We've had matte screens for a long time that don't show glare. The problem is, the blacks are much more washed-out because that light still has to go somewhere, so it's basically just being smeared across the entire display.

This page shows lots of side-by-side photos of content that is primarily white, and most of the black bits (like text) are too small to make out.

The comparison needs to use things like busy photographs with bright areas and black areas. Then you can judge how much more washed-out the black areas look.

The second photo makes the Nano texture look pretty washed-out, but sadly doesn't include the traditional glossy laptop next to it for comparison, so it's impossible to tell.

Also, in all the side-by-side photos the Nano screen looks like it's set to much brighter. So any fair comparison should have them set to equal brightness. There's no universe in which a glossy screen is going to make the white areas look darker, as they are in all these examples.

I'm very curious if/how the Nano is better, but unfortunately these photos don't do anything to demonstrate it.

    For infrequent cleaning of hard-to-remove smudges, you can moisten the cloth with a 70-percent isopropyl alcohol (IPA) solution.

But never apply it directly on screen. I think it's important to mention you just do not use "some alcohol" but it should be 70% isopropyl alcohol solution.

Btw. alcohol is a very good way to destroy the old glossy screens (non nano texture).

A while later I had an idea to mount an iPad to my fridge so that I could check the weather, add things to my shopping list, play music, etc. I bought the rather expensive iPad with Nano Texture screen and it has been amazing to use. There is a big window opposite the fridge, and without the nano texture the glare from behind makes it hard to read what’s on the screen.

Not sure I would enjoy nano texture on my MacBook. For outdoor use I found that Vivid is great to turn up the brightness using the extended range of HDR that Apple doesn’t otherwise allow me to use.

I'll be honest, it has made the writing like 20% better, but the touching about 50% worse.

The feel of the screen is somewhat irritating, though it looks nice when the backlight is dim so I thought I'd go to Apple and check out the nano-texture.

All I can say is that subjectively, I liked it even less.

I have no idea how people can live with nanotexture on iPad screens.

That said, a consistent issue I have with my Macbook Air and my iPad pro is that the "peripherals" touch the screen. My Macbook ends up with oily cubes where the keyboard and its edge has rubbed up against the screen display; and similarly on the iPad I have a perpetual line where the smart folio has its segments.

I thought I had unusually oily hands and started washing more frequently, but that seems to have made the problem worse somehow. :\

Feel free to ask any other questions!

Works great, I keep it in the padded pocket in my laptop bag next to the computer and the drawing tablet and take it out when I'm sitting in the park.

- It was thinner overall than a Macbook Air, BEFORE it came out (watching people get hyped about Air's was just a snooze)

- Transreflexive screen in color (like that "daylight computer" in TFA), not the brightest when it comes to light but certainly bright enough, and more improtantly worked 100% without issues outside in the sun (turning the screen _towards_ the sun was actually a better choice!). It's really a shame they went out of favour for "glossy" displays.

- Extra ram and that Pentium M cpu that was neck-to-neck with P4's for certain workloads (telling people of compile times had people in disbelief)

I would never consider a matte display at home because I keep my computers in dark environments like a real nerd.

The nano texture screen coating is clearly better for my purposes vs a glossy screen. Reading text gives less eye strain and there’s a slight ePaper-esque quality to things that’s just relaxing. Maybe some argument to be had for pure media consumption or image editing.

I don’t think Apple’s screen coating tech is anything magical or different to what’s on tons of decent monitors, Benq for one.

For marketing reasons, Apple only make this screen available in the MacBook Pro. For my use, this is needless extra cost, weight and bulk. I’m already paying hundreds extra for a coated screen, there’s no reason it can’t be made available on the MacBook Air too.

I’d still buy a MacBook if nano coating didn’t exist, the screen ratio, SoC and trackpad quality are still not close to being matched. Not to mention the fact that basically no other laptop is even available to buy in the UK with a US keyboard layout.

Now they can sell you "nano texture" at a premium after getting you hooked on functionally terrible displays (they look pretty in the store though).

My worst experience with glossy displays was when I had to perform some work outside on a sunny day and I comically could not see a single thing. It looked like a pure black square. I laughed, packed up and left, and told my boss it wasn't happening.

Def a tradeoff that depends on your lifestyle if you work outside a lot (or want to). It does look nice there in the mountains

For outdoor use, I've had some decent success with the app Vivid which hijacks various MacOS abilities to superbrighten your display: https://www.getvivid.app/

Dunno how that interacts with the nano texture, but I feel like it's made my MacBook screens last a decent bit longer. There's other brands that also make these kinds of cloths, but Apple lowered the clearance between the keyboard and screen after around the 2016 MacBook? So the old brand I was using stopped fitting.

All that to say, this Jon.Bo statement "Basically, it’s a coating" is false. It's not a coating. When you're looking at a nanotexture screen, you're just looking through glass.

Since I'm sure someone will challenge me, I looked it up. Here's Apple's patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220326413A1/en

and the key section from paragraph 0117:

"The surface of the glass cover member may then be chemically etched. Chemical etching techniques for glass cover members may involve using a suitable acid or base (e.g., a hydrofluoric acid-based etchant)".

I love their little redirections, like "a suitable acid or base".

Also: don't try this at home kids. Quick notes from our friend Gemini:

Safety & Dangers of HF Vapor

* Extreme Hazard: HF vapor is highly corrosive, toxic, and can cause severe burns, blindness, and systemic poisoning, even at low concentrations.

* PPE Required: Full protective gear, including chemical suits, respirators, and face shields, is essential.

* Ventilation: Must be done in a dedicated, high-flow chemical fume hood with water access.

I wrote about it at https://beautifulruby.com/articles/portable-workstation-iter... if you want to see the setup.

https://daylightcomputer.com/

I really believe something needs to be done on that issue. As the author said, this isn't a new issue and is becoming the weak spot of any MacBook. Like we have full metal shell but the own keyboard causes damage to the screen.

“Step forward” that wouldn't have been needed in the first place if Apple didn't kill mat screens in the first place.

> I’ve learned to bring my special wipe when I bring my laptop, and I slip a few rubbing alcohol wipes in there as well.

Not for me then, the extra flexibility wouldn't be worth the loss of convenience; I prefer low maintenance and I work mostly indoors anyway. Still, good to have options, I guess.

In any case, that was a good and helpful review!

Works great. I also got a huge one for my TV. Once I learned how to press the bubbles out I was good. The trick is to use a larger bubble to catch the smaller ones and press them out the sides.

How are fingerprints on iPad Pro nano texture touchscreens?

I do not recommend buying nano texture screens without having seen one. I get it that some people won’t be bothered but it’s a big no-no for me. Traditional matte screens are way better.

umm, anti-glare/matte used to be the norm for LCD. Around 2005-2006 that changed. As laptops became more of a consumer product, and DVD watching was an important usage, the glossy screens became the norm.

https://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=26396

So, I would call it a massive step backwards! The 2006 MBP had an optional glossy screen, and the 2008 was the first one with default glossy. Around 2012 Apple dropped the matte option altogether.

> Etched into the glass at the nanometre level, the nano-texture scatters light to further minimise glare

So both matte displays and nano-texture glass scatter light, and they both reduce contrast.