This page, which I found via Fraser’s comment on this FatBits post by John Siracusa, explains, in technical terms, the difference between the glossy screens on the new MacBooks (see previous entry) and more traditional matte screens:

Both anti-glare and anti-reflective LCD screens serve a distinct purpose. Anti-glare LCD screens may be better suited to office environments, where spreadsheets, word-processing, and similar tasks are the norm — along with many light sources and less flexibility in screen placement. Anti-reflective, on the other hand, may be better suited for graphics, gaming, and multimedia applications — like watching DVDs. While anti-reflective high-gloss LCD screens may seem superior in all facets, they are better suited in indoor environments where ambient light conditions are not as bright. This way the user gets ambient light reflection reduction without sacrificing any image quality. Anti-glare, on the other hand, may be better suited to the outdoors or indoor environments with brighter or direct light. In this situation, the user may be better off sacrifice [sic] image quality for maximum ambient light reflection reduction.

This might suggest that a MacBook would be just fine at home, but perhaps less so in libraries with lots of fluorescent lighting — though not every library is as strongly lit as a cubicle warren. Probably equivalent to a CRT, both in terms of colour depth and reflectivity.