Can someone list the screen model numbers and say whether they are good or bad?
From what I see, the 9C89 is the bad one. Which ones are the better ones, and if I go to the Apple store, where can I find the info on whether one particular Macbook has what screen? (Is it on the box? Is it on the Macbook itself? etc)
Thanks
-
How many screens have even been bad?
-
-
Don't get too fixated on the screen number. It won't matter anyway as Apple doesn't put screen numbers on the box, in fact there's not a single computer manufacturer that puts the screen I.D. number on the box of the computer.
-
How do you identify your screen model number in Leopard?
-
I'm wondering the same, myself.
-
Straight from macrumors:
-
I believe this screen issue has been blown out of proportion. I have an 9c89 panel and it looks very good to me, matching my X301 in quality. The screen quality isn't great like desktop LCDs, but it's a very decent screen, especially for a glossy one. I've seen worse screens on Toshiba Satellites and HP Pavillions, both which can exhibit graininess or washed out qualities, so this is a very good glossy screen by comparison.
-
I have the 9C8C. I am content with it. I knew before the purchase that it wasn't going to be the creme de la creme of screens, as I was considering a Sony as well.
My blacks are black. They are not as saturated and deep as the blacks on our iMac, and comparatively look washed out, but I am still happy with my machine overall.
Maybe someday, Apple will not associate smaller and lighter weight with lower specs. I would have paid more for the best quality screen if they had offered an upgrade. -
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=591122
^ All Alu Macbook owners please vote. -
I'm getting to the bottom of these screen type business.
My panel turns out to be the LGPhilips LP133WX2-TLC1. I've found out by running PC Wizard 2008.
Notebookjournal has measured this panel:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 245
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0.69
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 1.64
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 145
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 147
The 2.0 Ghz had a different panel.
Helligkeit und Kontrast
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 277,00
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,65
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 2,10
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 154,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 132,00 -
fastrandstrongr Notebook Evangelist
does this go for macbook pros too?
-
I did hear there are different panels for MBP. All of them are better than the MB screens though. Much better contrast.
-
I'm getting the 2.4 model for sure, mainly because of the keyboard backlighting. So it looks like the display is dimmer but has better contrast? (for 2.4 vs 2.0)
-
fastrandstrongr Notebook Evangelist
interesting. i wish there was a way to tell how good my panel is. i have the 9C89 panels and don't have any problems with it, though i have no idea how to evaluate if its ok or not.
-
In that table the 2.0 actually better contrast on medium brightness. On max brightness the 2.4 did better. than the 2.4.
But both are quite low. For comparison, Sony Vaio SZ7:
durchschnittl. Luminanz cd/m² 262,50
Schwarzwert bei 100 cd/m2 cd/m² 0,18
Schwarzwert bei maximaler Helligkeit cd/m² 0,45
Kontrast bei 100 cd/m2 :1 556,00
Kontrast bei maximaler Helligkeit :1 583,00 -
-
Thanks for the links, I just found out i got the 9C89....and I also think it's very good too
Macbook screen models?
Discussion in 'Apple and Mac OS X' started by chyidean, Oct 28, 2008.