Antiglare or glossy screen?
 

I'm upgrading from my 13 inch macbook pro to a 17 inch model and am wondering if the antiglare screen is the better choice compared to the glossy screen.

Is it worth the extra money?

Ordered mine today
 

I ordered a 17" MBP this afternoon and included the Antiglare display. On the 17 inch both options are 1920x1200 pixel, so it's only a $50 upcharge, but that is $50 more than it should be IMHO.
I get the sense from this and other forums that the antiglare option is the preferred option for editing work. We will see what responses your post brings.
Tom

Wendell
Laptop based editing solutions tend to be for mobile work by nature ... and with such mobility comes the issue of whether or not you will be able to control the ambient lighting in any and every location you need to work in. If the answer is likely to be "No" then you're better off with the matte screen option.
Cheers
Andy

I'll be the dissenting vote.

The "anti glare" screen really should be called the "uniformly diffused glare" screen. The blacks are never black unless you are in a dark room as the texture on the screen picks up any illumination around it to some degree, and from almost any angle.

With the "glossy" screen (really, it's just a "Clear" screen), it's true you have a far more reflective surface, but the angles it will reflect to affect your view are limited to direct angle-of-incidence mirror-type reflection, which you can often eliminate with a few degrees rotation one way or the other.

I'd never attempt any color correction, even just for pre-vis on an anti-glare screen. I really don't like them.

There speaks the voice of a man who has never had to edit in the back of a taxi on the way to an uplink station ;-) Good points tho.

I have to give you that one... Yes, I'm not a journalist. Tis true...