My Morning Hardware Disaster

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:20:47 -0500, Bowser wrote:

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.

That was the conclusion I reached a few months ago. I still haven't
done anything yet.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/19/2014 6:18 PM, Bowser wrote:
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.


I did not factor that into my decision. But, as I stated, my primary
issue is not the glare, because it can be controlled by proper placement
and consistent lighting. Also I still do report writing, and the Windows
version of speeech to text software is vastly superior. (I have been
using speech to text software since Dragon Dictate version 1.


--
PeterN

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:38:41 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

I will bear your comments in mind, but I don't expect to want to buy a
new screen (or screens) while my matched pair of calibrated Dell U2410
screens continue to function. But even then, I will cautious.

Taking a slightly different tack on this discussion, The most highly
regarded screens for professional photo editing are Eizo and (to a
lesser extent) NEC. There are probably others as well. These are all
matte screens.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/19/2014 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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?

Right now, 1 drive for the system & programs; 1 used solely as a scratch
drive; 1 for data other than photos; 1 external for photos; plus 2
external back up drives.
I would like to replace my external photo drive with a 4 TB internal
drive, and use the current external drive for archiving old files, that
I still refer to from time to time. Yes I know I can hang more
externals, and add network drives.


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.


Low blow. ;-)
As I said in many other posts, I am oblivious to that type of noise.

--
PeterN

On 2014-12-20 02:19:23 +0000, PeterN said:

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.

Then don't consider an iMac (though those are not serious, unsolvable
issues.) If you want that degree of ease of access to the innards of
your computer take a look at the Mac Pro. That way you can use whatever
display you want.
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
....and you can still run all the Windows software you want to.

Le Snip

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.

....and you made this determination where?

Another thought is, I have yet to see evidence that "tonal graduation
in the shadows" was ever a major consideration in any of your work we
have seen here.

I haven't noticed too much difficulty dealing with "tonal graduation in
the shadows".
https://db.tt/jBCxwHDt



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 12/19/2014 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-12-20 02:19:23 +0000, PeterN said:

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.

Then don't consider an iMac (though those are not serious, unsolvable
issues.) If you want that degree of ease of access to the innards of
your computer take a look at the Mac Pro. That way you can use whatever
display you want.
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
...and you can still run all the Windows software you want to.

Le Snip

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.

...and you made this determination where?

At an Apple store, and Micro Center's Apple section.

I also never asked if internal RAM can be upgraded from the 8G it ships
with.
Cost is another factor. The diplay I have my heart set on is an NEC 27".
Cost about 1k. I can get a PC that will satisfy my percived needs for
under 1k. The driving issue a I need a larger disply. because of
vision issues; and that some of the newer PS plugins I use run slower on
my desktop, that on my laptop.



Another thought is, I have yet to see evidence that "tonal graduation in
the shadows" was ever a major consideration in any of your work we have
seen here.

I haven't noticed too much difficulty dealing with "tonal graduation in
the shadows".
https://db.tt/jBCxwHDt




I doubt that I posted any high res images.


--
PeterN

On 2014-12-20 02:38:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:38:41 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

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
(Â…and my Mk I eyeballs) that they will do quite well for anybody using
one for photo editing.

I will bear your comments in mind, but I don't expect to want to buy a
new screen (or screens) while my matched pair of calibrated Dell U2410
screens continue to function. But even then, I will cautious.

It is always your decision, but since you already have your matched
pair of Dells there is nothing stopping you from using them with an
iMac or a Mac Pro.

Taking a slightly different tack on this discussion, The most highly
regarded screens for professional photo editing are Eizo and (to a
lesser extent) NEC. There are probably others as well. These are all
matte screens.

As I have said, I once had a matte screen some years ago on my G4
PowerBook Pro 17", and I have been quite comfortable in the world of
the glossy screens on the Intel Macs.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-12-20 02:43:37 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/19/2014 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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?

Right now, 1 drive for the system & programs; 1 used solely as a
scratch drive; 1 for data other than photos; 1 external for photos;
plus 2 external back up drives.
I would like to replace my external photo drive with a 4 TB internal
drive, and use the current external drive for archiving old files, that
I still refer to from time to time. Yes I know I can hang more
externals, and add network drives.

So, where is the problem?
....and you might have noticed, that has nothing to do with the
Retina/glossy display question.

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.

Low blow. ;-)
As I said in many other posts, I am oblivious to that type of noise.

Then perhaps a Retina display is not for you, as that noise will be all
too obvious, and you might want to finally do something about it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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?

once again, you make up stuff solely to argue.

the topic was glossy versus matte. nowhere did i even mention retina.

apple offered both glossy & matte displays starting around a decade
ago. glossy sold better than did matte, so they eventually discontinued
matte entirely. sales continue to increase.

a tiny minority still want matte but not enough to justify making both.

you're also assuming all glossy displays are the same. they are not.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Also I still do report writing,

i sure do hope you have a good proofreader because your writing in this
newsgroup is atrocious.

and the Windows
version of speeech to text software is vastly superior. (I have been
using speech to text software since Dragon Dictate version 1.

you can easily run that.