Now can you just show us what this set up looks like, with the cloth draped over the iMac, which is pushed back somewhere, but not too far because you still have to reach the ports and the DVD slot, but neither bump into the 24" CRT that is sharing the desk...
The dongle costs $35 here and I'll just pretend that the 24" screen didn't cost me anything.
Anyway I should pay for a MacBook Pro, cover the screen on that with a cloth, etc, etc...
You know you are right I just didn't look at this the right way!
1) The MBP can dim completely. Just turn it off. The iMac can't or you could just turn off it's screen and set it up in a normal two monitor config.
2) It looks like a 24" CRT with an iMac next to it sideways.
Imagine your CRT next to the iMac. Is it optimal? No. But possible if you're that anal in your belief.
3) If you calibrate both iMac and CRT monitor to the same gamma and whitepoint and drop the luminance of the iMac to as low as it goes then the effect on color perception is likely to less than the effect of your room lighting and the color of your walls. Unless you work in a cave your color perception is affected anyway.
4) In any case a CRT hasn't been required since the mid 2000s anyway (call it 2003+). The best Trinitron CRT is possibly still better than the best 12-bit LCD but few had/have either and the life of a color ciritcal CRT was something on the order of two years anyway (phosphor fade, hot spots or color variations aging larger). You're pining for quality that only the shops with deep pockets had anyway ($5K+ Barcos, Sonys, etc) and they've replaced those with top end 12-bit displays today. That says a lot.
A quality monitor costs double what your iMac cost. CRT, LCD, whatever. The cost delta between the iMac and a Mac Pro is minimal in that context.
For an independent or prosumer the cost is significant...but far less than it was in 2000 anyway.
And the really great thing about the MBP is that to get at the truncated keyboard, you have to have the MBP open with the dimmed screen obscuring the bottom of your 2nd monitor.
Either that or you have it to one side and permanently twist your neck to view the 2nd monitor.
It keeps getting better.
Much easier than having a usable screen in the iMac or producing a headless mid-range Mac.
And the really great thing about the MBP is that to get at the truncated keyboard, you have to have the MBP open with the dimmed screen obscuring the bottom of your 2nd monitor.
Or you use a normal apple keyboard like any sane individual. Either wireless or connected to your ACD.
Quote:
Either that or you have it to one side and permanently twist your neck to view the 2nd monitor.
It keeps getting better.
Only if you're a dumbass. I connect my MBP to a 30" ACD by attaching 1 cable with 3 connectors: DVI, Firewire, USB. This connects me to all of my peripherals (including keyboard and mouse). Sometimes I connect a ethernet cable. Sometimes I just let it use 802.11. And I connect the power brick of course.
A docking station would be better but there's no issue with working with a MBP as your primary desktop machine. Millions do so.
The primary thing that the Mac Pro (which I also have) allows me to do is run a dual monitor setup with a 30" 2007 Ultrasharp and a 21" Cintiq. With a 30" ACD you don't need a dual monitor setup. If you only had a 21" Cintiq and a MBP that works too although you do actually sometimes want to use the display in the laptop if you need the real estate since 21" is a tad small these days.
At home I have a 24" Dell UltraSharp and dock my MBP to it (again keyboard, mouse, drives, printer, etc). Try taking your iMac or Mac Pro to work and home again. Some folks can get away with just taking a little FW drive back and forth but you still end up with two desktops vs one MBP.
With the MBP my tools are always the way I want them. I need only one set of software. I can even work in the field with the understanding of the limitations of the TN panel.
Quote:
Much easier than having a usable screen in the iMac or producing a headless mid-range Mac.
The 24" screen is usable for most folks even some pro's. Good luck convincing Apple to produce an xMac.
Or you use a normal apple keyboard like any sane individual. Either wireless or connected to your ACD.
I wondered when you were going to suggest this.
Quote:
I connect my MBP to a 30" ACD by attaching 1 cable with 3 connectors: DVI, Firewire, USB. This connects me to all of my peripherals (including keyboard and mouse). Sometimes I connect a ethernet cable. Sometimes I just let it use 802.11. And I connect the power brick of course.
Should we do an inventory of all the extras you have had to buy, connect and stack on your desk, just to make this cumbersome set-up work.
Now how did we get to this? Yes now I remember, Apple changed the model that had become a staple in most studios, so that it became useless for one of its central tasks ie editing photos in PhotoShop.
A model whose raison d'etre was that it was a clean All-In-One computer.
PS If you want to carry your desktop and work around just install it onto a bootable FW drive. Cheap, compact and disposable.
the iMac should get eBay'd and a Mac Pro or Mac Book Pro purchased instead.
Note the "pro" moniker on the end? I can turn off my MBP display by dimming it to zero. I can also run a 30" ACD. Neither of which I can do on a (consumer) iMac.
Yeah the MBP is a good option but it's still a workaround for Apple's desktop shortcomings.
Take a refurb MBP:
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB Ram
8600M GT
160GB HD
£939
Take off the 15" display subtract £100, take off the battery £40. There you have close to the ideal computer to attach to a good display for £799.
Now that's a retail laptop that still makes a profit so Apple could easily design a desktop at that price for this purpose with desktop parts for around £699-799.
Mac Mini, Mac Pro and Mac Semi-Pro:
Come to think of it, that idea's not far off the one that someone thought up with having the computer under the keyboard. Without a battery and using an extended keyboard instead of a laptop keyboard, it surely wouldn't be all that much bigger than a standard keyboard - maybe take out the optical drive too. Easy access to ports, easy to repair as you just flip the keyboard up (it would have to be so you could replace the keyboard part easily for broken keys). One dvi output and a magsafe input - finished model could have display-port and just a Mini power adaptor or something.
You mean because it's the obvious thing that most folks do as opposed to your rather bizzare scenario?
Quote:
Should we do an inventory of all the extras you have had to buy, connect and stack on your desk, just to make this cumbersome set-up work.
You mean like a keyboard, mouse and monitor? That's it. It's hardly cumbersome except for the connecting the wires and such...which is why either a docking station or port extender would be nice. But I mentioned that already.
Quote:
Now how did we get to this? Yes now I remember, Apple changed the model that had become a staple in most studios, so that it became useless for one of its central tasks ie editing photos in PhotoShop.
Today, if all you need is Photoshop then even a mini or MacBook is suitable given that Photoshop is memory bound.
Even before, the PowerMac or Mac Pro was superior to the iMac (and everything else) because you could feed the memory hungy Photoshop more memory.
The 24" iMac ALU isn't much/any worse than previous iMacs unless you get a bum display. Apple is selling more machines whether QC is or isn't slipping the absolute number of bad displays will go up.
The 20" now sucks but if you actually went to the DPReview Mac forum you'd find pros that use the iMac 24".
Quote:
A model whose raison d'etre was that it was a clean All-In-One computer.
PS If you want to carry your desktop and work around just install it onto a bootable FW drive. Cheap, compact and disposable.
Yes, I mentioned that already. Of course, you have to have two iMacs.
You mean like a keyboard, mouse and monitor? That's it. It's hardly cumbersome except for the connecting the wires and such...which is why either a docking station or port extender would be nice. But I mentioned that already.
Having mentioned the additional keyboard, mouse, monitor, connecting wires, docking station, port extender etc makes them not really count.
Interesting!
Anything you haven't mentioned, so we should be concerned that they might actually count?
Having mentioned the additional keyboard, mouse, monitor, connecting wires, docking station, port extender etc makes them not really count.
Interesting!
Anything you haven't mentioned, so we should be concerned that they might actually count?
Given that Apple doesn't make a docking station and port extender you can hardly count them. The wires are part of the keyboard, mouse and monitor. Do you wish to count every screw? Because several of yours appear loose.
Given that Apple doesn't make a docking station and port extender you can hardly count them. The wires are part of the keyboard, mouse and monitor. Do you wish to count every screw? Because several of yours appear loose.
You just don't get it do you.
You have dismissed the extra cost, the stupid clutter and complexity as you patch a patch on a patch on another patch. To turn the supposed simplicity and neatness of a Mac into the same schemozzle you would have on a PC.
All because Apple has produced a model which suffers from uneven lighting, uneven color and reflections on the glass.
And none of the patches count if they aren't made by Apple! They weren't supposed to be necessary in the first place, it was supposed to be an All-In-One! You've already paid handsomely for a computer, monitor, keyboard and mouse, why pay all over again to try to make it work? Especially if it is in the stupidest, most uncomfortable way possible.
Isn't the iMac 24" free from the display problems of the iMac 20"? In any case, I think there was a class action lawsuit against Apple for the poor display in the iMac 20". (http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/03/....display.suit/). I think you should join that case against Apple if you feel strongly about it. Nothing prevents Apple from using a decent display and charging an extra 100USD. Apple iMacs aren't exactly competing with Dells.
Isn't the iMac 24" free from the display problems of the iMac 20"?
No. I have a latest model iMac 24" 2.8Ghz. If you put up an even dark colored background on the screen you can see 2 lighting "candles" at the bottom 3rds marks. The overall screen looks like it is darker at the top and graduates to lighter at the bottom with a brighter corner up to the right.
Oh and you can shave yourself in the reflections when the subject matter is dark or you are in a 'modern' Apple interface like Aperture.
I wish it was better but I'm not complaining because I bought it with my eyes wide open. I will not do color critical Photoshop work on it.
Otherwise it is extremely fast, and I was forced to update because my lovely iMac G5 17" got screwed when I "upgraded" to Leopard.
Quote:
Nothing prevents Apple from using a decent display and charging an extra 100USD. Apple iMacs aren't exactly competing with Dells.
Except Apple hasn't cared about the designer market in ages. There is a lot more money to be made out of the uncritical consumer market. Designers are just too picky.
You have dismissed the extra cost, the stupid clutter and complexity as you patch a patch on a patch on another patch. To turn the supposed simplicity and neatness of a Mac into the same schemozzle you would have on a PC.
No, I do get it. The problem for you is that the "stupid clutter" and "complexity" is in reality fairly minimal. You can ultimately drop the total number of wires to 2: one for power and DVI for the monitor.
Wireless mouse and keyboard
802.11N to NAS/TimeCapsule/SAN
802.11N to printer
I use USB and Firewire because I want to. Not because I must.
The extra cost can be significant for some. For others, not so much because it is essentially the difference in cost for a monitor. Which if you have already invested in a good one is zero.
Quote:
All because Apple has produced a model which suffers from uneven lighting, uneven color and reflections on the glass.
And none of the patches count if they aren't made by Apple! They weren't supposed to be necessary in the first place, it was supposed to be an All-In-One! You've already paid handsomely for a computer, monitor, keyboard and mouse, why pay all over again to try to make it work? Especially if it is in the stupidest, most uncomfortable way possible.
Yes, Apple has had some QC problems on the 24".
So you should have sent the 24" back when you noticed the uniformity problem. Other folks have and some are very pleased with their 24" iMac and do FINE with photoshop.
As far as stupid and most uncomfortable you have continuously rejected any suggested any method to make it less uncomfortable and stick to braindead methods to increase the difficulty.
The MBP is an excellent desktop replacement with very minimal clutter or tradeoffs. It is what Apple expected pros and prosumers to get in a smaller footprint over the Mac Pro.
Otherwise there's NO damn reason cripple the iMac's ability to use the 30" ACD. It's not that short on space.
Can I tap into the source of all your free accessories?
Like the excellent pro grade monitor that you haven't actually got attached to anything. What was it doing before, and now that you have attached it to this excellent set-up, what are you doing with the computer it used to be attached to? Can I have it? For free (of course).
While you are at it I'd also love one of those non reflective, pro grade iMacs that can drive a 30" ACD. I checked the Apple store but they don't seem to have one.
Maybe "all" those pro users you know who can get their iMacs to color balance put you onto one? Think they'll let me in on the secret?
Damn, I hate how the Apple staff keep all the good stuff out the back.
Can I tap into the source of all your free accessories?
Like the excellent pro grade monitor that you haven't actually got attached to anything. What was it doing before, and now that you have attached it to this excellent set-up, what are you doing with the computer it used to be attached to? Can I have it? For free (of course).
It was attached to a Dell...at least for the 30" UltraSharp. The ACD came with the Pro. No, you can't have it for free because it's already been "given" away...aka "excessed". Who has it now I haven't a clue but for them it was "free".
Are you being a pain just to be a pain? There are plenty of folks that spend a little extra on a better monitor because they last longer than the PCs.
Quote:
While you are at it I'd also love one of those non reflective, pro grade iMacs that can drive a 30" ACD. I checked the Apple store but they don't seem to have one.
You suffer from a significant reading comprehension problem. My point is that all iMacs are arguably consumer grade only. Even the H-IPS 24" iMac.
Quote:
Maybe "all" those pro users you know who can get their iMacs to color balance put you onto one? Think they'll let me in on the secret?
Sure.
Step 1: If you have a color gradient issue call AppleCare and complain. They should/might send you a box to ship your bad machine back for a swap. This might be limited withing the first 14 days but I think some have gotten it after.
Step 2: Calibrate as usual
Or you can continue to whine about your 24" because you didn't bother to try to get the defective display replaced as Apple ought to do for all defective gear in warranty. If they tell you to pound sand then you have a legit gripe although you SHOULD have done it when you first got it.
The LM240WU2-SLB1 isn't a bad panel spec wise. It's not like Apple went out of their way to pick a sucky panel...the thing is still a H-IPS/S-IPS panel. QC appears to be the issue where quite a few bad panels have been found in iMacs coupled with uneven backlighting in others (or at the same time for a truly suck experience).
In any case, a MBP with a good quality screen is the choice of many pros at the moment. And yeah...you get to reuse that screen if you want in a couple years if you want.
We start with the OP who is having trouble color balancing their iMac, which is perfectly understandable given the current Apple manufacture.
The failings of the current models* you foist back on the user. They haven't chosen their color Edsel wisely or balanced its tyres correctly, or fitted the supplementary $50 fluffy dice. Then they haven't bought a 2nd car to tow their first car. Then if they persist that there is something wrong with the car it is because they haven't returned it to the dealer often enough.
Ultimately it becomes a bait and switch to another more expensive model and accessories.
To a slower MacBook Pro with smaller keyboard, smaller & slower HardDrive, and smaller screen but costing US$800 - $1600 more. To which you must add an extra US$899 for a 23" monitor or US$1799 for your suggested 30" monitor that can not work with either the iMac or MacBook Pro. Add another US$69 for a wireless mouse, US$79 for a wireless keyboard US$25 for monitor dongle and unspecified amounts for docking stations, port extenders etc. The budget has tripled to around US$3000.
None of which really count because the OP probably has plenty of free stuff lying around idle.
Do you know the story of "The Stone Soup"? Because you certainly know the recipe.
* Keep in mind, I bought a current iMac but I am not going to misrepresent it as capable of professional color work, because it isn't.
We start with the OP who is having trouble color balancing their iMac, which is perfectly understandable given the current Apple manufacture.
No, its not. Yes, the TN panel in the 20" is not good enough for what she wants it for. However the ACD SHOULD calibrate correctly. If it doesn't then yes, the 20" iMac has a serious design flaw. It seems more likely she has a bum unit.
This generation of iMacs seem to have quite a few of those.
Quote:
The failings of the current models* you foist back on the user. They haven't chosen their color Edsel wisely or balanced its tyres correctly, or fitted the supplementary $50 fluffy dice. Then they haven't bought a 2nd car to tow their first car. Then if they persist that there is something wrong with the car it is because they haven't returned it to the dealer often enough.
If you have bad 24" panel and refuse to try to get it fixed then you are simply trying to be a martyr.
It's Apple's problem, you should make it so rather than suck it up.
Quote:
Ultimately it becomes a bait and switch to another more expensive model and accessories.
Yes, because it's called the iMac Pro. Except it isn't. The iMac is Apple's consumer line that is usable for some, but perhaps not all, pro work.
Quote:
To a slower MacBook Pro with smaller keyboard, smaller & slower HardDrive, and smaller screen but costing US$800 - $1600 more. To which you must add an extra US$899 for a 23" monitor or US$1799 for your suggested 30" monitor that can not work with either the iMac or MacBook Pro.
The 30" ACD works great with my MBP. Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. And yes, it doesn't work with the iMac. Which indicates that Apple doesn't consider it a pro grade machine (hint hint).
Quote:
Add another US$69 for a wireless mouse, US$79 for a wireless keyboard US$25 for monitor dongle and unspecified amounts for docking stations, port extenders etc. The budget has tripled to around US$3000.
You do not need a monitor dongle. And if you did, the MBP comes with one included. There are no docking stations or port extenders. Total cost will hit 3K+ because the ACDs are priced pretty high. On the other hand you probably get to use the ACD across a couple computer purchases. Next replacement cycle you don't NEED to get a new 23" or 30" ACD.
The budget has increased 65% from $1799 for a 24" iMac to $1999 (15" MBP) + $899 (23" ACD) + $100 (wireless keyboard and mouse) = $2998. That's not triple.
On the plus side, you gain mobility and a display you can reuse. The NEC xx90 series would probably be what I'd get were I a pro photographer. However, both the 24 and 26 will set you back some $$$. Otherwise I'd look at the Planars and Ezios.
The ACDs really aren't good buys given they could use a refresh.
Quote:
None of which really count because the OP probably has plenty of free stuff lying around idle.
If she came from the PC world then unless she sold her kit she likely has a monitor around. If it was pro quality she can get an el cheap TN panel so that PC can still be used while she uses her original monitor for photo work.
She didn't buy a new printer either.
Quote:
Do you know the story of "The Stone Soup"? Because you certainly know the recipe.
* Keep in mind, I bought a current iMac but I am not going to misrepresent it as capable of professional color work, because it isn't.
Keep in mind that quite a few current 24" Alu iMacs have bad panels or backlights and if you had a properly working one it would be capable of professional color work because others have used it for that.
But hey, whining is easier isn't it? Want to warn her that the current iMacs have QC problems and you should skip this generation? I'd agree. It's not worth the hassle. Get a MBP + ACD because time is money. Futzing around getting the iMac swapped till you get a good panel is simply losing $$$ although many folks do get good units.
Want to whine that Apple is deliberately screwing designers with their iMac design and I'm going to disagree. The 20" is clearly a consumer grade machine with a TN panel. The 24" is what pro's should get. If it worked every time out of the box anyway.
One thing to keep in mind with a calibrated 24" iMac display is that when using it for post processing, the left side, the one brighter than the rest of the display, will be covered with palettes. That leaves the rest of the screen, which is evenly lit, to do the actual editing.
There are just way too many pro photographers, and graphics pros, that are loving the 24" iMac, for it to be the flop that some claim it is. The first thing to do is to set it up properly with regard to room lighting. That is, no windows facing the display, and no room lights aimed at it. That cuts down on the glare, and soon the user won't even notice it.
The 30" ACD works great with my MBP. Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. And yes, it doesn't work with the iMac. Which indicates that Apple doesn't consider it a pro grade machine (hint hint).
That's the real problem though. It seems obvious that Apple deliberately make their consumer-end computers consumer-grade quality. Other manufacturers allow you to upgrade consumer-level machines with professional quality parts even if it's just BTO.
Maybe you are into music and want a professional quality sound card and other kinds of pro level audio components. But for music processing, you don't need that high end a machine. Apple don't allow for this type of buyer.
If you are a gamer or a motion graphics artist, you may not need good audio equipment or quad/octo processors but you'd probably like the best GPU you can get.
It's like when you go to events and they have 3 sizes of t-shirt - small, medium and large. It usually turns out that people are so varied that although most people can get them to fit, they aren't comfortable and there's always a number of people who they don't fit at all.
Other companies have the equivalent of plastic-wrap. It looks like crap next to a t-shirt, but every single person can wrap it around themselves so it fits perfectly.
What we need is something in the middle. Something that's not too flexible that it affects the quality and design but is flexible enough that it gives people some freedom to have the machine do what they need. The best way I see for Apple to do this is offer a mid-range tower with predefined, quality-assured options.
If it's well-designed then it sets it apart from the rest, if it's flexible then that is already better than a Mini and iMac. But another product is necessary.
You use the classic spurious arguments of posters here of comparing the benefits of one set-up with the prices of quite another and then throwing in "the probability" of free equipment, which is not necessarily probable at all but should be costed anyway, even if previously paid for. To top it off you casually throw in even more uncosted equipment, such as "cheapie" replacement monitors for the PC.
Firstly the OP has a US$1199 20" iMac (going on present prices), which you turn into a US$1799 24" to make your figures sound more plausible.
Then you go on to promote the benefits of the US$1999 to $2799 MBP* set-up, whilst costing a 24" iMac. You dismiss the cost of all the extras you yourself said were the solutions for the problems raised by your proposed set-up.
In this 3 pea shuffle you have slipped the budget up your sleeve and hoped that nobody would notice.
You make unsubstantiated claims about the 24" that "it's called the iMac Pro" (Really? Where?) and that it is perfectly capable of pro color work "because others have used it for that".
In all the forums I have been in the argument for and against the new iMacs has always broken down to the amateurs who reckon it is good enough and the ever more exasperated pros who say no it isn't.
Even if none of the lighting and color problems didn't exist, and I have seen an enormous number of units before I committed and bought with my eyes wide open, the persistent reflections rule them out.
You claimed a 30" Apple monitor would fix that, ignoring the considerable expense and that Apple quite clearly says it requires a dual graphics card to run (no "hint, hint" about it), none of which exist or can be installed in either the MBP nor the iMac. Your claims to the contrary I find extremely puzzling, despite your constant exaggerations and twisting of facts.
I am very happy with my iMac 24" and bought it for its much improved price and speed, despite its unsuitability for pro color work. I'm not "whining" about that at all.
However I do wish Apple wouldn't try to screw up its designer market, because they can make more money out of the less picky consumers, and instead offered a non reflective solution in the price range that designers can afford. But they have always been manipulative and controlled their mostly captive market.
I also wish that posters like yourself wouldn't try to constantly fudge the facts to fit the conclusion, but I guess that isn't about to happen either.
* The $1999 15" MBP has a NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with only 256 MB.
One thing to keep in mind with a calibrated 24" iMac display is that when using it for post processing, the left side, the one brighter than the rest of the display, will be covered with palettes. That leaves the rest of the screen, which is evenly lit, to do the actual editing.
There are just way too many pro photographers, and graphics pros, that are loving the 24" iMac, for it to be the flop that some claim it is. The first thing to do is to set it up properly with regard to room lighting. That is, no windows facing the display, and no room lights aimed at it. That cuts down on the glare, and soon the user won't even notice it.
I suppose gaffer tape over the left side helps as well. What is it with this ignore the problems they'll go away?
Do you move pallettes over every reflection from every light source? I suppose you ignore the personal reflections that the monitor causes when it illuminates you, after you have eliminated all other light sources. Or have you taken to wearing a black hajib or burka?
I'm one of those professionals who has committed to a new iMac but I am not using it for color critical work, that is just your unsubstantiated conclusion based on wishful thinking.
I have to laugh that you have a wide area of the left side cluttered with pallettes, which Adobe has gone to considerable trouble to make zip away, just to cover up the defects of the iMac deliberately introduced by Apple to try and force you into buying a more expensive and less appropriate model, that you can't afford.
Comments
Now can you just show us what this set up looks like, with the cloth draped over the iMac, which is pushed back somewhere, but not too far because you still have to reach the ports and the DVD slot, but neither bump into the 24" CRT that is sharing the desk...
The dongle costs $35 here and I'll just pretend that the 24" screen didn't cost me anything.
Anyway I should pay for a MacBook Pro, cover the screen on that with a cloth, etc, etc...
You know you are right I just didn't look at this the right way!
1) The MBP can dim completely. Just turn it off. The iMac can't or you could just turn off it's screen and set it up in a normal two monitor config.
2) It looks like a 24" CRT with an iMac next to it sideways.
Go here: http://www.apple.com/imac/design/
Imagine your CRT next to the iMac. Is it optimal? No. But possible if you're that anal in your belief.
3) If you calibrate both iMac and CRT monitor to the same gamma and whitepoint and drop the luminance of the iMac to as low as it goes then the effect on color perception is likely to less than the effect of your room lighting and the color of your walls. Unless you work in a cave your color perception is affected anyway.
4) In any case a CRT hasn't been required since the mid 2000s anyway (call it 2003+). The best Trinitron CRT is possibly still better than the best 12-bit LCD but few had/have either and the life of a color ciritcal CRT was something on the order of two years anyway (phosphor fade, hot spots or color variations aging larger). You're pining for quality that only the shops with deep pockets had anyway ($5K+ Barcos, Sonys, etc) and they've replaced those with top end 12-bit displays today. That says a lot.
A quality monitor costs double what your iMac cost. CRT, LCD, whatever. The cost delta between the iMac and a Mac Pro is minimal in that context.
For an independent or prosumer the cost is significant...but far less than it was in 2000 anyway.
Either that or you have it to one side and permanently twist your neck to view the 2nd monitor.
It keeps getting better.
Much easier than having a usable screen in the iMac or producing a headless mid-range Mac.
And the really great thing about the MBP is that to get at the truncated keyboard, you have to have the MBP open with the dimmed screen obscuring the bottom of your 2nd monitor.
Or you use a normal apple keyboard like any sane individual. Either wireless or connected to your ACD.
Either that or you have it to one side and permanently twist your neck to view the 2nd monitor.
It keeps getting better.
Only if you're a dumbass. I connect my MBP to a 30" ACD by attaching 1 cable with 3 connectors: DVI, Firewire, USB. This connects me to all of my peripherals (including keyboard and mouse). Sometimes I connect a ethernet cable. Sometimes I just let it use 802.11. And I connect the power brick of course.
A docking station would be better but there's no issue with working with a MBP as your primary desktop machine. Millions do so.
The primary thing that the Mac Pro (which I also have) allows me to do is run a dual monitor setup with a 30" 2007 Ultrasharp and a 21" Cintiq. With a 30" ACD you don't need a dual monitor setup. If you only had a 21" Cintiq and a MBP that works too although you do actually sometimes want to use the display in the laptop if you need the real estate since 21" is a tad small these days.
At home I have a 24" Dell UltraSharp and dock my MBP to it (again keyboard, mouse, drives, printer, etc). Try taking your iMac or Mac Pro to work and home again. Some folks can get away with just taking a little FW drive back and forth but you still end up with two desktops vs one MBP.
With the MBP my tools are always the way I want them. I need only one set of software. I can even work in the field with the understanding of the limitations of the TN panel.
Much easier than having a usable screen in the iMac or producing a headless mid-range Mac.
The 24" screen is usable for most folks even some pro's. Good luck convincing Apple to produce an xMac.
Or you use a normal apple keyboard like any sane individual. Either wireless or connected to your ACD.
I wondered when you were going to suggest this.
I connect my MBP to a 30" ACD by attaching 1 cable with 3 connectors: DVI, Firewire, USB. This connects me to all of my peripherals (including keyboard and mouse). Sometimes I connect a ethernet cable. Sometimes I just let it use 802.11. And I connect the power brick of course.
Should we do an inventory of all the extras you have had to buy, connect and stack on your desk, just to make this cumbersome set-up work.
Now how did we get to this? Yes now I remember, Apple changed the model that had become a staple in most studios, so that it became useless for one of its central tasks ie editing photos in PhotoShop.
A model whose raison d'etre was that it was a clean All-In-One computer.
PS If you want to carry your desktop and work around just install it onto a bootable FW drive. Cheap, compact and disposable.
the iMac should get eBay'd and a Mac Pro or Mac Book Pro purchased instead.
Note the "pro" moniker on the end? I can turn off my MBP display by dimming it to zero. I can also run a 30" ACD. Neither of which I can do on a (consumer) iMac.
Yeah the MBP is a good option but it's still a workaround for Apple's desktop shortcomings.
Take a refurb MBP:
2.2GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB Ram
8600M GT
160GB HD
£939
Take off the 15" display subtract £100, take off the battery £40. There you have close to the ideal computer to attach to a good display for £799.
Now that's a retail laptop that still makes a profit so Apple could easily design a desktop at that price for this purpose with desktop parts for around £699-799.
Mac Mini, Mac Pro and Mac Semi-Pro:
Come to think of it, that idea's not far off the one that someone thought up with having the computer under the keyboard. Without a battery and using an extended keyboard instead of a laptop keyboard, it surely wouldn't be all that much bigger than a standard keyboard - maybe take out the optical drive too. Easy access to ports, easy to repair as you just flip the keyboard up (it would have to be so you could replace the keyboard part easily for broken keys). One dvi output and a magsafe input - finished model could have display-port and just a Mini power adaptor or something.
I wondered when you were going to suggest this.
You mean because it's the obvious thing that most folks do as opposed to your rather bizzare scenario?
Should we do an inventory of all the extras you have had to buy, connect and stack on your desk, just to make this cumbersome set-up work.
You mean like a keyboard, mouse and monitor? That's it. It's hardly cumbersome except for the connecting the wires and such...which is why either a docking station or port extender would be nice. But I mentioned that already.
Now how did we get to this? Yes now I remember, Apple changed the model that had become a staple in most studios, so that it became useless for one of its central tasks ie editing photos in PhotoShop.
Today, if all you need is Photoshop then even a mini or MacBook is suitable given that Photoshop is memory bound.
Even before, the PowerMac or Mac Pro was superior to the iMac (and everything else) because you could feed the memory hungy Photoshop more memory.
The 24" iMac ALU isn't much/any worse than previous iMacs unless you get a bum display. Apple is selling more machines whether QC is or isn't slipping the absolute number of bad displays will go up.
The 20" now sucks but if you actually went to the DPReview Mac forum you'd find pros that use the iMac 24".
A model whose raison d'etre was that it was a clean All-In-One computer.
PS If you want to carry your desktop and work around just install it onto a bootable FW drive. Cheap, compact and disposable.
Yes, I mentioned that already. Of course, you have to have two iMacs.
You mean like a keyboard, mouse and monitor? That's it. It's hardly cumbersome except for the connecting the wires and such...which is why either a docking station or port extender would be nice. But I mentioned that already.
Having mentioned the additional keyboard, mouse, monitor, connecting wires, docking station, port extender etc makes them not really count.
Interesting!
Anything you haven't mentioned, so we should be concerned that they might actually count?
Having mentioned the additional keyboard, mouse, monitor, connecting wires, docking station, port extender etc makes them not really count.
Interesting!
Anything you haven't mentioned, so we should be concerned that they might actually count?
Given that Apple doesn't make a docking station and port extender you can hardly count them. The wires are part of the keyboard, mouse and monitor. Do you wish to count every screw? Because several of yours appear loose.
Given that Apple doesn't make a docking station and port extender you can hardly count them. The wires are part of the keyboard, mouse and monitor. Do you wish to count every screw? Because several of yours appear loose.
You just don't get it do you.
You have dismissed the extra cost, the stupid clutter and complexity as you patch a patch on a patch on another patch. To turn the supposed simplicity and neatness of a Mac into the same schemozzle you would have on a PC.
All because Apple has produced a model which suffers from uneven lighting, uneven color and reflections on the glass.
And none of the patches count if they aren't made by Apple! They weren't supposed to be necessary in the first place, it was supposed to be an All-In-One! You've already paid handsomely for a computer, monitor, keyboard and mouse, why pay all over again to try to make it work? Especially if it is in the stupidest, most uncomfortable way possible.
Isn't the iMac 24" free from the display problems of the iMac 20"?
No. I have a latest model iMac 24" 2.8Ghz. If you put up an even dark colored background on the screen you can see 2 lighting "candles" at the bottom 3rds marks. The overall screen looks like it is darker at the top and graduates to lighter at the bottom with a brighter corner up to the right.
Oh and you can shave yourself in the reflections when the subject matter is dark or you are in a 'modern' Apple interface like Aperture.
I wish it was better but I'm not complaining because I bought it with my eyes wide open. I will not do color critical Photoshop work on it.
Otherwise it is extremely fast, and I was forced to update because my lovely iMac G5 17" got screwed when I "upgraded" to Leopard.
Nothing prevents Apple from using a decent display and charging an extra 100USD. Apple iMacs aren't exactly competing with Dells.
Except Apple hasn't cared about the designer market in ages. There is a lot more money to be made out of the uncritical consumer market. Designers are just too picky.
You just don't get it do you.
You have dismissed the extra cost, the stupid clutter and complexity as you patch a patch on a patch on another patch. To turn the supposed simplicity and neatness of a Mac into the same schemozzle you would have on a PC.
No, I do get it. The problem for you is that the "stupid clutter" and "complexity" is in reality fairly minimal. You can ultimately drop the total number of wires to 2: one for power and DVI for the monitor.
Wireless mouse and keyboard
802.11N to NAS/TimeCapsule/SAN
802.11N to printer
I use USB and Firewire because I want to. Not because I must.
The extra cost can be significant for some. For others, not so much because it is essentially the difference in cost for a monitor. Which if you have already invested in a good one is zero.
All because Apple has produced a model which suffers from uneven lighting, uneven color and reflections on the glass.
And none of the patches count if they aren't made by Apple! They weren't supposed to be necessary in the first place, it was supposed to be an All-In-One! You've already paid handsomely for a computer, monitor, keyboard and mouse, why pay all over again to try to make it work? Especially if it is in the stupidest, most uncomfortable way possible.
Yes, Apple has had some QC problems on the 24".
So you should have sent the 24" back when you noticed the uniformity problem. Other folks have and some are very pleased with their 24" iMac and do FINE with photoshop.
As far as stupid and most uncomfortable you have continuously rejected any suggested any method to make it less uncomfortable and stick to braindead methods to increase the difficulty.
The MBP is an excellent desktop replacement with very minimal clutter or tradeoffs. It is what Apple expected pros and prosumers to get in a smaller footprint over the Mac Pro.
Otherwise there's NO damn reason cripple the iMac's ability to use the 30" ACD. It's not that short on space.
Like the excellent pro grade monitor that you haven't actually got attached to anything. What was it doing before, and now that you have attached it to this excellent set-up, what are you doing with the computer it used to be attached to? Can I have it? For free (of course).
While you are at it I'd also love one of those non reflective, pro grade iMacs that can drive a 30" ACD. I checked the Apple store but they don't seem to have one.
Maybe "all" those pro users you know who can get their iMacs to color balance put you onto one? Think they'll let me in on the secret?
Damn, I hate how the Apple staff keep all the good stuff out the back.
Can I tap into the source of all your free accessories?
Like the excellent pro grade monitor that you haven't actually got attached to anything. What was it doing before, and now that you have attached it to this excellent set-up, what are you doing with the computer it used to be attached to? Can I have it? For free (of course).
It was attached to a Dell...at least for the 30" UltraSharp. The ACD came with the Pro. No, you can't have it for free because it's already been "given" away...aka "excessed". Who has it now I haven't a clue but for them it was "free".
Are you being a pain just to be a pain? There are plenty of folks that spend a little extra on a better monitor because they last longer than the PCs.
While you are at it I'd also love one of those non reflective, pro grade iMacs that can drive a 30" ACD. I checked the Apple store but they don't seem to have one.
You suffer from a significant reading comprehension problem. My point is that all iMacs are arguably consumer grade only. Even the H-IPS 24" iMac.
Maybe "all" those pro users you know who can get their iMacs to color balance put you onto one? Think they'll let me in on the secret?
Sure.
Step 1: If you have a color gradient issue call AppleCare and complain. They should/might send you a box to ship your bad machine back for a swap. This might be limited withing the first 14 days but I think some have gotten it after.
Step 2: Calibrate as usual
Or you can continue to whine about your 24" because you didn't bother to try to get the defective display replaced as Apple ought to do for all defective gear in warranty. If they tell you to pound sand then you have a legit gripe although you SHOULD have done it when you first got it.
The LM240WU2-SLB1 isn't a bad panel spec wise. It's not like Apple went out of their way to pick a sucky panel...the thing is still a H-IPS/S-IPS panel. QC appears to be the issue where quite a few bad panels have been found in iMacs coupled with uneven backlighting in others (or at the same time for a truly suck experience).
In any case, a MBP with a good quality screen is the choice of many pros at the moment. And yeah...you get to reuse that screen if you want in a couple years if you want.
The failings of the current models* you foist back on the user. They haven't chosen their color Edsel wisely or balanced its tyres correctly, or fitted the supplementary $50 fluffy dice. Then they haven't bought a 2nd car to tow their first car. Then if they persist that there is something wrong with the car it is because they haven't returned it to the dealer often enough.
Ultimately it becomes a bait and switch to another more expensive model and accessories.
To a slower MacBook Pro with smaller keyboard, smaller & slower HardDrive, and smaller screen but costing US$800 - $1600 more. To which you must add an extra US$899 for a 23" monitor or US$1799 for your suggested 30" monitor that can not work with either the iMac or MacBook Pro. Add another US$69 for a wireless mouse, US$79 for a wireless keyboard US$25 for monitor dongle and unspecified amounts for docking stations, port extenders etc. The budget has tripled to around US$3000.
None of which really count because the OP probably has plenty of free stuff lying around idle.
Do you know the story of "The Stone Soup"? Because you certainly know the recipe.
* Keep in mind, I bought a current iMac but I am not going to misrepresent it as capable of professional color work, because it isn't.
We start with the OP who is having trouble color balancing their iMac, which is perfectly understandable given the current Apple manufacture.
No, its not. Yes, the TN panel in the 20" is not good enough for what she wants it for. However the ACD SHOULD calibrate correctly. If it doesn't then yes, the 20" iMac has a serious design flaw. It seems more likely she has a bum unit.
This generation of iMacs seem to have quite a few of those.
The failings of the current models* you foist back on the user. They haven't chosen their color Edsel wisely or balanced its tyres correctly, or fitted the supplementary $50 fluffy dice. Then they haven't bought a 2nd car to tow their first car. Then if they persist that there is something wrong with the car it is because they haven't returned it to the dealer often enough.
If you have bad 24" panel and refuse to try to get it fixed then you are simply trying to be a martyr.
It's Apple's problem, you should make it so rather than suck it up.
Ultimately it becomes a bait and switch to another more expensive model and accessories.
Yes, because it's called the iMac Pro. Except it isn't. The iMac is Apple's consumer line that is usable for some, but perhaps not all, pro work.
To a slower MacBook Pro with smaller keyboard, smaller & slower HardDrive, and smaller screen but costing US$800 - $1600 more. To which you must add an extra US$899 for a 23" monitor or US$1799 for your suggested 30" monitor that can not work with either the iMac or MacBook Pro.
The 30" ACD works great with my MBP. Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. And yes, it doesn't work with the iMac. Which indicates that Apple doesn't consider it a pro grade machine (hint hint).
Add another US$69 for a wireless mouse, US$79 for a wireless keyboard US$25 for monitor dongle and unspecified amounts for docking stations, port extenders etc. The budget has tripled to around US$3000.
You do not need a monitor dongle. And if you did, the MBP comes with one included. There are no docking stations or port extenders. Total cost will hit 3K+ because the ACDs are priced pretty high. On the other hand you probably get to use the ACD across a couple computer purchases. Next replacement cycle you don't NEED to get a new 23" or 30" ACD.
The budget has increased 65% from $1799 for a 24" iMac to $1999 (15" MBP) + $899 (23" ACD) + $100 (wireless keyboard and mouse) = $2998. That's not triple.
On the plus side, you gain mobility and a display you can reuse. The NEC xx90 series would probably be what I'd get were I a pro photographer. However, both the 24 and 26 will set you back some $$$. Otherwise I'd look at the Planars and Ezios.
The ACDs really aren't good buys given they could use a refresh.
None of which really count because the OP probably has plenty of free stuff lying around idle.
If she came from the PC world then unless she sold her kit she likely has a monitor around. If it was pro quality she can get an el cheap TN panel so that PC can still be used while she uses her original monitor for photo work.
She didn't buy a new printer either.
Do you know the story of "The Stone Soup"? Because you certainly know the recipe.
* Keep in mind, I bought a current iMac but I am not going to misrepresent it as capable of professional color work, because it isn't.
Keep in mind that quite a few current 24" Alu iMacs have bad panels or backlights and if you had a properly working one it would be capable of professional color work because others have used it for that.
But hey, whining is easier isn't it? Want to warn her that the current iMacs have QC problems and you should skip this generation? I'd agree. It's not worth the hassle. Get a MBP + ACD because time is money. Futzing around getting the iMac swapped till you get a good panel is simply losing $$$ although many folks do get good units.
Want to whine that Apple is deliberately screwing designers with their iMac design and I'm going to disagree. The 20" is clearly a consumer grade machine with a TN panel. The 24" is what pro's should get. If it worked every time out of the box anyway.
There are just way too many pro photographers, and graphics pros, that are loving the 24" iMac, for it to be the flop that some claim it is. The first thing to do is to set it up properly with regard to room lighting. That is, no windows facing the display, and no room lights aimed at it. That cuts down on the glare, and soon the user won't even notice it.
The 30" ACD works great with my MBP. Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. And yes, it doesn't work with the iMac. Which indicates that Apple doesn't consider it a pro grade machine (hint hint).
That's the real problem though. It seems obvious that Apple deliberately make their consumer-end computers consumer-grade quality. Other manufacturers allow you to upgrade consumer-level machines with professional quality parts even if it's just BTO.
Maybe you are into music and want a professional quality sound card and other kinds of pro level audio components. But for music processing, you don't need that high end a machine. Apple don't allow for this type of buyer.
If you are a gamer or a motion graphics artist, you may not need good audio equipment or quad/octo processors but you'd probably like the best GPU you can get.
It's like when you go to events and they have 3 sizes of t-shirt - small, medium and large. It usually turns out that people are so varied that although most people can get them to fit, they aren't comfortable and there's always a number of people who they don't fit at all.
Other companies have the equivalent of plastic-wrap. It looks like crap next to a t-shirt, but every single person can wrap it around themselves so it fits perfectly.
What we need is something in the middle. Something that's not too flexible that it affects the quality and design but is flexible enough that it gives people some freedom to have the machine do what they need. The best way I see for Apple to do this is offer a mid-range tower with predefined, quality-assured options.
If it's well-designed then it sets it apart from the rest, if it's flexible then that is already better than a Mini and iMac. But another product is necessary.
Firstly the OP has a US$1199 20" iMac (going on present prices), which you turn into a US$1799 24" to make your figures sound more plausible.
Then you go on to promote the benefits of the US$1999 to $2799 MBP* set-up, whilst costing a 24" iMac. You dismiss the cost of all the extras you yourself said were the solutions for the problems raised by your proposed set-up.
In this 3 pea shuffle you have slipped the budget up your sleeve and hoped that nobody would notice.
You make unsubstantiated claims about the 24" that "it's called the iMac Pro" (Really? Where?) and that it is perfectly capable of pro color work "because others have used it for that".
In all the forums I have been in the argument for and against the new iMacs has always broken down to the amateurs who reckon it is good enough and the ever more exasperated pros who say no it isn't.
Even if none of the lighting and color problems didn't exist, and I have seen an enormous number of units before I committed and bought with my eyes wide open, the persistent reflections rule them out.
You claimed a 30" Apple monitor would fix that, ignoring the considerable expense and that Apple quite clearly says it requires a dual graphics card to run (no "hint, hint" about it), none of which exist or can be installed in either the MBP nor the iMac. Your claims to the contrary I find extremely puzzling, despite your constant exaggerations and twisting of facts.
I am very happy with my iMac 24" and bought it for its much improved price and speed, despite its unsuitability for pro color work. I'm not "whining" about that at all.
However I do wish Apple wouldn't try to screw up its designer market, because they can make more money out of the less picky consumers, and instead offered a non reflective solution in the price range that designers can afford. But they have always been manipulative and controlled their mostly captive market.
I also wish that posters like yourself wouldn't try to constantly fudge the facts to fit the conclusion, but I guess that isn't about to happen either.
* The $1999 15" MBP has a NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with only 256 MB.
One thing to keep in mind with a calibrated 24" iMac display is that when using it for post processing, the left side, the one brighter than the rest of the display, will be covered with palettes. That leaves the rest of the screen, which is evenly lit, to do the actual editing.
There are just way too many pro photographers, and graphics pros, that are loving the 24" iMac, for it to be the flop that some claim it is. The first thing to do is to set it up properly with regard to room lighting. That is, no windows facing the display, and no room lights aimed at it. That cuts down on the glare, and soon the user won't even notice it.
I suppose gaffer tape over the left side helps as well. What is it with this ignore the problems they'll go away?
Do you move pallettes over every reflection from every light source? I suppose you ignore the personal reflections that the monitor causes when it illuminates you, after you have eliminated all other light sources. Or have you taken to wearing a black hajib or burka?
I'm one of those professionals who has committed to a new iMac but I am not using it for color critical work, that is just your unsubstantiated conclusion based on wishful thinking.
I have to laugh that you have a wide area of the left side cluttered with pallettes, which Adobe has gone to considerable trouble to make zip away, just to cover up the defects of the iMac deliberately introduced by Apple to try and force you into buying a more expensive and less appropriate model, that you can't afford.