Related articles

• Glare (Glossy) Vs. Non-Glare (Matte)

  There is more misinformation about the merits and limitations of glossy versus matte displays than any other topic in notebook computing. Let’s start with the basics that everyone agrees with: glossy screens have more vivid color and contrast while matte screens are better at rejecting reflections from ambient light. A matte LCD display has an anti-glare coating and waffled surface that diffuses and scatters ambient light. This minimizes the reflections that occur, but as a result, the screen can be easier to read across a wider range of environments. The scatter of the light has its own consequences. Diffused light from ambient light as well as the backlight will lighten the black tone and make the screen surface look hazy and washed out. A glossy screen does not use any diffusion at all. Instead, a standard polarizer allows light to freely pass through the filter. Since there is no scatter of the backlight, colors are more intense and accurate, and blacks are also deeper. However, the lack of ambient light diffusion means that surrounding light can result in noticeable reflections. In controlled lighting environments, there is very little difference in color accuracy between the two types of monitors when using a colorimeter. In uncontrolled lighting, the glossy screen has better color accuracy except for the parts of the screen with bright reflections. The matte screen has less of a difference in the image, but has poorer color accuracy due to the diffusion of the light producing haze over a larger area. Fans of matte displays can point out that top-of-the-line desktop monitors for digital photography such as the HP DreamColor LP2480zx or Eizo ColorEdge CG301W are matte designs. Again, given that color quality is dependent on the LCD panel and backlighting technology more than the polarizer, monitors such as the LP2480zx are arguably among the best of the best. On the other hand, fans of glossy displays can point out that flagship digital mammography displays such as the Eizo RadiForce GS520 are designed with glossy screens because the superior sharpness (MTF) over matte screens allows radiologists to better detect more subtle changes in the breast and identify breast cancer at earlier stages.  So, when it’s comes to making a life or death decision, glossy wins. Clearly, it would have been nice if Apple continued to give users the option for glossy or matte screens depending on their anticipated work environments. However, in the interest of saving money and reducing inventory expenses, Apple chose to go glossy. In the previous generation, glossy screens were outselling matte screens by a factor of 10 to 1.

• Mac OS X 10.5 “Leopard”

  Apple’s former ad slogan of “Think Different” isn’t entirely accurate. While Apple is challenging consumers to make the switch away from the most popular operating system in the world, the Apple world is one of conformity. Once you decide to play in the Apple sandbox, you are stuck in the Apple sandbox. I can only buy a notebook in two colors: aluminum and white. I can’t buy a 2.0 GHz Macbook with a lighted keyboard or a MacBook Pro with an aluminum unibody design and a matte screen. I can’t buy a laptop with eSATA or an iMac with a Core 2 Quad or a monitor-less Mac with a Core 2 Duo and an Nvidia GPU. If I go with Apple, I have to play under Apple’s rules. On the other hand, the Apple Kool-Aid is mighty tasty. The iPod and iPhone have been the gateway drugs to the Mac ecosystem and philosophy. Both represent highly structured environments. By giving up the flexibility to load music directly onto your iPod or to use exotic formats such as FLAC or APE, you gain the ease of use that an iPod offers and the widespread support of automotive manufacturers where integrating your iPod with your steering wheel controls requires no trickery. The same is true with the iPhone. You get one provider: AT&T. You only get one form factor. But in turn, you get one of the best smart phones on the market. The strengths of a Mac are clear. On the consumer side, iLife remains one of the best consumer multimedia suites ever produced. For years, iLife’s photo slide show capabilities have outclassed anything available on the PC with regard to ease-of-use and the ability to produce fully animated menus. Apple Aperture offers a great alternative to Adobe Lightroom 2 for a lower price while Apple Shake and Final Cut Pro Studio represent true Hollywood-grade applications falling short only of products from Autodesk/discreet. Built-in capabilities to the operating system such as Time Machine make data security a breeze. Keynote remains one of the most sophisticated presentation tools available on the market, and as soon as Pages and Numbers have support for EndNote and Error Bars, I’m confident that the Mac will gain even more traction in the scientific/academic world. Given the option between a PC that can only run Microsoft-branded software and a Mac that can only run Apple-branded software, the easy answer is the Mac (although admittedly, I am using Office 2008 to write this). Even the day-to-day Mac experience is pleasant. When comparing an eight-core system running Windows Vista/Aero, Mac OS X, and Xgl/Compiz; there is no question that Mac OS X offers the subjective feeling of a snappier interface. I’m not sure what it is about Mac OS X that makes it so responsive, but the last system to have the same level of responsiveness was my SGI Octane. The only similarity between Mac OS X and SGI IRIX was the use of Display PDF/Display Postscript and a closed system with tightly controlled hardware support. Vista/Aero may be slower because non-WPF windows are rendered in 2D (even though the composition is 3D), and Linux driver support lags behind Windows and Mac OS X (DRI2 may change things). In addition, recent benchmarks show that Mac OS X offers superior power management compared to Windows Vista (Anandtech), and in general, offers superior raw performance to Ubuntu Linux (Phoronix). With Mac OS X, you get style and substance.

• MacBook Technical Specifications

  Late 2008 MacBook Specifications (as tested) 13.3-inch 1280x800 LED-backlit TN display (AU Optronics B133EW02 V0 or LG Philips LP133WX2) Intel Core 2 Duo P7350 (45nm Penyrn core,  2.0 GHz, 3MB L2, 1066MHz Bus) NVIDIA GeForce 9400M chipset (MCP79 + integrated GeForce 9400G with 256MB shared RAM) 2 GB DDR3-1066, CL7 (Samsung or Hynix) 160GB 2.5” SATA HDD (Toshiba MK1653GSX or Fujitsu MHZ2160BH) 802.11 a/b/g/n (Broadcom Intensi-fi BCM4322) Bluetooth 2.1 EDR (Broadcom Blutonium BCM2045) 10/100/1000 Ethernet (Realtek RTL8251CA GigE) 24-bit/192-khz audio support (Realtek ALC885, 24/192 support for analog I/O, 24/192 digital out, 24/96 digital in) 8x slot-loading SuperDrive (DVD+/-R DL, DVD+/-RW, CD-RW) (Matsushita UJ-868 SATA or Hitachi-LG GS21N or OptiArc AD-5960S) 45-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery (Simplo Technology) 60W MagSafe Power Adapter Ports: MagSafe Power Port, Gigabit Ethernet, Two USB 2.0, Mini DisplayPort, Audio Line-in (with integrated optical input), Audio Line-out (with integrated optical output) Weight: 4.5 lbs Dimensions: 12.78 x 8.94 x 0.95 inches Boot ROM Version: MB51.0073.B06 SMC Version: 1.32f8 Apple Accessories Tested: Mini DisplayPort to DVI Adapter Mini DisplayPort to VGA Adapter Apple In-Ear Headphones Apple 24” LED Cinema Display Aftermarket Upgrades Tested: OCZ SATA-II 64GB Solid State Drive (Samsung SLC design, 2000000 hours MTBF) MacBook #1: LG Philips screen, Hynix memory modules, Fujitsu HDD, Hitachi-LG DVD Burner MacBook #2: AU Optronics screen, Samsung memory modules, Toshiba HDD, Matsushita DVD Burner Before Apple announced their new notebooks, I had planned to get the 15-inch MacBook Pro.When “one more thing…” meant a MacBook with the same aluminum unibody design as the Pro, the plan changed.The difference between a MacBook and MacBook Pro has decreased significantly.The key differences are a considerably higher-quality screen on the MacBook Pro, the addition of FireWire 800, an ExpressCard 34 slot, and a standard backlit keyboard.