I hope you’re in a position where you can have an honest conversation about it with your partner. I’ve come to realise over time that honest and open communication is the most critical thing in any relationship. I really hope it works out for you both!
I also had kids, and while I love my kids I haven’t loved spending time with my kids. This will hopefully change as they age, but the first six years have so far been very much a drag on my life and productivity, and not much else. They haven’t provided fulfilment, and they haven’t provided satisfaction. Some joy is there from time to time, definitely, but nothing in the way the author describes. Happiness for me typically starts after my kids are in bed or when I can escape them during work hours. My wife finds great happiness in our children, and I find happiness in that, but I’m desperately waiting for my kids to be old enough that I only need to spend time with them instead of constantly caring for them. Sorry if this is a bit of a dark comment, but I just wanted to say it’s not always the experience this author had, even if it seems common. Edit: Generally, I regret having kids (because of the impact on my life, not the kids themselves), but I also can’t change that decision and I would never back away from my choice - that’s completely unfair to them, as well as my wife. Such is life. I try to keep looking forward to when they’re older as a way of staying positive.
I truly do give my kids my all though, and they have a wonderful life and are loved and cared for in all senses of those words. They’re great kids and I give them everything necessary to be a great dad.
I can't wait to play with my 3 year old and 1 year old. I get so mad at work when I have an odd late meeting because it is keeping me from them.
My three year old helps me build furniture (he gets screws started, counts out parts, helps apply glue). I love showing him synths and instruments and seeing his face light up.
My one year old is a cuddle monster who likes listening to jazz with me. She also really enjoys when the cat climbs up on our lap and she gets to pet it.
I don't know your situation, but most miserable parents I know see their kid as something to manage, like some kind of annoying work underling.
I see my kids as little detectives.
My goal isn't to solve their case or even help them approach it in the right way. It's to give them an occasional hint (or step stool), keep them from danger, and help them discover the correct way to behave.
I can definitely relate. There's nights my wife and I get to bed and sorta just look at eachother and go "what the hell was that". Those days are hard.
I find the days that I forget myself and throw myself into trying to be a good dad are the days I find joy in fatherhood. Weekends especially I try to forget the stresses of work and productivity and everything else and try to spend as much time with them as possible. Playing, teaching, and learning with them.
Not saying it's universal. Just a datapoint from me.
If it makes you feel any better, you're not the only one that feels that way. I don't think it's said very often because it almost feels taboo to say it.
Sometimes I feel like there is this sense that you are a bad parent if you ever express that there are times you might wish you weren’t a parent, even if the feeling is much more “I wish I didn’t have to be a parent RIGHT NOW”. You can even see in this thread that people are expressing how they feel sorry for the commenter’s children because he feels regret sometimes about being a parent.
I wanted to be a dad more than anything in the world, and I absolutely love my kids and I love being a dad.
Most of the time.
There is a TON of things you have to do as a parent that objectively sucks, and you have to do it no matter how you are feeling and no matter what else you also have to do. It is impossible not to feel trapped, at times, by the understanding that it never ends, that you are a parent 24/7/365.25 and that your kids dominate your life. I don’t care how much you love your kids, you are going to feel that sometimes (or you are so strongly into the self-denial that you force yourself to pretend you always like it).
That doesn’t mean you aren’t a good parent, or even that you made the right choice to be a parent. Most of the best things in life involve sacrifice, and doing things you don’t want to have to do, and powering through even when you want to give up. It’s cliche, but the struggle makes the rewards even sweeter. Doesn’t mean the struggle doesn’t suck sometimes, and you might want to give up, and you have to use all your self-control tricks to maintain.
I feel even worse for parents who did IVF or other fertility treatments, or who adopt. In my conversations with some close friends who are in those situations, they talk about how much pressure they feel to never complain when it is hard. They spent a ton of money and effort and used insurance money and many doctors and procedures (or all the interviews and inspections and money for adoption) so they could have kids, and now they want to complain about being a parent? Of course, they still have all the same struggles and pains and nostalgia for their before life, no matter how much this is what they want.
Anyway, I am not sure what my point is. I just want people to be honest with themselves, and other parents and future parents, about what the entire parenting experience really is. Sometimes I think parents don’t want to scare potential parents off of being parents, which I think is understandable but overstated. There is simply no way to convey to non-parents what it is actually like to be a parent, and this applies to both the good and bad things. I thought my wife and I were prepared and knowledgeable and ready, and we were to the extent we could be. But so many things we imagined about what it would be like is not the reality at all, but even if we had a Time Machine I couldn’t explain to my previous self what it is actually like. You just have to experience it… if you want to. I would never tell people they should have kids, because it is such an all-encompassing thing that everyone has to decide for themselves… all without knowing what it will actually be like.
The curse of parenting is that when they're small you can't wait for them to grow up so you can get more time for you, and when they grow up you're nostalgic of their childhood when they were willing to spend more time with you.
So my advice is: find activities to do with them that you would both enjoy. Maybe going to parks, museums, have them help you on house chores... You only have a few years left under they get to middle school and start becoming more distant.
Interesting, my experience has been the opposite. Before getting kids, I thought that I would only enjoy having kids once they were the age where you could have conversations with them, etc., that the first one or two years were more something that mothers would like. But for me it was not like that at all, aside from some sleepless nights, it's so cool to be part of them discovering the world.
have so far been very much a drag on my life and productivity, and not much else
At some point when our kid was still young, I started working 4/5 FTE, taking the afternoons off after ~14:00. I feel like that provided a lot of mental space. Since I was working part-time, I did not feel bad/guilty about not working the afternoons and I would be focused on being very productive from 8:30 to 14:00. The free hours were for doing stuff together or accommodating their playdates (picking up from school, ensuring the house doesn't get torn down).
Now they are an age where they want to do things without parents, so I am working full-time again, but do miss those early days where she would be with me in her seat on my bike and we'd cycle to the city and she'd be singing aloud from joy.
But every person is different and I think that there are also parents that start enjoying having kids more when they are older. So, your years may still come :).
dark comment
My dark comment would be: we are all learning on the job and I feel like I could do some things better with the experience I have now.
I have a few kids, raising them is a mix of good and bad, like everything else. it took a toll on my career, pushed my temper to the edge, and stressed me out all these 20+ years, but I also enjoyed many moments. it does not go away when they got older by the way, it's a life long strong bond, at different phases there are different challenges.
If I have a second life, I don't know what to do though, I probably will first make enough money before having kids at least.
I probably will first make enough money before having kids at least.
I think you’ve hit the key difference.
I waited until I was 40 before having kids, and it just feels like I’m doing it on easy mode.
We had time and money sorted out, and tons of free baby stuff donated from all our friends who had done it already.
It’s still lots of work, but you’re at a place in life where you can handle it. I can’t imagine trying to raise kids in my 20s, with my crappy stressful office job and no money in my little studio apartment.
On the flip side, you'll still have a 20yo university student to take care of at age 60, while all your friends will have an independent adult child earlier...
I would like to hear in what sense you love your kids, given that "he first six years have so far been very much a drag on my life and productivity, and not much else. They haven’t provided fulfilment, and they haven’t provided satisfaction. (...) Happiness for me typically starts after my kids are in bed or when I can escape them during work hours."
Do you say "I love my kids" because that's what everybody says, or is there any truth in it?
EDIT: Just to be 100% clear: I mean absolutely no judgement. I'm not going to tell you off or try to change your mind. I ask out of pure curiosity.
I go above and beyond to give them a great life - to care about providing them with a rich education, as well as a wide variety of life experiences, to immerse them in quality time with friends and family, to travel with them and spend time amongst various cultures and amongst nature. I’m there for them whenever they need me, and also when they don’t. I take the time to give genuine answers, to feed their curiosity, to make them great people. I give them the tools to explore things on their own and foster their independence. I also encourage risk taking while supporting them when it doesn’t work out.
Critically: I give them my full attention.
I could choose to spend all that mental effort on myself, but I choose to spend it on them. That’s as good a demonstration of love as any, in my book anyway.
Edit: no offence taken! I didn’t interpret it that way at all.
You are overdoing it. Don't know who is your role model, but that behavior is IMO what leads to that outcome.
Show mostly by example, not by direct mentoring.
What rich education and various cultures for 6-year-olds (or less)? That is simply irrelevant at that age and logistics of it just makes you hate everything. Do you even take your kids to dozen of arbitrary chosen classes?
Tone it down, everybody will feel better and you won't have to fake it. Happy parent is more important for family than robo parent.
It’s not forced, and we do show by example. I also disagree that they’re too young to be immersed in a love for education, culture, and people. Oh and music too. We listen to a lot of music (for fun!).
My family and friends are multi-cultural so they’re naturally exposed to several cultures, for example. It’s also important to my wife and I as the world itself is multi-cultural, so having an appreciation that different people live their lives differently is important. We lead by example simply by living in a multi-cultural life and embracing it.
Take that same approach and apply it across the rest of the points I made. Nothing is forced, I promise.
> Do you say "I love my kids" because that's what everybody says, or is there any truth in it?
It is true that some people are not really cut out to be parents. But unfortunately it is difficult to tell whether that will be you or not. I see people looking at comments in threads like this and then chiming in with sentiments along the lines of "see, this is why I never wanted to be a parent." There is no way to know that, and such statements strike me as cope. Becoming a parent changes you, but you won't know how until you do it. There is a lot of biology and psychology in play, for certain.
As I tell my own kids, however, be careful because you only get to become a parent one time. Cannot blame someone for opting out of the risk, even if the counterfactual is that they would have been amazing parents with amazing children and been much happier.
Do not despair, I felt the same. Mine are halfway to 18, still feel the same, unsure if it changes. I love them, just not the experience. I have friends who feel the same, so I/we are not alone.
I tell others not to do it unless they are prepared to suffer. You won't know if its for you until you've already gone through the one way door. I wish others luck. For the unlucky, I wish grit and stoicism.
Would be interesting to see if there is other personality overlap with people that feel this way, which people could use as a pre-test for whether or not they would enjoy the experience of having kids.
I wonder if there would be something identifiable in common if we fMRI'd your brains, as while you are definitely not alone it does seem like a pretty strong exception that makes the rule.
Sure, give me a verified badge on dating marketplace apps (Feeld, Fetlife in my case) based on my fMRI imaging interpretation. Use it as input for the matching algo. Way more useful than simply putting "neurodivergent" in a profile imho. Adjacent to "If your policy doesn't exist in code, it doesn't exist."
While I have always loved being a dad, I can certainly relate to the things you describe.
I will say that a lot of those issues have gotten better as they have gotten older (they are now 10 and almost 7). They don’t require the same level of constant attention that they used to, they are getting more and more interesting to talk to, and have developed interesting personalities and senses of humor.
I’m glad to hear that - it backs up what I’m hoping/expecting will happen. I think I’ll enjoy time with them much more as they age, especially once they’re 7+.
You're not alone and I'll even say this is evolutionary.
Men haven't evolved to be overly attached to babies or small kids like mothers did - that'd have been a weakness in the survival race. Men skills were completely different, usually related to being away from the kids most of the time.
Translate to modern day, that is men not really wanting to have kids (sometimes just going along with the wife's biological clock), and pretty much "feeling nothing" when the kids are born. There's a million documented examples of that.
However, once kids leave the "little puppy" phase and grow beyond the basic needs care that mothers provide, it's when the fathers start to really relate to them.
If your older kid is maybe 5-6 you're about to start that new phase. That's what happened to me, and I find (maybe not so extreme) examples of that on almost every guy I talk to.
Give it a second chance, maybe having kids is just not for you. But don't assume it's already the case, you may miss out whole new world.
I think it's important to share the difficult / hard experiences of having kids as much as the good ones. I've noticed that there is a huge bias towards only sharing the good moments and white-washing all of the bad as something you can "laugh about later." To be frank, not enough people were honest with me about what it would be like having kids before I had them - and I was incredibly upset when I realized that (several years into being a parent).
I now make it a point to be honest with people when they ask "Should we have kids?" and tell them about how hard it can be, etc. Most importantly, I tell people that they shouldn't have kids unless they would still want to do it if their experience doesn't land in the middle of the bell curve. We tend to romanticize the decision, and expect that everything "just gets even better" with kids. There are all sorts of ways your experience can be less than ideal. Unless you're evaluating your decision with those potential outcomes in mind, you're doing yourself, your partner, and even your future children a disservice.
Thank you for posting this. It’s totally understandable and believable that you simultaneously love them and regret some things about it. There’s this insane pressure in our society to never acknowledge the toll that kids have and to never speak out about this. I remember when this article was first posted and how I received it, like I was wrong for not being sure about kids, and that some change would come over me when I had them. Truth is, that doesn’t happen with everyone. Then the world tries to gaslight those people who don’t feel that way into feeling like they’re broken somehow.
I’m sure you love your kids and take great care of them, and it’s not your fault that you feel this way.
It would benefit all of us if this taboo was lifted, so that we could speak truthfully about the impact of kids on families, and maybe then we’d have to provide more support and encouragement to convince people to have them. Not everyone has free daycare from their grandparents or a large social network to babysit or the finances that make having a child less of a burden.
Everyone is different, and even though I don't share your experience, I don't view yours as either good or bad, it just is what it is. My experience is different but I'm not planning on ever telling anyone "Oh don't worry about it just have kids it'll be the best experience of your life" in blind faith.
Please don't ever, ever let them know this, or even allow them to figure it out. Especially before they're at least ~30 and able to begin to understand.
I would never let them think I regret them - that’s such a cruel thing to inflict upon them, and it’s certainly not their fault. I also don’t regret the joy it’s brought my wife.
I regret the loss of my mental energy and personal time, but not them, if that makes sense.
For me it helped to realize that the things I would have done with the extra time and energy would not have been that great. Some occasional dopamine bursts for a very mediocre outcome. Having kids is a better investment, but a less fun one.
Having kids becomes a lot easier if you can do the things you enjoy with them. For me that includes all sorts of stuff such as D&D, warhammer, painting miniatures, drawing, magic the gathering, board games, etc. I also include them when I have to fix something around the house or some random electronic device that broke.
If the only thing you can enjoy is adult stuff or working then you might have a rougher time at it if you don't find joy in the pure act of raising a kid. For me the first few months were meh, but once they started to get a personality I found it more entertaining.
Many of those are things I greatly enjoy, as well as many other things from a very diverse range of hobbies. My kids aren’t old enough to join in on those things yet (6 and 4), so I only find time to do those things once every few months, as opposed to once or twice a week pre-kids. It’s improving as they get older though, hence my hopefulness.
The reason isn't because it is more difficult or people enjoy having kids less (like the parent). Its because children used to be a way to provide security for your family and community. More hands to help or sent off to earn money younger for example.
Now with smaller family units and less community interaction they represent a risk to security, mainly financially.
Children still provide security for the family and community, it's just that it's done in a way where the people creating the benefit and the people realizing it are almost entirely different. This is due to the way social security works. Creating a tragedy of the commons where everyone wants more kids but no one wants to be the sucker that has them (from the financial viewpoint, obviously not from others). Obviously this sort of communism where society takes the profits in form of social security but provides almost nil (except some pittances in property taxes for school) for the investment creates a collapsing system.
Having children for yourself provides more security for all the other families but barely anymore for your own. Meanwhile you bear most the costs and everyone else bears very little. So the incentives are totally reversed, and even worse the coupling between investment in children and payoff is cut which means the people in the best position to help their kids be successful are the least incentivized to do so.
Given the post you’re replying to, it seems you’re implying a specific reason, but what if it’s a different one? How about “I love children but having kids is super expensive”?
Every mouth to feed costs more. Baby formula seems like a racket. Diapers are expensive.
My oldest will need a laptop for school next year. It isn't optional or provided.
Maybe you need a bigger car because car seats take up a lot of room.
What if your kid decides they want to join a sports team? A friend of a friend told me they did the math on a year of competitive swimming. It was $10,000 by the time they were done with equipment and travel.
A trip to the dentist for my family of four is about $1000 for just cleanings. Braces for my oldest were $3000 if I could pay cash or $4000 to finance. You could skip dental care, but some might consider that neglect.
What if the school tells you to get your child tested? That costs about $3000 in my part of the world. Half of the kids on my block are neurodivergent somehow. What do you do?
In a less well off part of the world, most of these "concerns" probably disappear. I think we have pretty high expectations of parents that aren't poor.
Your arguments (explanations?) would seem way more relevant if they didn't go 100% counter to observation.
I don't know why you're trying to explain an outcome that is opposite of the observed outcome.
Are you saying that while more money is correlated with less fertility (the fact), that somehow even more money will reverse the trend and start going the other way?
Based on observed data, one could almost make the case that if only billionaires start stealing from the poor even more, then birth rates should go up.
It wasn't really supposed to be about money vs fertility rates. I was trying to provide some observed examples of why having more money might mean more expensive kids. Or how being poor means the cost and expectations are lower.
I've always believed that it isn't money itself, but access to healthcare and education that lower fertility rates. Money correlates really strongly with access to healthcare and education.
Having good education and healthcare leads to birth control and maybe an abortion if the BC fails.
When a family of three is making $15K a year, do you believe baby four, five and six were planned out in agonizing detail? Or do you think maybe they weren't planned at all?
And I do believe more money going around would help. If the perspective is "I can't afford it", those who are doing OK will not have children if they can help it.
The highest income you have, the more pressured you are to give them an expensive education, activities, etc. Everyone want their kids to do at least as well as themselves.
So it's expensive no matter what income bracket you're in.
Kids need to be out of the house and so do you. From the 2 kids I have (currently teen/tween) outdoors - as in unpaved trails, state parks or such if you have them close by - were the best.
They find enough there to keep themselves entertained. It’s amazing how much interest deer poop can generate.
Shaming like this doesn’t change people’s minds, it just makes them hide their feelings and introduces new or even greater feelings of guilt. The opposite of what you (hopefully) intended.
Ironically, you are telling the above commenter to not comment as they did, so that op can comment as he did. If one person is allowed to share their thoughts then so is the other.
One shared his own experience, the other is a direct attack on his kids and the parent. Quite a big difference. The "I pity your kids" is straight up vile.
How is it vile to pity children whose parents regret that they were born? Children whose father loathes spending time with them. Sorry, but maybe some people should feel shame sometimes
Because it's performative pity. The person doesn't really care about that person's kids. They just wanted to attack the poster, and decided to do that through his kids.
This is the kind of response that prevents people from being honest about the feeling. I also didn't enjoy a lot of the time with my young child. Some things -- like travel -- got better, because what was tedious to me had become novel to him, and that was rewarding to see. But some things just stayed tedious, and some got more so.
Example: it took us an hour to walk the mile home from preschool together together. It's astounding to me to think that someone could be fulfilled and engaged for every minute of every day of that walk. That there's nowhere else they'd rather be. That some days it wouldn't just feel _slow_.
Being present for your kids can be hard work, and it sucks to be judged for putting in that work even when you don't enjoy it. I wish people would stop thinking they're better parents just because they _like_ spending a higher percentage of their time with their kids. All that means is that it's easier for them.
Celebrate the parents who put the work in, even when it's hard.
I’m glad it’s eye-opening; that means not enough people talk about their negative experiences, thus justifying my original post even more.
My kids miss out on nothing, don’t worry. There’s zero reason to pity them - they’re amazing and they have an amazing life. I purely regret my loss of mental energy and personal time.
It's mysterious to me that you write all this _and_ that you do truly love your kids and are great. If I was in your position I'd at least concede that people do deserve parents that don't regret them. Do their thoughts toward it even matter?
It's just a parsing error. "in-" is also a prefix to create verbs from a name or another verb like inhume, inflame, induce, incite, inject, infiltrate. Inflammable is (inflame)-able and not in-(flammable)
There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended.
Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (able to catch fire) and inflammable (not able to catch fire).
There's an inconsistency but no ambiguity, only ignorance. Inflammable only ever means one thing regardless of how ridiculous english might be.
The historically correct term would be non-inflammable. The modern variant is non-flammable.
Similarly, inflammable is the historic term and flammable is the modern variant.
The confusion arises when people are exposed to the word flammable and then attempt to apply the usual rules to construct a word they've never actually used before.
This isn't the usual sort of inconsistency introduced by our fusing multiple incompatible languages. It's from the original Latin and I'm unclear what led to it. For example consider inflammable versus inhumane. It seems Latin itself used the prefix to mean different things - here on(fire) versus not(human). But confusingly it's ex to indicate location, despite ex also being the antonym of in. So ex equo means you are on horseback, not off it as I would have guessed.
> There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
They are not counter-example. You use the other "in-" prefix that take an adjective and give the opposite adjective, not the one that create a verb from a noun.
That's not generational. Living in France I can ensure you that in primary school, kids still learn and use cursive as main writing system. I wasn't even aware anyone would use anything else to write by hand in Latin script.
I'm curious to get information about how people write elsewhere and how does it look.
In the US, when I was in grade school we learned both, but almost all the kids chose to write in Latin script when given the option. I think we learned that first and it just stuck.
One day the school principal came into our class, pretty randomly, and tried to emphasize the importance of being proficient at reading and writing in cursive. It gave “old man yells at clouds” vibes at the time. Looking back, it wasn’t all that important.
My grandparents are of French decent and my grandfather’s cursive was very impressive. I may have been more interested in learning it in school if what we were learning was more aspirational, like his writing. We were taught the D'Nealian method[0], which I still find rather ugly for cursive. Their selling point to us was speed, not beauty, but I don’t know anyone who got quick with it.
I still remember a kid in my class who transferred from another school, I’m not sure where. His print handwriting was immaculate and beautiful. The teacher forced him to change to D'Nealian, even for his print writing, because that’s what was in the curriculum. It was so much worse. The kid was super upset about it. Here I am, 30+ years later still upset about it as well… and it wasn’t even me, I just witnessed the injustice. I felt really bad for him.
I'd hedge to say roughly the same, but that's writing print in chicken-scratch handwriting (which is my norm) and under-practiced with cursive. I'd suspect after using cursive a bit I would speed up. Similar to using home-row when typing vs pick-and-peck or whatever they call it
My phone would transcribe even quicker than that, though, which would probably be my go-to instead of hand-writing
It is probably country and language dependent, I think. I don't know anyone under 40 who doesn't write in cursive (in Russian), and for other languages I personally also write in cursive (and learnt that in school). I'm in my 30s.
OP double negated - cursive is the norm for Russians of all ages.
Russian cursive is actually not that bad to read for the most part. Russian “print” is super awkward because all the characters are very angular.
There are some differences between generations (younger generations are more likely to write “т” in handwriting whereas the “correct” form looks more like a Latin “m”, but with obvious examples excluded (like the above), it just takes learning as a separate alphabet.
I know. I always feel utterly embarrassed when Russian-speaking friends write down a movie title for me, and I have to ask them to rewrite it in block capitals.
Conversely I don't know anyone who doesn't write in cursive. It's still taught in schools in the UK, and I still write with it and actively aim to improve.
My daughter simply cannot write without joining the letters, finds it impossible. Time will tell if this remains true. Everyone is different in the best possible way.
My understanding is that they started turning away from it, but have turned back in many states. We were told it was important that we delay teaching our child typing until they had finished learning cursive because it had been discovered that teaching cursive developed something or other that I zoned out on while waiting to ask when that would be. Education has fads that don't seem to line up with peer reviewed articles that well. For instance, current reading instruction is non optimal for dyslexic students, while early 20th century instruction seems to (not entirely intentionally) worked much better.
Edit: Apparently it has to do with dyslexia and executive functioning. California and Texas amongst others have now required it be resumed. So there is a roughly decade long gap in cursive in the us, maybe a little less.
I was in the small phone camp. I’m in a fortunate position where due to my work I have a work phone that has regularly refreshed hardware that I have some input on, so I made the conscious decision to switch to a max-sized handset (iPhone 15 pro max). I gave up being able to ‘one-hand’ the phone, but let’s be honest - all modern mainstream phones can’t really be used with one hand easily, that ship has sailed.
I really liked it. The larger screen is more productive, and the improved cameras on the larger phones are worth it for me. I take more and better photos of my kids.
Sometimes it’s worth trying the thing you don’t think you want - you might be surprised.
phone size has nothing to do with camera quality (in the current market, only in the theory), the best android camera phones are the smallest pixels, every other brand has worse cameras and bigger dimensions
The iPhone pro max cameras offer more physical options that I actually take advantage of, so it’s a true statement for me.
I agree that phone size doesn’t have to correlate to picture quality, but that’s how many of the manufacturers position their cameras - bigger phones get the more capable cameras.
While I’m glad for the author, in that they’ve found something that delights them, this just seems like a really long-winded way to say “matte screens have less glare” - not a new fact.
There are special surfaces (also used in some TVs I believe) which actually reflect somewhat less light. I assume this "nano texture" is something like that. (Of course the screen being matte also helps.)
On windows at least, I almost always use 'alt+space; x' to maximise windows, as well as winkey+left/right/up/down, which is really the only resizing I do. Having to use the mouse is a pain.
reply