Dell said there was nothing wrong with the i9200 screens, and that owners weren't used to the new improved technology. The efforts of Dellbert and others efforts documenting the screen model numbers and manufacturers led to the conclusion that the LG screen was bad, and the Samsung was better (but not perfect). Most of early i9200s were shipped with the really bad LG screens, but later ones were shipped with the Samsungs - likely because people were asking for from the information gathered here.
The i9300 display discussions have grown from the i9200s. Just about everyone agrees these are top-notch lappies in every other respect, and that's why there's been less discussion regarding their attributes. The display remains its Achilles Heal, although it seems better on the i9300/xps2. If Dell is made aware that people are comparing their displays to other brands, they will be more likely to try to match them. The glossy screens demonstrate they at least know this is what people want. This forum shows that people are smart enough to know the difference between a shiny screen and a good screen.
IBM makes great lappies also, but from what I’ve seen their screens are worse overall - they just look dull to me. IBM owners will continue to buy them in spite of that because of their other good qualities (and their status factor). I think Dell owners have higher expectations now, especially with the large improvements in the construction quality. With the exception of PC Torque (they seem really customer-oriented), the horror stories I see in other sections brings me back to Dell - not perfect but at least tries to make things right far more often than not.
I'm still waiting for the first one to get the X-brite screen working in a i9300/xps2