[While these ~200:1 contrast ratios sound like a catastrophically horrible results...]
Excuses, excuses, excuses...
If you pay premium prices, you should not get worse hardware.
[Using a digital Munsell... the AUO screen had very good.... The LG-Philips display was worse]
Another puny excuse. So you buy a Mac, and need third party software to calibrate it? I remarks: Overpriced.
Why it does not get calibrated from fab?
And you can't compare it with some trademark PC version. There are so many PC versions that you will ever find some example to make your point. It's manipulative, and aimed only to the computer ignorant victims who can read the article.
Smart PC buyers don't buy Dells, HP, or Lenovos. They are choices bad as Apple, because of the reason that they are overpriced, and limited.
[There is more misinformation about ... everyone agrees with: glossy screens have more vivid color and contrast while matte screens are better at rejecting reflections from ambient light.]
misinformation as your article.
"everyone agrees with"? Subtle. A trick to say that you have not basis for your statement.
"glossy screens have more vivid color and contrast"?
Plain lie.
"glossy screens" looks good only in stores. That is the only reason for the mac "glossy" screen.
As soon as you need to use it, you learn the hard way than all those reflections damage your eyes, because reflections on the screen:
-don't let you see the screen.
-forces you to use dark rooms, and move away all reflective the objects at your back.
-You can't choose environment with a notebook, so generally you can't avoid reflections.
-Damage your eyes and cause headaches, because the eye interprets reflections as incorrect focus, and constantly tries to focus the screen and the reflected object simultaneously. Since it is impossible, it causes health problems. It should be prohibited. You are not a good parent if you give a glossy screen to your children.
But Apple, who knows it, sold glossy screens anyway. Why?
Because Apple target victimizable consumers, and don't care about consumer health.
Victimizable consumers are those:
-Without enough information.
-Without ego (manipulable), who need external symbols of status to show, even when they are showing his lack of ego.
[ On the other hand, fans of glossy displays can point out that flagship digital mammography displays such as the Eizo RadiForce GS520 are designed with glossy screens because the superior sharpness (MTF) over matte screens allows radiologists to better detect more subtle changes in the breast and identify breast cancer at earlier stages.]
"digital mammography displays"? you are not buying a "digital mammography display". You are buying a notebook. Such convoluted argument looks like marketing investigation aimed to cheat consumers.
A specific model of "digital mammography display" is not necessarily well designed. ¿do all the "digital mammography displays" use glossy screens? NO. Do that model also implements other measures to avoid reflections? If not, is bad design.
"So, when it’s comes to making a life or death decision, glossy wins." A marketing lie. It implies that "when life is important, you need a glossy display, so they are better". Is a hidden deceit. Life is important for passenger jumbo jets, because if the pilot does not see the computer screens because of a glossy reflection, then the jumbo jet crashes, and all the 400 passenger die.
That is a deceptive argument, as bad as you "mammography point your finger argument".
[While Dell allows... Apple sticks with ...]
Comparing Apple with Dell? not fair. PCs allows lots of choices than Apple does not allow. You can't compare a bad choice -Dell- with no choice -Apple-.
By the way, Apple "sticks" with obsolete hardware.
[GeForce 9400M]
Many PC have that or better graphics if you want it, and for a lower price.
AND if your really need a good graphic chipset, you can't choose any Apple offer. GeForce 9400M is not good enough when you need graphic power.
[traditional GPU-intensive games such as Call of Duty 4 will run at ~30 frames per second at resolutions of 1024x768 at high quality settings]
Another deceit.
-Hand picked game.
-30 fps = not enough. Based on what you pretend that it can reach it a quality settings? You are omitting that it would reach frequently lower fps, specially in the most important parts of that hand picked game, making it unplayable. you omit to tell that your "high quality" does not include anisotropic filtering, and antialiasing.
-looks like your "digital mammography display" does not have goods graphics.
Stop lying. Graphics is important in gaming, and your Apple is puny at best in gaming.
Also, you omit to say that you will need to buy windows to run those games.
[With the exception of games such as Crysis]
And Bioshock, Far Cry 2, left for dead, Unreal Tournament 3, DirectX 10.1 ... and laaarge list.
[it appears that the 9400M is capable of running most modern games at medium or high image quality settings at 30 fps or greater, making it perfectly suitable for casual gaming.]
"it appears"?
"most modern games"?. NO modern game.
"30 fps"? wait. 60 fps is the base quality. 30 fps is not good enough. You see the image jumping, and it is only average fps. In gamming, it matters lower fps a lot.
AND you are paying premium price. You can but a much better computer for that price.