I am ready to buy a netbook. But I am concerned about screen viewability. Its between an Acer 1410 (11.6") Glossy, or a Samsung NB30 (10.2") matte.

Does anybody regret getting a glossy screen? I like the power of the Acer (1.3 duo core) and the size of Samsung (10"). But I realize GPS use would be infrequent as to web surfing and etc.

I once used my daughters 15" laptop (way way too big) with a glossy screen, and found daylight viewability lacking.

Daylight viewability on laptops and netbooks is generally quite awful, no matter what type of screen. They simply aren't bright enough when you are trying to use them outdoors or even in a room with bright sunlight.

Having said that, the screens on my Acer laptop and Acer netbook are the shiny ones and I really don't like them even under normal indoor conditions. I would prefer a non-reflective screen, or at least a less reflective one.

...ken...

If you spend a lot of time with the computer, I'd say don't get a screen that 'looks back' at you.

Matte screen computers are getting 'scarcer'. I guess marketing research has proved the consumer masses prefer glossy screens.

Lenovo has just introduced a new line of consumer oriented Thinkpads; some with glossy screens. Fortunately, they still offer non reflective screen versions for the new computers.

Check out the new X100e and Thinkpad Edge as an alternative to a Netbook.


--- CHAS

My previous laptop had a 17" matte screen. My current one has a 17" glossy screen. I MUCH preferred the matte finish. It was easier to see the screen when there's any type of light around you.

I recommend buying anti-glare film if the screen is the only thing preventing you from buying a laptop that is otherwise better than the alternative. It'll give you 90% of the benefit of a matte screen. LCD Protective Films | Photodon.com

Glossy vs. matte is a very polarizing topic. You either love them or hate them. I personally don't understand why anyone would want to get eyestrain. Clearly I'm out of touch with the average computer user.

But they look so purty sitting there gleaming on the display shelf. Impossible to resist.

Clearly.

The first step in correcting that condition is to realize and admit to yourself that the average computer user isn't. That's not a criticism. It's just a fact. The average person buys a computer to use the internet, not the computer. That's a really important distinction. It's what causes computer tech support people to go crazy. Nobody ever tells them that.

So they think they're trying to help someone who wants to use the computer when in reality the person wants to use the internet and could care less about the computer. It's a means to an end if it works and a bloody nuisance if it doesn't. But the computer is not the point.

It's like automobiles. Some (few) of us like to drive automobiles and take some pride in learning and maintaining our driving skills and understanding at least the basics about maintaining them. Others (most) want to get to work or the store or the donut shop. They choose to use an automobile to get there. They buy one because it gives them freedom and mobility, not because its an automobile.

Like the computer, learning the minimum necessary to operate the automobile is a necessary evil. They would teleport if they had the choice.

Once you understand that, you understand that the decisions about computer (and automobile) purchases and how little people wish to learn about operating either of them are not as irrational as they seem. They are really not surprising at all.

Y'er welcome.

...ken...

I thought the importance of glossy screens was a better experience with DVD movies. Why this is important is beyond me but manufacturers respond to demand. So it must be important to someone.

Terry

There is a wee bit of fuzziness to matte screens. I'm not sure whether it's real or perceived. I do know that our GIS techs, electronics design techs and buildings design techs went nuts if you tried to make them work with matte screens for the sorts of details required in CAD and GIS software for day-long shifts. We had to get really crisp glossy screens and then take care with the lighting. Very low ambient lighting and lots of task lighting instead.

I expect that videophiles have the same reaction when watching hi-def video on their computers. I know that if I spend a bunch of money on a BluRay player and movies for it, I would want to be certain I don't miss a single pixel of that high definition imagery.

In my home office in the basement I've got a fluorescent fixture directly above my monitors, oriented so there's no chance of glare.

...ken...

Yes, but you would want a larger screen than a laptop (even the sizes offered nowadays) to make that player worthwhile. 42" minimum sounds about right to me.

I think this Dell desktop lcd is matte and I don't see any issues with blurring. But then, could these old eyes tell!

Terry

I like my clear glossy screen but to be honest, the viewing angles are pathetic and I am getting quite a lot of light leakage on black. Angle just under 45 degrees to the side and blacks don’t look right, whites go to grays, and even when playing a game like battlefield you have to be dead centre with it both sideways and up/down(ways) for it to look good.

Hi devgo,

That's a problem with LCD screens in general and doesn't really have a lot to do with whether a screen is glossy or matte. Some of the newer LCD monitors are getting better at giving wider viewing angles, but they're still limited.

If you want very wide viewing angles without drastic changes in colours and contrast and brightness at any viewing angle, you still need a CRT or plasma display. LCDs just don't get it done for that.

...ken...

Some of the IPS LCD displays have a good viewing angle but most inexpensive units and those used in laptops are TN panels.

Terry

I like my clear glossy screen but to be honest, the viewing angles are pathetic and I am getting quite a lot of light leakage on black. Angle just under 45 degrees to the side and blacks don’t looks right, whites go to grays, and even when playing a game like battlefield you have to be dead centre with it both sideways and up/down(ways) for it to look good.

Hi devgo,

You have just described the general viewing characteristics of all LCD screens, whether they are glossy or matte and whether they are laptop screens or big flatscreen TVs.

That's not intended as a criticism of either your description or LCD panels. It's just to clarify that going to a matte screen won't fix any of those problems.

Some LCD screens are better than others. But the only way to avoid those viewing angle problems entirely is to go back to a CRT monitor or get a plasma. Neither one is a particularly good solution for a netbook.

...ken...

I'll disagree slightly. It is true that TN LCD panels have poor viewing angles, regardless of the finish (matte or glossy). However, I have 3 IPS LCD screens, including one in a glossy laptop, that have excellent viewing angles. You won't find them in inexpensive displays, laptops or netbooks though as they would make the price uncompetitive.

For colour gamut, CRTs cannot be topped though.

Terry

Most consumers have no idea that different LCD technologies exist.

TN: cheap, terrible viewing angles, poor color gamut. Found on low-end laptops and monitors. Even low-end LCD TVs.

PVA/MVA: moderate priced, excellent viewing angles, good color gamut. Far superior to TN panels in quality, but slightly slower response time. On many higher-end monitors and Tablet PCs, and most large-screen LCD televisions. Also occupies a niche in hospitals and dentist offices (for viewing digital X-rays).

IPS: expensive, excellent viewing angles, good color gamut. Better than PVA/MVA in some ways, but not a quantum leap. Used on very high-end monitors preferred by graphic professionals and picky people who can notice the difference vs. PVA/MVA panels. Many (most?) Mac laptops use IPS panels.