New Latitude and Precision's

Dont' know, but Dell XPS 16 has a glossy screen made by putting a shiny transparent plastic glass in front of a matte screen! (some times ago a Dell XPS owner published pictures taken after removing the plastic shield)

Maybe I'm wrong but glossy screens seem to me more marketing madness than good technical reasons ...

 

I disagree. because if you take the same LCD panel and remove the matte screen and replace it with clear (which is essentially what glossy is) plastic/glass it will look even better. No matter what you do the matte surface will disperse the light coming through the surface, it's what matte does by definition. So for like technology of the panel itself, which is where the cost really is, the front protection is minor in comparison, the glossy will always have better reproduction from a technological standpoint. Just cause you spent more on matte does not make it better. There are many many factors into "getting what you paid for". You lump all glossy screens into the crap category in comparison to more expensive matte screens and that isn't apples to apples. Everybody doesn't buy the cheapest thing. But if they see a "better" picture for less guess which they are going to obviously shoot for..and I wouldn't blame them, other build quality issues aside)

But it does have to do with outside car color, the outside of the car is generally the most important factor in most car purchases or else everyone would only buy the cars recommended by Consumer Reports. And actually cars had all that stuff chromed for many decades. Many cars still have some (plastic) chromed interior parts, but most are SHINY black plastic. Most cars have MANY shiny interior parts. How many matte finished wood (or fake wood) inserts do you see in an automobile? Zero. Almost all displays on the dash are shiny. (some lucky few Nav screens are matte). The dashboard on most cars are NOT matte, they are usually highly reflective (unfortunately). Don't mistake a pebble-grained surface texture to be indicative of the reflectivity of the material. I see reflections off of many parts of the cars I drive when I drive, from the hood, to the internal reflections of the dash on the windscreen, the glare from the dashboard cover material, and on.

I don't believe it directly takes 1000 engineers to make a single monitor. But that depends on how you want to count the engineers. If you want to trail back to the fact that someone had to engineer the computer that the engineer uses to create CAD drawings, or that an engineer designed some standard off the shelf transistor you could go into the hundreds of thousands. I worked in computer manufacturing for 10 years and I would have a hard time being convinced HP has 1000 engineers working on only their monitor line (I have friends who work at HP, I know they don't actually).

And like I said, it's not fair to compare a cost difference just because they don't sell many. Just because they choose not to build as many as their glossy counterparts and drive cost down is their problem not mine. If anything glossy is probably more difficult to produce as imperfections in the surface or LCD panel would be more easily visible.

I sold computers, including higher-end (and low-end) monitors for years. All CRTs were far from having anti-reflective coatings comparable to high quality optics. Heck, many of them were equivalent to slightly different version of the matte surfaces used on notebook screens with really bad specularity and other artifacts.

And anti-reflective coatings work perfectly fine on plastic optics. Go to Wal-mart and order some plastic lens eyeglasses and you can easily get AR coating. I have multiple pairs of high quality sunglasses with plastic lenses with phenomenal AR coatings. But anyway, that's what I'm saying, it must be prohibitively expensive to put these coatings on current sized screens...unfortunately.

 

Actually, I found something which somewhat resolves the discussion above. One problem is a bit of terminology. Matte screens are anti-glare, Glossy screens are by definition highly reflective. Anti-glare screens inherently cause artifacts and distortions to some effect, there is no way around it as they are not completely optically transparent. What we need is highly anti-reflective glossy screens, akin to what I alluded to at the end of my last post. But even then anti-glare has it place, where ultimate visual quality is not as paramount as other factors, as you can read at the end of the article linked below

For a good amount of info see here: PixelBrite LCDs

 

That's a ridiculous statement.

The 2010 Macbook Pro 15" is the same screen as the glossy. The only difference is there is no plastic screen/bezel covering it. Just go to the Apple store and look for yourself at them side by side.

Even the guy who cut open his glossy XPS 16 screen found that out.

 

So you don't believe the people who make (or at least seem to work directly with the people who do) LCDs referenced in the link? That's your choice. Everyone likes their thing, what works for one may or may not work for another. It's a never ending discussion that I'm done with. I've looked into the facts of things enough to settle what I need to know. YMMV.