older CRT's where this "UV problem" really began. Also, I have never heard of UV light DEGRADING an LCD over time, have you?

The point is to protect UV light (from, say, the sun) from reaching the screen, genius. And it is a definite problem.

Next of all I don't know now it increases contrast. It certainly does not work similar to X-Brite, which is a brighter/more powerful backlight. The Crystal film, (with it's tinted screen) is blocking more light than if it wasn't there, making the screen even dimmer. I don't really see where the visual quality is being enhanced here.

You obviously aren't qualified to argue about this if you can't make the distinction between brightness and contrast. Although it would make the screen slightly dimmer, the image quality would be enhanced significantly by making the often washed out blacks and grays (a common problem among LCD displays) a lot closer to true black while leaving the whites and brighter tones generally untouched. It's called increasing contrast, and it looks a lot better. In the graphic design industry, it is very common to see pieces of tinted glass in front of monitors for exactly this purpose.

Lastly, have you guys ever used screen protection products similar to these? I have used them on my PDA for a long time and I can definitely say that you will probably get a large reduction in visual quality from using it due to the fact that getting it on "optimally" is nearly impossible. You must make sure there is NO dust on the back of the cover, and fit it on the screen so that there is NO air bubbles. Any air bubble will be very visible and a large detriment to screen quality. It was very difficult to get a good fit onto my small 2 or 3" hard-surfaced PDA screen (where you can press firmly to remove air bubbles), imagine how hard it would be to do it on a 12, 15, or 17" soft surfaced LCD screen (where you cannot push too hard or you will damage the screen)?

Frankly, most PDA screen protectors suck. They are designed to protect the screen from scratches while allowing the touch sensitive layer to still operate correctly. This crystal film is designed to do neither. The quality deterioration from PDA protectors is caused mainly by the thickness of the plastic, and the plastic is thick to protect the screen. The crystal film, however, is just that-- a film.

And as far as applying it goes, give me a break. Applying a protective film is well within the limits of the wear and tear that an LCD can take.

Lastly $50 for a piece of silicone rubber, or possibly a piece of thin vinyl that you can buy at Home Depot for like $0.50 a square yard?

This solution would quite obviously have all the problems of the PDA protectors, and in addition, these aren't adhesive in any way.

I'm not trying to thread crap, but a little common sense should tell you to buyer beware.

Congratulations, that's exactly what you did. Please to at least a little research before just assuming things that are completely wrong and telling others as such.

[tooki]

Originally posted by Ruahrc:
I am not very impressed with the crystal film. I don't own it or have never seen it but the concept of the product is very gimmicky. First of all, LCD's do not emit UV radiation, or at least they do not do so in any appreciable amounts. That was one of the advantages of LCD monitors vs CRT monitors. And even so, modern CRT's have vastly reduced UV emissions from older CRT's where this "UV problem" really began. Also, I have never heard of UV light DEGRADING an LCD over time, have you?

This supposed advantage is fictitious: CRTs don't emit UV light, if anything, an LCD might emit more. Why? In a CRT, an electron beam hits phosphors that have been tuned to produce a certain color of light (red, green, or blue). The phosphors are the only sources of light, and visible light is what they've been designed to emit.

In an LCD, the light source is a fluorescent tube. The tubes are filled with mercury vapor, which produces primarily ultraviolet light when it lights. The white phosphorescent coating on the inside of the tube converts this UV to visible light. But it might still leak some UV, which would pass through the display to the viewer's eyes.

CRTs do, however, produce copious amounts of electromagnetic radiation, and LCDs are very beneficial in that they produce almost none.

Originally posted by anamexis:
The point is to protect UV light (from, say, the sun) from reaching the screen, genius. And it is a definite problem.

Hey, that tone was absolutely uncalled for. Be civil in the future. And check your facts. There's nothing in an LCD that would be particularly sensitive to UV.

tooki

[anamexis]

I'm sorry, I was in a bad mood earlier.

And for the record, UV rays will eventually break down or degrade everything, LCDs not excepted. And given enough time, LCDs will show UV damage if often used in the sun.

[MichaelSullivan]

This thread has taken an intersting turn. Though I can't directly find anything that says that UV rays from the sun can damage an LCD screen, just about every product that uses LCDs have screen protectors citing 'will block UV rays' (this includes laptops, digital camcorders, digital cameras, IPODs, PDAs, etc). Apparently there is concern about UV rays damaging an LCD display.

In my case, I'm much more interested in whether the crystal film actually improves contrast... especially with the newer (1.5GHz+) PBs increased brightness.

Thanks for all the comments thus far.