I had the dell ultrawide OLED monitor from their Alienware sub brand. It burned in enough within three years that I was able to get it warrantied. While it was away, I auditioned a miniled Samsung G7 with the intent to sell the repaired Dell if I liked the Samsung. Surprisingly, I found the uneven lighting and colors to be more disappointing out of the box than a three year old OLED panel with burn in.
OLED is unfortunately consumable but it is the highest fidelity consumer panel tech you can get atm. The MiniLEDs in Apple’s MacBooks are reasonable substitutions, albeit subject to blurring. I haven’t seen any other non-OLED compare.
Yea, and that’s part of the struggle. There are so many dishonest standards printed on displays. Rooting out which HDR standard guarantees _true_ HDR is a similar rabbit hole.
Have you had IPS panels? I have a similar Alienware ultrawide monitor but with IPS panel. IPS still remains my favorite. Didn't dare to get OLED for computer monitor since I expected burn-in over the years. OLED could maybe have a little bit better colors, but I got LG's OLED TV a few years back and was a bit disappointed to see that the image isn't perfectly even (more clearly visible with grey image) and sometimes with dark areas there's some kind of barely noticeable weird edge effect. Kind of like the OLEDs just lighting up after reaching some threshold. And some other very minor effects like little uneven flickering of a fire in a dark scene.
I have used IPS, and a good IPS is certainly more affordable and more durable but it just doesn’t stand up to OLED, to my eyes. The uneven grays are a known fault in OLEDs but imo the raised blacks in IPS and IPS glows are worse compromises.
Still, I probably would work on an IPS if I didn’t have limited desk space and needed my monitor to pull double duty for entertainment as well.
I have an iirc 8 year old oled tv from LG. It has terrible burn in, especially red was hit hard. I wonder how true rgb might compare. The picture quality is probably worse, but if it holds up longer than oled it might be worth the trade off.
I've been seeing people go crazy over these new "RGB" mini LED panels and as an OLED user for almost 10 years now I just don't get it.
The first thing I do to test any LCD panel is fire up an episode of Star Trek: The Next generation. Invariably, one of two things happens as soon as we are presented with an exterior shot of the Enterprise
1. LCD backlight bleed makes space look dark grey/blue instead of black as originally intended.
2. The localized dimming kicks in, presenting truly black space, but rendering the stars (which are smaller than the smallest local dimming zones) super dim or nonexistent.
These latest generation RGB local dimming LCD panels being touted as OLED killers still fall under the 2nd scenario, they don't actually fix the problem at all. LCD is functionally a dead end when it comes to picture quality.
I feel like OLED burn-in is a solved problem. I picked up the greatest and latest from ASUS 1 year ago and compared to my oled from 5 years ago, there's zero visible burn-in and there's zero compensation cycles (that I can see, which is a huge upgrade compared to previous generations). Actually my old "monitor" is now a TV and all the burn-in from desktop use has disappeared.
edit: I put up a very aggressive version of grey which used to expose full on black spots on the older OLED and I can only see a very faint line where there is a full white bar from one of the applications I use, actually I think that's just my vision since I can't see it anymore.
It is not a solved problem. Play some games in HDR on a daily basis and their HUDs and character portraits will burn in. As simple as that. I have an AW3423DWF that did just that after 2.5 years of use.
Seems like it really isn't though. The TechSpot findings show the inverse burn-in line down the middle, subpixel disparity, and brightness deterioration. I think you can argue the latter two aren't big deals for casual users but the line down the middle of the screen seems pretty galling.
Glossy displays are much better for image quality in light-controlled environments than matte. I cannot understand the love for matte display coatings, maybe you just live in a sunnier climate and want to work outdoors? I would never buy hardware with a matte display over glossy, given two equivalent choices. You just lose so much clarity and pop to basically rub a layer of vaseline over your monitor, diffusing the nice image quality into something oily/grainy looking.
> I cannot understand the love for matte display coatings...
Most folks cannot prevent every source of light from shining behind them. In my apartment, even sunlight leaking around curtains and indirectly illuminating the Landlord Standard White walls was image-damagingly bright on the handful of glossy-screened monitors I tried.
If you have total control over the lighting situation in your room, then, yeah, glossy screens can work... but most folks want to be able to use their computers and televisions in a wide variety of lighting conditions. [0]
> ...something oily/grainy looking.
I guess you've only seen bad AR coatings. The difference in image quality between the glossy screens I tried and the matte screens I have and have been continuing to use for the past great many years wasn't all that large... and the bonkers reflectivity of the glossy screens nuked what little difference there was.
[0] Most folks also don't like so much looking at their ugly mugs during dark portions of a program... glossy screens are -while not as bad as a mirror- so incredibly reflective.
Too little, too late. With the growing enshittification of macOS and the Apple ecosystem in general, I couldn't be happier having made the move back to Linux on a Framework laptop, after almost 2 decades.
It's available and it works well. Staring at one right now. I don't like it better than glossy for my use, but if I spent a lot of time outdoors with it, I probably would.
Apple has offered matte screens for the majority of their timeline. Matte screens were available on portable computers from ~1989-2009, and as high end option from 2009-2013. The nano texture was introduced 2019 and has been available to varying degrees until present day.
So it was really only about 6 years in the last four decades that matte was not available. I always advocate for more matte options.
It was with the first generation of unibody macbooks in 2008, if I remember correctly.
I have a Powerbook G4 with a nice matte screen, and I distinctly remember the first generation of non-unibody MBP also having a similar matte screen.
So it's been a while. 18 years with glossy screens.
Doesn't every display technology have issues with burn in? I have a VA monitor that has burn in as well, even though many have claimed that VA doesn't get burn in
I have a VA monitor that I bought in ~2019 with -according to its service menu- just under 40,000 hours of backlight-on time. It has some small hemispherical darkening along the top of its left edge that you can only notice when that portion of the screen is bright but has zero burn-in. [0] I use it for both video gaming and ordinary computing tasks.
[0] This darkening corresponds to nothing I've had on screen... it looks like the sort of minor backlight or diffuser (or whatever it's called) failure you tend to see on middle-aged monitors.
It looks to me like it might not be worth worrying about this anymore. If you've ever owned a plasma TV you would be rolling your eyes at these comparisons.
I had the dell ultrawide OLED monitor from their Alienware sub brand. It burned in enough within three years that I was able to get it warrantied. While it was away, I auditioned a miniled Samsung G7 with the intent to sell the repaired Dell if I liked the Samsung. Surprisingly, I found the uneven lighting and colors to be more disappointing out of the box than a three year old OLED panel with burn in.
OLED is unfortunately consumable but it is the highest fidelity consumer panel tech you can get atm. The MiniLEDs in Apple’s MacBooks are reasonable substitutions, albeit subject to blurring. I haven’t seen any other non-OLED compare.
FYI your Samsung televisor may not have been actual "mini led" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/10/tcl-is-right-to-ques...
Yea, and that’s part of the struggle. There are so many dishonest standards printed on displays. Rooting out which HDR standard guarantees _true_ HDR is a similar rabbit hole.
Have you had IPS panels? I have a similar Alienware ultrawide monitor but with IPS panel. IPS still remains my favorite. Didn't dare to get OLED for computer monitor since I expected burn-in over the years. OLED could maybe have a little bit better colors, but I got LG's OLED TV a few years back and was a bit disappointed to see that the image isn't perfectly even (more clearly visible with grey image) and sometimes with dark areas there's some kind of barely noticeable weird edge effect. Kind of like the OLEDs just lighting up after reaching some threshold. And some other very minor effects like little uneven flickering of a fire in a dark scene.
I have used IPS, and a good IPS is certainly more affordable and more durable but it just doesn’t stand up to OLED, to my eyes. The uneven grays are a known fault in OLEDs but imo the raised blacks in IPS and IPS glows are worse compromises.
Still, I probably would work on an IPS if I didn’t have limited desk space and needed my monitor to pull double duty for entertainment as well.
I have an iirc 8 year old oled tv from LG. It has terrible burn in, especially red was hit hard. I wonder how true rgb might compare. The picture quality is probably worse, but if it holds up longer than oled it might be worth the trade off.
I've been seeing people go crazy over these new "RGB" mini LED panels and as an OLED user for almost 10 years now I just don't get it.
The first thing I do to test any LCD panel is fire up an episode of Star Trek: The Next generation. Invariably, one of two things happens as soon as we are presented with an exterior shot of the Enterprise
1. LCD backlight bleed makes space look dark grey/blue instead of black as originally intended.
2. The localized dimming kicks in, presenting truly black space, but rendering the stars (which are smaller than the smallest local dimming zones) super dim or nonexistent.
These latest generation RGB local dimming LCD panels being touted as OLED killers still fall under the 2nd scenario, they don't actually fix the problem at all. LCD is functionally a dead end when it comes to picture quality.
Touted by who, though? Proper reviews and tests will catch such things quickly.
I feel like OLED burn-in is a solved problem. I picked up the greatest and latest from ASUS 1 year ago and compared to my oled from 5 years ago, there's zero visible burn-in and there's zero compensation cycles (that I can see, which is a huge upgrade compared to previous generations). Actually my old "monitor" is now a TV and all the burn-in from desktop use has disappeared.
edit: I put up a very aggressive version of grey which used to expose full on black spots on the older OLED and I can only see a very faint line where there is a full white bar from one of the applications I use, actually I think that's just my vision since I can't see it anymore.
I have an Alienware and it took a while to burn-in, I think I noticed for the first time after around a couple of years.
AFAIK, burn-in is inherent in the technology; there's only mitigations.
It is not a solved problem. Play some games in HDR on a daily basis and their HUDs and character portraits will burn in. As simple as that. I have an AW3423DWF that did just that after 2.5 years of use.
Seems like it really isn't though. The TechSpot findings show the inverse burn-in line down the middle, subpixel disparity, and brightness deterioration. I think you can argue the latter two aren't big deals for casual users but the line down the middle of the screen seems pretty galling.
At least for OLED TVs, rtings.com has been running burn-in tests and has noted that supposed technological improvements on OLED longevity haven't really done much: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/oled-burn-in-not-improved-as...
I wonder what Apple will do about this for their upcoming (?) OLED MacBook Pros
Menubar is going to be a killer
Screw us all with another fashion trend for terrible displays, just like when they switched to high-glare screens.
Glossy displays are much better for image quality in light-controlled environments than matte. I cannot understand the love for matte display coatings, maybe you just live in a sunnier climate and want to work outdoors? I would never buy hardware with a matte display over glossy, given two equivalent choices. You just lose so much clarity and pop to basically rub a layer of vaseline over your monitor, diffusing the nice image quality into something oily/grainy looking.
I'm diurnal. I have windows (not Windows®). I don't live in a basement. I don't control the lighting where I work.
> I cannot understand the love for matte display coatings...
Most folks cannot prevent every source of light from shining behind them. In my apartment, even sunlight leaking around curtains and indirectly illuminating the Landlord Standard White walls was image-damagingly bright on the handful of glossy-screened monitors I tried.
If you have total control over the lighting situation in your room, then, yeah, glossy screens can work... but most folks want to be able to use their computers and televisions in a wide variety of lighting conditions. [0]
> ...something oily/grainy looking.
I guess you've only seen bad AR coatings. The difference in image quality between the glossy screens I tried and the matte screens I have and have been continuing to use for the past great many years wasn't all that large... and the bonkers reflectivity of the glossy screens nuked what little difference there was.
[0] Most folks also don't like so much looking at their ugly mugs during dark portions of a program... glossy screens are -while not as bad as a mirror- so incredibly reflective.
I have for years wanted Apple to offer a MacBook with a matte screen. Now with a Framework I couldn't go back to the impossible glare.
And if a few years from now they come out with a better screen, you can self install it in a 15 minutes.
They do, it’s called Nano-texture.
Too little, too late. With the growing enshittification of macOS and the Apple ecosystem in general, I couldn't be happier having made the move back to Linux on a Framework laptop, after almost 2 decades.
It's available and it works well. Staring at one right now. I don't like it better than glossy for my use, but if I spent a lot of time outdoors with it, I probably would.
https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/macbooks/the-new-macbook...
When did they switch to high glare screens? I thought that was the original style for Apple.
Apple has offered matte screens for the majority of their timeline. Matte screens were available on portable computers from ~1989-2009, and as high end option from 2009-2013. The nano texture was introduced 2019 and has been available to varying degrees until present day.
So it was really only about 6 years in the last four decades that matte was not available. I always advocate for more matte options.
It was with the first generation of unibody macbooks in 2008, if I remember correctly. I have a Powerbook G4 with a nice matte screen, and I distinctly remember the first generation of non-unibody MBP also having a similar matte screen.
So it's been a while. 18 years with glossy screens.
Not release it, as Apple only releases technology that has been perfected.
yeah like their VR goggles
and their butterfly keyboards
and the iPhone antenna issue
and Apple Maps (especially on launch)
and this fun artifact: https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2006/08/24/hindenbook-re...
They use oled.
Doesn't every display technology have issues with burn in? I have a VA monitor that has burn in as well, even though many have claimed that VA doesn't get burn in
I have a VA monitor that I bought in ~2019 with -according to its service menu- just under 40,000 hours of backlight-on time. It has some small hemispherical darkening along the top of its left edge that you can only notice when that portion of the screen is bright but has zero burn-in. [0] I use it for both video gaming and ordinary computing tasks.
[0] This darkening corresponds to nothing I've had on screen... it looks like the sort of minor backlight or diffuser (or whatever it's called) failure you tend to see on middle-aged monitors.
My 12 year old IPS monitor still has no burn-in. I grew up in the age of necessary screensavers, I ain't going back.
I have multiple 10+ year old VA monitors that don't have any burn-in. I imagine it depends on usage.
It looks to me like it might not be worth worrying about this anymore. If you've ever owned a plasma TV you would be rolling your eyes at these comparisons.