Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > MacBook Pro scored last place in Laptop comparison.

MacBook Pro scored last place in Laptop comparison.
Thread Tools
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 04:03 AM
 
I hope Apple will realize it not only lost its lead, but is now seriously behind.

The reason is not the computer technology. The MacBook Pro is a great computer.

It's simply its disappointing display that cannot excel in color accurately and, with its reflections, makes it unuseable for many.

What good does the best laptop, if the screen is no good?


Here's a review of the renowned site RobGalbraith.com, who - like us - loves and uses Apple computers, but was disappointed by the glossy displays.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-9320-9876

The review is very interesting for those who need a laptop for graphics/photography work.

There's not bashing in this. It's posted in the hope that Apple knows all this already and is working to fix it.

By the way: the Lenovo W700 looks like a very impressive machine. Too bad it doesn't run OS X.

Too bad the MacBook Pro 17" cannot compete, even though it costs about the same. The Lenovo sets new standards for what a laptop can be. (and not only "be as big as an elephant"

So, how about Apple listens to its customers and gives us a good display?
( Last edited by Veltliner; Feb 1, 2009 at 04:13 AM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 06:48 AM
 
Misrepresenting, much?

All in all, the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch has a decent, profilable display, much like the previous generation of this model, but is marred by an omnipresent glare from its mirror-like front.

[...]

It's important to remember that, even though the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't keep up in either colour accuracy or viewing angle with laptops from IBM/Lenovo, its display is still quite good and still falls on the right side of the line of acceptable display quality for field use by a working photographer, at least in ambient light that discourages reflections.
Enjoy your flamewar!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 07:04 AM
 
He compared the 15" ProBook to other notebooks, not the 17". Also, the conclusion doesn't say the 15" ProBook's screen is unsuitable for photographers.

I'd wait until the 17" ProBook is tested: with Apple's emphasis on screen quality, let's see how it fares against the Lenovo.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 11:04 AM
 
I would think that a professional photographer would go for the larger screen anyway, with those of us who have other processor-taxing applications going for smaller and somewhat lighter machines. In other words, why would a pro photographer go for the smaller, cheaper product when (in theory anyway) having a larger screen gives him/her more information about their photographs?

And on a "I really don't understand the angst here" note, how does a "not the ultimate screen in the universe" review mean that the MBP is "now seriously behind?" The MBP has never been the "benchmark leader" for its class, but it has always been near the top in "the most reliable and solid performer" category in its class.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I would think that a professional photographer would go for the larger screen anyway, with those of us who have other processor-taxing applications going for smaller and somewhat lighter machines. In other words, why would a pro photographer go for the smaller, cheaper product when (in theory anyway) having a larger screen gives him/her more information about their photographs?
If there's any sort of priority to be placed on portability (which is why that miniature Dell is in the line-up).

Sports photographers, for example, need to be extremely portable but get images selected and edited and uploaded through a UMTS connection *quickly* in order to be first to the market.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And on a "I really don't understand the angst here" note, how does a "not the ultimate screen in the universe" review mean that the MBP is "now seriously behind?"
it doesn't.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Sports photographers, for example, need to be extremely portable but get images selected and edited and uploaded through a UMTS connection *quickly* in order to be first to the market.
I remember the times when my cousin would use a dial-up connection to upload pictures from his Canon D30 (no typo! ) to his agency. I think he used a laptop with a bw screen even. I'm glad he got out of sports photography, he looked like hell, driving 80-120k km/year … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
bishopazrael
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 12:34 PM
 
yeah... the title in this thread is VERY misleading. Sorry but the MBP has been shown to beat other laptops in benchmarks. NOt that I care. I"ve got the latest 15"mbp and i LOVE the screen. And yes I DO use it outside.
Backups are like guns and condoms. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 03:51 PM
 
When a $350 netbook has better color accuracy than your $2000+ "pro" laptop, you're doing it wrong.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
When a $350 netbook has better color accuracy than your $2000+ "pro" laptop, you're doing it wrong.
Or that laptop got tweaked before the test. PC Magazine has caught a number of vendors providing tweaked products for their comparison testing. They find out what the testing suite is and then play with their machines until they look better in the suite-irrelevant of whether they actually perform better in real usage.

But "better color accuracy" is a fairly ambiguous phrase. How is it quantified and by whom? If it's just that an uncalibrated display is not giving a 100% red when that's what it should be giving, then it's one thing. If it's because that "red" ain't the same wavelength as what's expected, that's something else.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 05:49 PM
 
You'll find that Rob Galbraith expounds in some detail on how exactly they qualify "better color accuracy" on page two of that link.

The MacBook Pro has the wider color gamut, but the Dell is better at placing colors accurately within it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 06:35 PM
 
I hadn't gotten that far down on page 2-I'd just read the conclusion. I think there's something to the observation that Galbraith made about sourcing different panels, though. And I also think that testing a number of each computer model would be called for before anyone could say that "as a whole" the MBP was not as accurate as the Mini 9.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Chinasaur
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2009, 06:38 PM
 
1 Blog
Sample size N=1
Fail?
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2009, 04:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Misrepresenting, much?



Enjoy your flamewar!


Did you actually get as far as page 2? Then you'd have seen I was not misrepresenting anything.

I also made it quite clear that I created a thread in my interest FOR Apple laptops, not against them.

No trace of a "flame war".

But it doesn't look like this matters to you.

You disqualify yourself with that attitude.

I recommend a little bit of reflection before posting such useless comments.
( Last edited by Veltliner; Feb 2, 2009 at 04:55 AM. )
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2009, 04:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
He compared the 15" ProBook to other notebooks, not the 17". Also, the conclusion doesn't say the 15" ProBook's screen is unsuitable for photographers.

I'd wait until the 17" ProBook is tested: with Apple's emphasis on screen quality, let's see how it fares against the Lenovo.
Me, too, I hope that Apple will not sit on its hands.

Its always healthy to have good competitors out there, and the Lenovo W700 definitely is a good one.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2009, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
When a $350 netbook has better color accuracy than your $2000+ "pro" laptop, you're doing it wrong.
I also thought that a striking point.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2009, 04:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Or that laptop got tweaked before the test. PC Magazine has caught a number of vendors providing tweaked products for their comparison testing. They find out what the testing suite is and then play with their machines until they look better in the suite-irrelevant of whether they actually perform better in real usage.

But "better color accuracy" is a fairly ambiguous phrase. How is it quantified and by whom? If it's just that an uncalibrated display is not giving a 100% red when that's what it should be giving, then it's one thing. If it's because that "red" ain't the same wavelength as what's expected, that's something else.
Of course, it can be interpreted.

But RobGalbraith.com is a site that is taken very seriously and has a high reputation.

When the autofocus of the Canon 1DsMkIII was working poorly, it was this site that posted extensive research and testing.

It's that kind of critical approach to things that one appreciates, to keep them up to the level where one can them appreciate.


So, when RobGalbraith.com says "color accuracy", it's exactly that. They regularly have articles and test regarding color, color management, etc.

(I also don't think they would fall for a tweaked netbook)
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2009, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Me, too, I hope that Apple will not sit on its hands.
What do you mean, sit on its hands? The new 17" MacBook Pro hasn't been tested yet (to my knowledge), so wouldn't it be fair to at least wait for a review of that machine? Arguably that's the competition of the W700, both in terms of size and weight as well as feature set.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2009, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Of course, it can be interpreted.

But RobGalbraith.com is a site that is taken very seriously and has a high reputation.

When the autofocus of the Canon 1DsMkIII was working poorly, it was this site that posted extensive research and testing.

It's that kind of critical approach to things that one appreciates, to keep them up to the level where one can them appreciate.


So, when RobGalbraith.com says "color accuracy", it's exactly that. They regularly have articles and test regarding color, color management, etc.

(I also don't think they would fall for a tweaked netbook)
I don't know how extensive their facilities are, but PC Magazine was "fooled" by more than a few products before they noticed a trend between release of a new testing suite and new products doing much better than they had a few months before. They also note and comment on their "sample size = 1" examinations of products, specifically using terms like "our sample..." and "this particular unit..." Not to knock RobGalbraith.com, but it could easily be that the Dell wound up with a spectacularly good LCD panel and the MBP (and other machines they reviewed) got mediocre to not so great panels. In short, I'd like to see more reviews by more, and more varied, respected reviewers before I believe that the whole unibody 15" MBP model is cruddy in terms of color.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 01:21 AM
 
There's always room for error.

But did you see the remark where the author of the review mentioned that MacBook Pros came with two different panels? He even listed the numbers that identified them as being from different manufacturers.

By the way, one thing I found unnecessary in the W700 is the built-in calibrator. This weighs quite a lot and you don't really need to recalibrate LCD screens that often.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What do you mean, sit on its hands? The new 17" MacBook Pro hasn't been tested yet (to my knowledge), so wouldn't it be fair to at least wait for a review of that machine? Arguably that's the competition of the W700, both in terms of size and weight as well as feature set.
I hope Apple users get the same things: can choose a non-glare screen and have color accuracy like the Lenovo.

Sure, the 17" has not been tested yet (the test refers to the 15" MBP). Maybe its screen is better and can match the Lenovo's. If that was the case, why didn't we hear about it? We heard about many other details. It is unlikely that such an achievement has been made and was kept under cover.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 03:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
I hope Apple users get the same things: can choose a non-glare screen and have color accuracy like the Lenovo.
You do have a matte option on the 17".
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
If that was the case, why didn't we hear about it? We heard about many other details. It is unlikely that such an achievement has been made and was kept under cover.
… because nobody has received one yet (for testing or otherwise).*


* At least I haven't seen anything on the net -- yet. Neither reports from people who have ordered one nor real reviews.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Feb 3, 2009 at 05:08 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 05:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Did you actually get as far as page 2? Then you'd have seen I was not misrepresenting anything.
I QUOTED page 2. And you were COMPLETELY misrepresenting what Rob Galbraith wrote.

     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 05:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
By the way, one thing I found unnecessary in the W700 is the built-in calibrator. This weighs quite a lot and you don't really need to recalibrate LCD screens that often.
From what I gather, displays should be recalibrated EVERY TIME there is substantial change in ambient lighting - otherwise, there's no point in calibrating at all.

If you move from a studio office with natural lighting to a studio shoot with artificial lights, and then to an outdoor shoot, without at least changing gamma settings, you might as well not bother complaining about lack of color accuracy at all.
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Or that laptop got tweaked before the test. PC Magazine has caught a number of vendors providing tweaked products for their comparison testing. They find out what the testing suite is and then play with their machines until they look better in the suite-irrelevant of whether they actually perform better in real usage.

But "better color accuracy" is a fairly ambiguous phrase. How is it quantified and by whom? If it's just that an uncalibrated display is not giving a 100% red when that's what it should be giving, then it's one thing. If it's because that "red" ain't the same wavelength as what's expected, that's something else.
Or you can just look at the source for the comparison. PC MAGAZINE. PC..... not Mac Magazine.... Those magazines ****ing hate anything that Apple does or makes. Even though Apple has been around longer than some other companies. Ever heard of Kaypro, Osborne........
     
analogue SPRINKLES
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 06:06 PM
 
The new MBP's are absolutely amazing to me EXCEPT the colour accuracy which is terrible. The greys like the boxes on this page all have a pink hue to them. As a graphic Designer it makes things very very difficult for me.

I'm going to show it to apple but i have the feeling this is the norm.
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 07:02 PM
 
I've noticed the reddish/pinkish hue as well (on all my portable macs), I really hope the screen from the 17" finds it's way to the 15" soon. less reddish/pinkish hue + an option for matte + unibody = macbook bliss for me.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Kodachrome_Project
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 07:51 PM
 
Before Rob became a web and gear junkie, he was nothing but a photographer and shot full time. Now he does the web and gear thing more than shoot. Take that for what you will...

I shoot full time, direct a global tribute to Kodachrome film via my website but that is the extent of my web nerd-ness.

My opinion is different than Rob's. I find the glossy screen on the new MacBook Pro to be MUCH better for on location work as I can easily turn the screen to get rid of a sharp reflection instead of turning a lot more to get rid of the more hazy loss of contrast on the matte one, often to no avail.

Many pros at a big ESPN event recently have found the same thing that I have. And like me, they find that most of the self proclaimed photographers doing the whining on the internet are the weekend warrior or amateur types that spend most of their time in forums instead of making a living with photography.

In the real world, the glossy screen is *more* than fine with many pros, especially on location.

I hate to break it to you, but at this stage of the game, RGB is not the definitive answer on what is best for all pros...
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by iREZ View Post
I've noticed the reddish/pinkish hue as well (on all my portable macs), I really hope the screen from the 17" finds it's way to the 15" soon. less reddish/pinkish hue + an option for matte + unibody = macbook bliss for me.


Somebody mention a pinkish hue?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
Or you can just look at the source for the comparison. PC MAGAZINE. PC..... not Mac Magazine.... Those magazines ****ing hate anything that Apple does or makes. Even though Apple has been around longer than some other companies. Ever heard of Kaypro, Osborne........
You haven't read PC Magazine lately, have you. "Nothin' but love" for Macs anymore-and for quite some time. Please note, a Mac is a "personal computer" that happens to run Mac OS, as opposed to one that runs Windows...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I QUOTED page 2. And you were COMPLETELY misrepresenting what Rob Galbraith wrote.

The quote you used called the display "decent".

Decent is not good. Decent is not great. Decent is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot quoted this from RobGalbraith.com

"marred by an omnipresent glare from its mirror-like front"
To mar is to impair the appearance of something, to disfigure.

If someone says something is "marred", it's usually not meant in a favorable way.

A mirror like front is probably the last thing you want in a display.

So, no, I was not misrepresenting.

It's you, who is misrepresenting. Or can't you interpret your own quotes?

Finally, here's another quote from the same review of RobGalbraith.com, that should make it clear for you.

Originally Posted by RobGalbraith.com
During testing we used the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch in all three environments, and that was enough to conclude that it's not for us.
It's not for us. This is a courteous way to say: we don't like it.

Which is what I used that link for: someone with a good reputation doesn't like the way Apple displays work at the moment, like many users.

And hopes for improvements.
( Last edited by Veltliner; Feb 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM. )
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kodachrome_Project View Post
Before Rob became a web and gear junkie, he was nothing but a photographer and shot full time. Now he does the web and gear thing more than shoot. Take that for what you will...

I shoot full time, direct a global tribute to Kodachrome film via my website but that is the extent of my web nerd-ness.

My opinion is different than Rob's. I find the glossy screen on the new MacBook Pro to be MUCH better for on location work as I can easily turn the screen to get rid of a sharp reflection instead of turning a lot more to get rid of the more hazy loss of contrast on the matte one, often to no avail.

Many pros at a big ESPN event recently have found the same thing that I have. And like me, they find that most of the self proclaimed photographers doing the whining on the internet are the weekend warrior or amateur types that spend most of their time in forums instead of making a living with photography.

In the real world, the glossy screen is *more* than fine with many pros, especially on location.

I hate to break it to you, but at this stage of the game, RGB is not the definitive answer on what is best for all pros...
Here's someone who thinks he's "the pro", and what he says, that counts, no questions asked.

To show us how super pro he is, he calls Rob Galbraith a "geek" and a "nerd" and a "weekend warrior" .

Who would do such a thing?

An able, professional photographer?

People who are good at something respect others and their achievements.

Those who aren't, post insults like Kodachrome_Project did.

PS: using the word "geek" in an insulting way you also insult many members of this mac forum, who call themselves "geek" once in a while. Another very "pro" attitude: to insult one's audience.
( Last edited by Veltliner; Feb 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM. )
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES View Post
The new MBP's are absolutely amazing to me EXCEPT the colour accuracy which is terrible. The greys like the boxes on this page all have a pink hue to them. As a graphic Designer it makes things very very difficult for me.

I'm going to show it to apple but i have the feeling this is the norm.
This, aside from the glare, was the key issue Rob Galbraith had with the MBP.

And he surely posted this review in the hope things would be done to improve it.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
From what I gather, displays should be recalibrated EVERY TIME there is substantial change in ambient lighting - otherwise, there's no point in calibrating at all.

If you move from a studio office with natural lighting to a studio shoot with artificial lights, and then to an outdoor shoot, without at least changing gamma settings, you might as well not bother complaining about lack of color accuracy at all.
You can't really adjust the display to big changes in ambient light.

If you calibrate, for example, with an Eye One Display Two, you can adjust to the ambient light of the room.

But there's a scale that will tell you when your room is too bright, or the color temperature of the light is not OK.

You rather need to control the ambient light.

The color accuracy issue is, I'd say, of interest if you can get to a place with OK ambient light. I don't think anybody will edit images under bad light conditions, but just wants to have a look of the overall appearance.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2009, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
The quote you used called the display "decent".

Decent is not good. Decent is not great. Decent is acceptable.
Consider reading past the first two lines of the quote I posted:
Originally Posted by rob galbraith, quoted in my post above
It's important to remember that, even though the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't keep up in either colour accuracy or viewing angle with laptops from IBM/Lenovo, its display is still quite good and still falls on the right side of the line of acceptable display quality for field use
"quite good", OTOH, IS quite "good", no?

Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
It's not for us. This is a courteous way to say: we don't like it.
The big difference between you and Rob Galbraith is that Rob Galbraith actually goes out of his way NOT to interpret stuff into his results and generalize those results onto entire industries.

And that starts with you somehow presenting a comparison between two absolutely legendary laptops, a netbook, and a MacBook Pro (that's four laptops) as some sort of representative industry shoot-out comparison that the MacBook Pro comes in "last".

That's just stupid and fallacious, if you'll pardon the euphemism for outright dishonesty.

And I tend to agree with Kodachrome's assessment: The people who spend the most time complaining on the net are (generally) NOT the ones too busy making their living.

I'm not judging the MacBook Pro's display quality, btw (lest you misunderstand me, as well) - I'm making a point about how you're twisting Rob Galbraith's article to fit your view of things.
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2009, 03:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
You haven't read PC Magazine lately, have you. "Nothin' but love" for Macs anymore-and for quite some time. Please note, a Mac is a "personal computer" that happens to run Mac OS, as opposed to one that runs Windows...
I know that. And no I haven't read it in a while. Never much liked it and it costs waaaaay to much for a simple flier.
     
Kodachrome_Project
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2009, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Here's someone who thinks he's "the pro", and what he says, that counts, no questions asked.

To show us how super pro he is, he calls Rob Galbraith a "geek" and a "nerd" and a "weekend warrior" .

Who would do such a thing?

An able, professional photographer?

People who are good at something respect others and their achievements.

Those who aren't, post insults like Kodachrome_Project did.

PS: using the word "geek" in an insulting way you also insult many members of this mac forum, who call themselves "geek" once in a while. Another very "pro" attitude: to insult one's audience.
Well, first off, no one has an "Audience" here, this is not a show. Secondly, Rob-G is a good shooter and knows his stuff, but his is not the last word on how we working folks feel. So to start a thread saying "MacBook Pro scored last place in laptop comparison" says to me that you believe in what Rob says SO much that you would post a generalist comment like this one on a public site.

So you have to expect that *other* professionals who are not in agreement with this assesment are going to chime in.

But it does not surprise me in the least that this kind of reaction would take place. Forums like these tend to turn into a pack of hyenas as people feed off of each other's annual post count of thousands...
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2009, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
I know that. And no I haven't read it in a while. Never much liked it and it costs waaaaay to much for a simple flier.
It did used to be better (and much bigger). But they still do very well done reviews, with plenty of objectivity. I just don't see much objectivity in the Galbraith review. I DO see a lot of "I'm an expert" wording, which is disappointing, as he makes good points. It's just hard to take them as seriously as I might if he worded things differently.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2009, 04:09 AM
 
Regarding the 17 inch model, shipments have been delayed until the second half of February. Until somebody actually tries a 17 inch ProBook, we don't know how it stacks up against its competition and whether Apple's marketing blah has some basis in reality.

@Veltiner
Just because Kodachrome is (apparently) also a photographer, but with a different opinion, doesn't mean he thinks of himself as `the pro' or in any case better than the reviewer. He has simply voiced a different opinion than Galbraith. Even if you feel strongly about that topic, we should still have a civil exchange on that topic.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Feb 5, 2009 at 05:46 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2009, 05:36 AM
 
Well, I'm suing Apple because of the delay. I figure if some moron can sue Apple because he can't get a 3G signal to his iPhone, I can sue Apple because of some stupid delay on the 17" model.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2009, 01:44 PM
 
I hate glossy screens.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
analogue SPRINKLES
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2009, 05:53 PM
 
I don't have the slightest problem with the glossy screen. I love it. My only problem is with the colour accuracy.
     
ctt1wbw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2009, 10:43 PM
 
You bought one? If so, why? Do people really see the color that accurately? I can see reds and blues and ****...
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 04:12 AM
 
You're not being serious, are you?
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 09:45 AM
 
I am confused ... so, what is the conclusion? My wife is going to buy a MBP 15" really soon...
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Pierre B. View Post
I am confused ... so, what is the conclusion? My wife is going to buy a MBP 15" really soon...
The conclusion is that, with a sample size of one, the review is only valid for the one machine that was actually examined. My 2+ year old MBP (I'm typing on it now) is and always has been great. Unless you need 100% Pantone-accurate color for every thing you do, the new 15" MBP should be not only "fine" but great.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Pierre B. View Post
I am confused ... so, what is the conclusion? My wife is going to buy a MBP 15" really soon...
This is the conclusion, as per Rob Galbraith:

All in all, the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch has a decent, profilable display, much like the previous generation of this model, but is marred by an omnipresent glare from its mirror-like front.

[...]

It's important to remember that, even though the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't keep up in either colour accuracy or viewing angle with laptops from IBM/Lenovo, its display is still quite good and still falls on the right side of the line of acceptable display quality for field use by a working photographer, at least in ambient light that discourages reflections.
It's slightly disingenuous of glenn to suggest that Rob Galbraith's test doesn't mean much because it only covered a single example of each laptop, as - barring actual use of multiple display types in production - there is likely to be very little variance between regular production models, and certainly not enough to greatly falsify his findings.


In a nutshell:

15" MacBook Pro display is pretty good, if you don't mind the glare, despite suffering from slight colour-shifting.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
It's slightly disingenuous of glenn to suggest that Rob Galbraith's test doesn't mean much because it only covered a single example of each laptop, as - barring actual use of multiple display types in production - there is likely to be very little variance between regular production models, and certainly not enough to greatly falsify his findings.
Disingenuous? Glenn's comment was actually spot on. It's not an if as your post suggests, it's certain: there are at least two different display types being used in production.

The panel in the unit we tested is model "9C84" (as described in the metadata of its default monitor profile), while there are apparently units of the same Mac with "9C85" panels. Do these two different panels also differ in display quality and profilability? We don't know.

So actually the report itself states that it is incomplete. We simply don't know if the results are equal for the at least one other type of panel used. IOW since when you buy a MBP you do not know in advance which type of panel you will be getting, this report won't be of much help to you at all.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 11:21 AM
 
Simon, Spheric Harlot and ghporter, thanks!
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 10:51 PM
 
Let's talk about glare, since we're talking about that as a factor in the bad review that's the subject of this thread. How reflective is the new generation's screen as compared to the first gen's? I had a classmate with a 17" glossy who sat next to me with my 15" matte, and aside from some very sideways angles, I never saw glare on her screen. I did see reflections when it was off, and maybe a bit now and then as lighting in the room changed, but she'd usually already be tilting the display a little to compensate and so the effect was very transient.

Further, we had this same sort of long, drawn out discussion of how "glossy screens on the new iMac are so horrible that Steve should be fired for even thinking of allowing them" (hyperbole intentional). I have NEVER had a glare issue with my late '07 iMac's screen, whether in room lighting or with strong sunlight, so I still can't see how glare is a problem, especially with a laptop's display.

As I understand it, with a glossy screen, colors appear more saturated (which can be compensated for with display settings), but other than that and the glare issue that I have yet to have demonstrated to me, I can't see a generic "this is why glossy screens are horrible" complaint.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Remlyor
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 11:21 PM
 
Why would anyone bother to mention a netbook in the same article that brings up Photographers and Color accuracy, which I'm sure as about CS4. And I'm sure we all know CS4 will not run on most any netbook.
Mac Classic II, Powermac 7300, Powermac G3 Minitower, Powermac G4 Quicksilver, Powermac G5 1.8 Single, Powerbook G3 Lombard 333 Mhz, Powerbook G4 (DVI) 667 Mhz, Original iPod 5gb, iPod 4th Gen 20 GB, iPod Touch 8 GB 1st Gen, Pod Touch 16 GB 2nd Gen,
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,