Macbook screen models?

Can someone list the screen model numbers and say whether they are good or bad?

From what I see, the 9C89 is the bad one. Which ones are the better ones, and if I go to the Apple store, where can I find the info on whether one particular Macbook has what screen? (Is it on the box? Is it on the Macbook itself? etc)

Thanks

 

How many screens have even been bad?

 

I'm not sure, but people have been saying that a very LARGE number of screens have poor contrast and bad blacks.

 

Don't get too fixated on the screen number. It won't matter anyway as Apple doesn't put screen numbers on the box, in fact there's not a single computer manufacturer that puts the screen I.D. number on the box of the computer.

 

How do you identify your screen model number in Leopard?

 

I'm wondering the same, myself.

 

Straight from macrumors:

 

I believe this screen issue has been blown out of proportion. I have an 9c89 panel and it looks very good to me, matching my X301 in quality. The screen quality isn't great like desktop LCDs, but it's a very decent screen, especially for a glossy one. I've seen worse screens on Toshiba Satellites and HP Pavillions, both which can exhibit graininess or washed out qualities, so this is a very good glossy screen by comparison.

 

I have the 9C8C. I am content with it. I knew before the purchase that it wasn't going to be the creme de la creme of screens, as I was considering a Sony as well.

My blacks are black. They are not as saturated and deep as the blacks on our iMac, and comparatively look washed out, but I am still happy with my machine overall.

Maybe someday, Apple will not associate smaller and lighter weight with lower specs. I would have paid more for the best quality screen if they had offered an upgrade.

 

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=591122

^ All Alu Macbook owners please vote.

 

I'm getting to the bottom of these screen type business.

My panel turns out to be the LGPhilips LP133WX2-TLC1. I've found out by running PC Wizard 2008.

Notebookjournal has measured this panel:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 245
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0.69
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 1.64
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 145
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 147

The 2.0 Ghz had a different panel.
Helligkeit und Kontrast
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 277,00
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,65
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 2,10
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 154,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 132,00

 

does this go for macbook pros too?

 

I did hear there are different panels for MBP. All of them are better than the MB screens though. Much better contrast.

 

I'm getting the 2.4 model for sure, mainly because of the keyboard backlighting. So it looks like the display is dimmer but has better contrast? (for 2.4 vs 2.0)

 

interesting. i wish there was a way to tell how good my panel is. i have the 9C89 panels and don't have any problems with it, though i have no idea how to evaluate if its ok or not.

 

There's no garantee that all 2.0 will have the same panel. They probably won't.

In that table the 2.0 actually better contrast on medium brightness. On max brightness the 2.4 did better. than the 2.4.

But both are quite low. For comparison, Sony Vaio SZ7:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 262,50
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,18
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 0,45
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 556,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 583,00

 

Wow, and the SZ is an outdated computer.. wasn't it phased out for a completely refreshed notebook line?

 

Thanks for the links, I just found out i got the 9C89....and I also think it's very good too