4 ms·
But it looks like 1680x1050 is $100 more. 1440x900 is still the default configuration. The 1680x1050 screen is offered in both "Glossy" and "Antiglare", thoug
by pw 17y ago
But it looks like 1680x1050 is $100 more. 1440x900 is still the default configuration. The 1680x1050 screen is offered in both "Glossy" and "Antiglare", though.
(PS: Is "Antiglare" just Apple's marketing term for matte?)
- cpr 17y agoYes.
- jonknee 17y agoI'm surprised Apple's marketing team uses the name anti-glare as it makes the default configuration seem like the glare version. Matte doesn't have that connotation.
- jcl 17y agoHowever, implying that "anti-glare" is better makes it easier to justify charging an extra $50 (for something that used to come standard on all devices... grr).
- astrodust 17y agoI like how they charge $50 extra for what is essentially removing the plastic screen protector cover that causes all the "glare" in the first place. A "matte" MacBook Pro has an exposed screen, no black border where the plastic cover is mounted, and looks almost perversely naked.
- tbrooks 17y agoI don't remember Apple charging for matte screens on the pre-unibody MBP's. When did they start charging? Am I wrong here?