<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 17&#8243; Macbook Pro &#8211; Glossy vs.&#160;Matte</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onedigitallife.com/2009/01/13/17-macbook-pro-glossy-vs-matte/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onedigitallife.com/2009/01/13/17-macbook-pro-glossy-vs-matte/</link>
	<description>the personal weblog of paul burd, multimedia designer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:58:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NERD</title>
		<link>http://www.onedigitallife.com/2009/01/13/17-macbook-pro-glossy-vs-matte/comment-page-1/#comment-276991</link>
		<dc:creator>NERD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onedigitallife.com/?p=1970#comment-276991</guid>
		<description>You bought the computer because it had a glossy screen...

This is why people associate idiocy with Apple ownership. There is NO benefit to a glossy screen. They are not brighter, not higher res, don&#039;t display more colors; they don&#039;t do anything better than a matte screen other than reflect ungodly amounts of light back into your eyes.

The fact that they are charging $50 for a feature that should have been standard is, well, standard Apple practice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You bought the computer because it had a glossy screen&#8230;</p>
<p>This is why people associate idiocy with Apple ownership. There is NO benefit to a glossy screen. They are not brighter, not higher res, don&#8217;t display more colors; they don&#8217;t do anything better than a matte screen other than reflect ungodly amounts of light back into your eyes.</p>
<p>The fact that they are charging $50 for a feature that should have been standard is, well, standard Apple practice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neotees</title>
		<link>http://www.onedigitallife.com/2009/01/13/17-macbook-pro-glossy-vs-matte/comment-page-1/#comment-275974</link>
		<dc:creator>neotees</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onedigitallife.com/?p=1970#comment-275974</guid>
		<description>I own a 13&quot; Macbook aluminium, and I must say all this glossy screen bashing has me confused.

It has bothered me none, and I use it outdoors on a daily basis (uni cramming and what not).

In fact it was most probably the glossy screen that had me sold when I was shopping around for a laptop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I own a 13&#8243; Macbook aluminium, and I must say all this glossy screen bashing has me confused.</p>
<p>It has bothered me none, and I use it outdoors on a daily basis (uni cramming and what not).</p>
<p>In fact it was most probably the glossy screen that had me sold when I was shopping around for a laptop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
