Talk:Matte display

As predicted in the previous version of this article, Apple Inc. is now (January 2009) offering a state-of-the-art portable computer with an optional (!) anti-glare LCD-screen for an extra charge (about 60 US$).

Please also refer to the results of a study of the TCO (K. Brunnström, et al., "The effects of glossy screens on the acceptance of flat-panel displays", Journal of the SID, 16/10(2008), pp. 1041-1049): "The results show that increasing gloss and increasing luminance levels had negative effects on the acceptance and the disturbance of reflexes. There were statistically significant differences in the acceptance and the disturbance levels between screens with low gloss and screens with high gloss, which suggests that screens with the highest gloss levels should be avoided. The study did not show an effect on the performance based on acuity testing."

panjasan (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)panjasan

=
======================= This article really needs to be cleaned up, there's a couple sections that are very obviously biased and don't add anything for people wishing to learn more about matte display technology. There should be some contrast between matte and glossy displays, but shouldn't be a buying guide. 72.220.237.117 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen such an obviously biased article on wikipedia. Sounds like it's written by a bunch of whiners who want their washed out faded screens so badly, like as if no TV was ever watched or no computer work ever got done before 2000. I mean, look at some of these article sections, such as:

"# 5 Most of the work is not done in a dark room"

LOL, this is supposed to be a serious discussion/description of Matte displays? The article should be short, describing what Matte is, not arguing why anything is better than anything else. Nice try. NOT NEUTRAL, not even close.

Joz (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

=
========================================================

This article is terrible. "A clever marketing campaign"? "Fairy tales"? This is an encyclopedia for fucks sake.

^ Mac user spotted --78.86.138.237 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

=
======================================================== Thank you for the detailed analysis of the article, the well founded conclusion and the final rating.

1 In a recent online petition, the following can be read:

"We the Undersigned, plead with Apple to release a Matte screen version of the Apple MacBook. Apple already makes Matte or Glossy a free option in the Mac Book Pro line of computers. And the company that makes the LCD component Apple uses (LG) already makes a matte version of the screen in addition to the Glossy version. All the pieces are there, we just want Apple to put them all together. We are holding our breathes, waiting for a matte option, before we buy a Mac Book. Glossy screens create a great illusion of greater color vibrance, but when it comes to day to day use, Glossy screens are simply not an option.

Please Apple, offer a BTO option of a Matte screen for the Mac Book, and don't charge any extra for it."

See: www. petitiononline. com / macbooks / petition

2 An example for a collection of "marketing wisdom" and technically wrong assertions is available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossy_display

panjasan (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)panjasan

Rewrite
This article is in serious need of a rewrite, perhaps completely from scratch. Nrbelex (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

=
==========================

This article is copied practically verbatim from http://www.display-messtechnik.de/typo3/fileadmin/template/main/docs/Matte-Glossy-VVDS-26+27-2008.pdf with linking directory http://www.display-messtechnik.de/typo3/index.php?id=6&L=1 This article ought to be removed. Tolkheleknar (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

=
=========================== There is a good deal of bias in this article, most of which should be removed completely. The "A clever marketing campaign" section in particular uses biased language and cites text from another Wikipedia article as part of the "argument" against Glossy displays. Clearly this type of editorial commentary isn't needed in a Wikipedia entry. Removing. Rfruit (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

=
============================ Removed the "Conclusion" section as it was almost all opinion. The user can draw their own conclusion from the data presented. --Rfruit (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

=
============================ Wow, this article's the biggest mess I've ever seen. The glossy vs. matte parts are very obviously biased, and most of the text is just rambling on about stuff irrelevant to the subject at hand. I've deleted all of the content and replaced it with a stub, as well as all of the references pointing to the original author. Loginer (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matte display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118004817/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how_to/4213062.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how_to/4213062.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)