My Morning Hardware Disaster

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...

Very nice they may be but, I presume, they still have glossy screens
with the potential for reflection problems that that implies. In any
case, I made a study of this some years ago and concluded that matte
screens more closely resembled a print.

it's time to study it all over again.

the glossy displays of yesteryear are not the same as the ones today.
the newer ones are not as reflective due to advances in manufacturing
techniques which bond the display to the glass.

furthermore, glossy displays look sharper because they don't have the
matte surface diffusing it slightly.

I know that not everyone will
agree with me but I certainly am not alone in my opinion.

you're a minority.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:31:32 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 12/19/2014 2:19 PM, Bowser wrote:

snip


I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...


I know I will be flamed for this:
IRC the Retina screen is glossy. IMHO a glossy screen has two issues
when used for photography
1. Reflections, Though this can be easily controlled.
2. Difficulties properly displaying tonalty in the deep shadow areas.

Plus it cannot be easily upgraded, if I want an additional drive for any
reason.

Others may disagree, and I'm willing to listen.

It is glossy, but Apple has tamed the reflections to the point where I
could live with it. And honestly, the images look spectacular on that
iMac retina screen. However, when viewing other documents, like Word
or Excel docs, it's a bit of a pain due to the reduced size of the
image. I'm betting there's a workaround other than shifting to a lower
resolution desktop.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:21:49 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:19:07 -0500, Bowser wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:43:05 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 18 December 2014 14:22:36 UTC, Bowser wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:05:26 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-12-17 05:32:51 +0000, Savageduck said:

This morning my work table was upended when I snagged a foot and fell
into it. My iMac went off the back and the glass screen shattered. (I
am running it with a surprisingly clear display)

That was the bad news. The good news is, iFixit had a replacement in
their inventory, and since they are located 40 miles from me in San
Luis Obispo it should reach me some time Wednesday.
The cost $149.99 + tax + shipping.

The crime scene shot of the deceased.
https://db.tt/BWfQCF5e

...and the optimistic survivor.
https://db.tt/sm4glghT
(The smudge in the upper left is a finger. One of the problems when
grabbing an iPhone to take a quick shot.)

New glass arrived via UPS at 16:10.
https://db.tt/ohU4jvqB

Replaced, up & running at 16:18.
https://db.tt/fbLEZM5X

I am a happy camper once more. ;-)

Nice work. Hopefully, I'll join you in the Mac world soon. right now I
have a Macbook Pro Retina (13") and I'm looking at a desktop, as well.
But I'm waffling. Once I get an iMac up to the point where I'd like,
with an i7 processor and SSD, I'm within a few hundred of a mac pro,
and I'd just use my current screen and accessories.

Will you be using a 4K monitor.
I have the new retina iMac with i7 and ssd.

Eventually, but for now, the next few years, my HP Z24i is very nice.
I like it.



I'll need an
external drive with either choice, so that's a wash. I'm leaning
toward the Pro, even though it's more than I need. It'll just last
longer, I guess.

It may last longer but the current pros the low end aren't better than the iMac. The next gen pros should be.
I decided on an iMac rather than a pro as I didn;t need the power a pro can give and there seemed little advantage in getting a low end pro when the imac retina appears much better value.


I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...

Very nice they may be but, I presume, they still have glossy screens
with the potential for reflection problems that that implies. In any
case, I made a study of this some years ago and concluded that matte
screens more closely resembled a print. I know that not everyone will
agree with me but I certainly am not alone in my opinion.

See https://discussions.apple.com/thread...rt=15&tstart=0

They are stil glossy, but not nearly as bas as in the past. The glossy
screens of today wouldn't prevent me from buying one. But given that I
already have a nice screen, and keyboard and mouse, I see no reason
not to get the Pro for nearly the same price.

On 2014-12-19 21:31:32 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/19/2014 2:19 PM, Bowser wrote:

snip


I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...


I know I will be flamed for this:
IRC the Retina screen is glossy. IMHO a glossy screen has two issues
when used for photography
1. Reflections, Though this can be easily controlled.

Not an issue.

2. Difficulties properly displaying tonalty in the deep shadow areas.

Not an issue. Just calibrate as you would for any other display.

Plus it cannot be easily upgraded, if I want an additional drive for
any reason.

What has adding additional drives got to do with a Retina screen?
How many drives would you want to add to a Mac, or any other computer you own?

There is a whole industry supplying "additional" drives, and RAID
systems for Macs and other computers.

Others may disagree, and I'm willing to listen.

Then listen. The Apple Retina display is one might say, an eye opener,
and when correctly calibrated will permit you to see all the noise you
could possibly produce.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:35:41 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...

Very nice they may be but, I presume, they still have glossy screens
with the potential for reflection problems that that implies. In any
case, I made a study of this some years ago and concluded that matte
screens more closely resembled a print.

it's time to study it all over again.

the glossy displays of yesteryear are not the same as the ones today.
the newer ones are not as reflective due to advances in manufacturing
techniques which bond the display to the glass.

furthermore, glossy displays look sharper because they don't have the
matte surface diffusing it slightly.

I don't care (within limits) whether they look sharper but I do care
whether or not they give me a good guide as to the colour and tonality
of the prints I might want to make. For large prints, the printer will
give me more sharpness for the whole image than the screen will ever
show.


I know that not everyone will
agree with me but I certainly am not alone in my opinion.

you're a minority.

I may or may not be in a minority but I'm not alone, according to this
bit you cut out

See https://discussions.apple.com/thread...rt=15&tstart=0

Deleting a link which contradicts your claim is not entirely honest.
That you are deleting a link which contradicts a claim you are about
to make is downright foolish.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-12-19 22:21:49 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:19:07 -0500, Bowser wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:43:05 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 18 December 2014 14:22:36 UTC, Bowser wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:05:26 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-12-17 05:32:51 +0000, Savageduck said:

This morning my work table was upended when I snagged a foot and fell
into it. My iMac went off the back and the glass screen shattered. (I
am running it with a surprisingly clear display)

That was the bad news. The good news is, iFixit had a replacement in
their inventory, and since they are located 40 miles from me in San
Luis Obispo it should reach me some time Wednesday.
The cost $149.99 + tax + shipping.

The crime scene shot of the deceased.
https://db.tt/BWfQCF5e

...and the optimistic survivor.
https://db.tt/sm4glghT
(The smudge in the upper left is a finger. One of the problems when
grabbing an iPhone to take a quick shot.)

New glass arrived via UPS at 16:10.
https://db.tt/ohU4jvqB

Replaced, up & running at 16:18.
https://db.tt/fbLEZM5X

I am a happy camper once more. ;-)

Nice work. Hopefully, I'll join you in the Mac world soon. right now I
have a Macbook Pro Retina (13") and I'm looking at a desktop, as well.
But I'm waffling. Once I get an iMac up to the point where I'd like,
with an i7 processor and SSD, I'm within a few hundred of a mac pro,
and I'd just use my current screen and accessories.

Will you be using a 4K monitor.
I have the new retina iMac with i7 and ssd.

Eventually, but for now, the next few years, my HP Z24i is very nice.
I like it.



I'll need an
external drive with either choice, so that's a wash. I'm leaning
toward the Pro, even though it's more than I need. It'll just last
longer, I guess.

It may last longer but the current pros the low end aren't better than
the iMac. The next gen pros should be.
I decided on an iMac rather than a pro as I didn;t need the power a pro
can give and there seemed little advantage in getting a low end pro
when the imac retina appears much better value.


I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...

Very nice they may be but, I presume, they still have glossy screens
with the potential for reflection problems that that implies. In any
case, I made a study of this some years ago and concluded that matte
screens more closely resembled a print. I know that not everyone will
agree with me but I certainly am not alone in my opinion.

See https://discussions.apple.com/thread...rt=15&tstart=0

Most of that FUD dates from 2011 before the Retina screen made it to the iMac.

I also believed that a glossy screen would be problematic, so when I
bought my G4 Power Book Pro 17� I got the matte display. When I moved
upgraded that to a MacBook Pro 17� I had no option other than the
glossy screen. I held my breath and was prepared to be a whining
complainer. My fears were unfounded. Reflections have never been a
problem. So, when I bought my current iMac having read similar reports
to the one you have posted I was wary. Once more my fears were
unfounded.
I have since checked Retina displays and there is no doubt in my mind
(…and my Mk I eyeballs) that they will do quite well for anybody using
one for photo editing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Very nice they may be but, I presume, they still have glossy screens
with the potential for reflection problems that that implies. In any
case, I made a study of this some years ago and concluded that matte
screens more closely resembled a print.

it's time to study it all over again.

the glossy displays of yesteryear are not the same as the ones today.
the newer ones are not as reflective due to advances in manufacturing
techniques which bond the display to the glass.

furthermore, glossy displays look sharper because they don't have the
matte surface diffusing it slightly.

I don't care (within limits) whether they look sharper but I do care
whether or not they give me a good guide as to the colour and tonality
of the prints I might want to make.

it absolutely will.

For large prints, the printer will
give me more sharpness for the whole image than the screen will ever
show.

completely wrong.

an imac retina display will be noticeably sharper than anything coming
out of your printer.

I know that not everyone will
agree with me but I certainly am not alone in my opinion.

you're a minority.

I may or may not be in a minority but I'm not alone, according to this
bit you cut out

See https://discussions.apple.com/thread...rt=15&tstart=0

i deleted it because when i clicked on the link, apple was doing forum
maintenance so there was nothing to see except a banner page saying
come back later.

unlike certain other people here, i do not comment on something i did
not read.

those who prefer matte are in a minority, a very vocal one, but
nevertheless, a minority.

Deleting a link which contradicts your claim is not entirely honest.
That you are deleting a link which contradicts a claim you are about
to make is downright foolish.

it doesn't contradict anything i said and it's also 3 years old. there
are 99 posts, out of tens of millions of macs sold. you can't please
everyone. 99 people hate glossy. big deal.

what's not entirely honest is you citing something that is horribly
outdated and largely irrelevant.

meanwhile, the vast majority of customers *prefer* glossy displays,
which is why apple sells them. mac sales keep going *up*, even though
there's no more matte.

go take a look at the imac retina before spouting further. it's not
that reflective and its resolution blows away anything else.

didn't you post about the dell 5k display some months ago? its price is
$2500, the same as the imac retina 5k. in other words, for the price of
*just* a dell 5k display, you get an apple 5k display with a very
capable computer included.

On 12/19/2014 5:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...

I know I will be flamed for this:
IRC the Retina screen is glossy. IMHO a glossy screen has two issues
when used for photography
1. Reflections, Though this can be easily controlled.
2. Difficulties properly displaying tonalty in the deep shadow areas.

clearly you've never actually used a retina imac. the reflections are
minimal and there is no difficulty whatsoever in displaying tonality in
shadows or elsewhere.

there is also no comparison to its resolution. nothing comes anywhere
close, especially at its price point.

Plus it cannot be easily upgraded, if I want an additional drive for any
reason.

nonsense.

it has multiple usb and thunderbolt ports, so you can add as many
drives as you want.

it also has gigabit ethernet ad 802.11ac wifi, so you can add as many
network drives as you want.

Yes, but I can't easily add memory, or switch to a new graphics card, or
add another inetrnal drive.

I may never do any of the above, but I want the ability to do so.

Others may disagree,

millions do.


So. Millions happiy use P&S cameras. That doesn't mean I would be
satisfied with one.
You have no idea about my particular needs. It works for you, but not
for me.

and I'm willing to listen.

no you're not.


There is no question in my mind that the Retina is a fine machine. As I
stated in another post, when I described my needs, and ran my own tests
on a store machine, I decided that machine was not for me. I had issues
with tonal gradation in the shadows.


--
PeterN

On 12/19/2014 5:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I think it is if you don't have a screen and keyboard and other stuff.
But I can get a Pro with a 512G SSD for under $3200 and the iMac
optioned up to that level is about $3K. I don't really need that
retina screen, but it'd be nice. Decisions, decisions...

Very nice they may be but, I presume, they still have glossy screens
with the potential for reflection problems that that implies. In any
case, I made a study of this some years ago and concluded that matte
screens more closely resembled a print.

it's time to study it all over again.

the glossy displays of yesteryear are not the same as the ones today.
the newer ones are not as reflective due to advances in manufacturing
techniques which bond the display to the glass.

furthermore, glossy displays look sharper because they don't have the
matte surface diffusing it slightly.

I know that not everyone will
agree with me but I certainly am not alone in my opinion.

you're a minority.


Are you saying more Retina machines are sold than all other desktops,
combined?

--
PeterN

rOn Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:22:34 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Very nice they may be but, I presume, they still have glossy screens
with the potential for reflection problems that that implies. In any
case, I made a study of this some years ago and concluded that matte
screens more closely resembled a print.

it's time to study it all over again.

the glossy displays of yesteryear are not the same as the ones today.
the newer ones are not as reflective due to advances in manufacturing
techniques which bond the display to the glass.

furthermore, glossy displays look sharper because they don't have the
matte surface diffusing it slightly.

I don't care (within limits) whether they look sharper but I do care
whether or not they give me a good guide as to the colour and tonality
of the prints I might want to make.

it absolutely will.

There is only one way to tell and that i by a comparison. I hhave made
such a comparison and know what my conclusions were.

For large prints, the printer will
give me more sharpness for the whole image than the screen will ever
show.

completely wrong.

an imac retina display will be noticeably sharper than anything coming
out of your printer.

Once again, you pontificate in ignorance.

I have an Epson Pro 3800. The native print mode employs 360 print
cells/inch. Even with margins, this gives me some 8200 print cells
across an A2 sheet in landscape. Bearing in mind that print cells are
not the same as pixels and Epson print technology will allow the
printing of finer detail within a print cell. But even without that,
do you know of any display in the category we are discussing which can
display 8200 pixels wide?

I know that not everyone will
agree with me but I certainly am not alone in my opinion.

you're a minority.

I may or may not be in a minority but I'm not alone, according to this
bit you cut out

See https://discussions.apple.com/thread...rt=15&tstart=0

i deleted it because when i clicked on the link, apple was doing forum
maintenance so there was nothing to see except a banner page saying
come back later.

Well it's up now, only a short time later.

unlike certain other people here, i do not comment on something i did
not read.

No, you delete it without reference or explanation.

those who prefer matte are in a minority, a very vocal one, but
nevertheless, a minority.

Have you been flying some where again?

Deleting a link which contradicts your claim is not entirely honest.
That you are deleting a link which contradicts a claim you are about
to make is downright foolish.

it doesn't contradict anything i said and it's also 3 years old. there
are 99 posts, out of tens of millions of macs sold. you can't please
everyone. 99 people hate glossy. big deal.

"It's also 3 years old".

How do you know? You have just written that the site was down for
maintenance. This raises serious questions about *your* honesty.

I look forward to your explanation.

Although 'only' 99 people hate glossy, they are all professionals. For
every one who writes to an Apple thread, I expect there are many more
who have voted with their wallet: they have bought a matte screen from
somewhere else.

what's not entirely honest is you citing something that is horribly
outdated and largely irrelevant.

In any case, you clearly haven't read all the thread. The latest post
is Mar 3, 2014. Nor is it in anyway irrelevant.

meanwhile, the vast majority of customers *prefer* glossy displays,
which is why apple sells them. mac sales keep going *up*, even though
there's no more matte.

Perfectly true, but that doesn't argue the criticisms of those who
want matte screens.

go take a look at the imac retina before spouting further. it's not
that reflective and its resolution blows away anything else.

didn't you post about the dell 5k display some months ago? its price is
$2500, the same as the imac retina 5k. in other words, for the price of
*just* a dell 5k display, you get an apple 5k display with a very
capable computer included.

But the screen is still glossy.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens