Like many design professionals (btw, I am a graphic designer who specializes in typography), I have a workspace both away from and inside my home. Also, like many design professionals, performing "critical colour work" is only one aspect of my daily tasks.
It is true that I need to be able to work in a dark room with very little light, but it is also true that I need to work in a bright room with a lot of light. Basically, as a general rule, it is always good to be working in a space that resembles the space that your product will be used/consumed (that is partly why film people work in dark spaces; they are optimizing the product in the same environment in which it will most often be consumed). Because I work primarily with type – and by extension I design books – I often need to work in a bright space since books are very rarely used in the dark.
Same goes for people designing outdoor banners, posters, street signs, etc. These are all largely being viewed in the daytime, with natural sunlight, so it is imperative to work on them in a room with good natural lighting (lots of windows).
It is easy to debate the best working conditions for a designer, both in their home and office workspace, but we could as easily reach a consensus on a few points: A designer should have a large computer screen, and should work in a space with good adaptive lighting. This means they can easily view their work from many different lighting configurations, from very bright natural light to a dark room with all the blinds closed and the lights turned off.
From my experience, extensive experiments, and to the best of my knowledge, the optimal screens for consistent image quality in many different lighting configurations are matte / anti-glare screens. And for my home workspace (which has lots of windows; don't tell me to move), if I can purchase a computer for < $2000 that has a > 24" matte / anti-glare screen and works on the mac OS, I would be very satisfied for a very long time.
Doesn't sound like such a big request to me. Doesn't sound like such an offensive suggestion. No one would be forced to buy a matte / anti-glare screen. But it does seem to get people who understand very little about a designer's work to make a big fuss.
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a option!!!!!!!!!!
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
Especially not these guys
And it's very dark here:
I really don't care about that company you've shown. Any company that works that way isn't going to have the highest quality work anyway. If any of my clients coming to my company to see the way we worked, would have seen something like that, they would have left us flat. You can do basic design that way, but not critical color. Anyone who tries, is simply not understanding the situation. Any employer who insists on its people working that way doesn't understand it either, and any client who doesn't mind it, doesn't.
It just seems "cool" to the dot.com companies to work in these bright environments, even though they aren't proper. Make it "fun" for people, rather than correct.
It's true that standards have come down in a number of areas the past few years as everyone seems to think they know what they're doing. too bad that they don't.
Why is Apple such a laggard in offering basic features that windows users have had for a very long time?
SD card reader? About time. Why no other card reader? CF, sony, xd, micro sd, etc... Stop being so chinnzzy.
TV tuner? These imacs scream HD and tv replacement. Why no tuner? Windows AIO have them. Don't tell me to buy an add-on tuner.
Blueray? imac is hd. I want it. Pcs have them Even laptops have them. don't tell to buy a blueray player and plug it in. What's the point then in a AIO?
Quad core? Consumer pcs have them. Why is quad core only for the high end imac. Quad core is not a premium technology. You're flagship mac is dated with duo core.
Why is Apple such a laggard in offering basic features that windows users have had for a very long time?
SD card reader? About time. Why no other card reader? CF, sony, xd, micro sd, etc... Stop being so chinnzzy.
TV tuner? These imacs scream HD and tv replacement. Why no tuner? Windows AIO have them. Don't tell me to buy an add-on tuner.
Blueray? imac is hd. I want it. Pcs have them Even laptops have them. don't tell to buy a blueray player and plug it in. What's the point then in a AIO?
Quad core? Consumer pcs have them. Why is quad core only for the high end imac. Quad core is not a premium technology. You're flagship mac is dated with duo core.
Get with the times apple! No sale to you!
Isn't the iMac a computer? Should it attempt to become a " jack of all trades master of none"?
Why no other card reader? CF, sony, xd, micro sd, etc... Stop being so chinnzzy.
Because the others add nothing to the feature set, while decreasing economies of scale.
CF is the only one with any real advantages, and those will disappear with the next SD version (SDXC)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kung Fu Guy
TV tuner? These imacs scream HD and tv replacement. Why no tuner? Windows AIO have them. Don't tell me to buy an add-on tuner.
A PCI TV tuner fried my Power Mac 7200. I'll take a USB add-on please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kung Fu Guy
Blueray? imac is hd. I want it. Pcs have them Even laptops have them. don't tell to buy a blueray player and plug it in. What's the point then in a AIO?
We have debated this endlessly. Only a very vocal minority cares, as the sales for these iMacs will no doubt show. If you want a feature that will bog down your entire OS with DRM, go to Windows and don't look back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kung Fu Guy
Quad core? Consumer pcs have them. Why is quad core only for the high end imac. Quad core is not a premium technology. You're flagship mac is dated with duo core.
Apple doesn't add features "because PCs have them". They add features that are useful to users. Quad cores are nice, but add little right now to users who are just doing email, web surfing and low-end creative stuff. That's why its a higher-end feature.
Isn't the iMac a computer? Should it attempt to become a " jack of all trades master of none"?
His "I want it.? comment sums up his perspective on what should Apple offer without thinking of what is best for Apple or even considering that Apple may not be able to put i7 in the smaller iMac. The 27? doesn?t look overly cramped but who knows about the other one. I?m just glad they were able to go with more desktop-class components.
What about going from the dual core to i5? How much of a performance gain should I expect? I mean, right now, the dual core 2.66 is already good enough for me as i dont do any heavy video/graphic editing. But buying the new imac makes me wanna think a couple of years ahead, is the i5 necessary just to maintain a workable performance 3, 4 years down the line?
What about going from the dual core to i5? How much of a performance gain should I expect? I mean, right now, the dual core 2.66 is already good enough for me as i dont do any heavy video/graphic editing. But buying the new imac makes me wanna think a couple of years ahead, is the i5 necessary just to maintain a workable performance 3, 4 years down the line?
Core i5 is faster from an architecture standpoint.
I think that in 3-4 years down the road it'll be necessary to have 4+ cores and our software demands will reflect this at well.
What about going from the dual core to i5? How much of a performance gain should I expect? I mean, right now, the dual core 2.66 is already good enough for me as i dont do any heavy video/graphic editing. But buying the new imac makes me wanna think a couple of years ahead, is the i5 necessary just to maintain a workable performance 3, 4 years down the line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Core i5 is faster from an architecture standpoint.
I think that in 3-4 years down the road it'll be necessary to have 4+ cores and our software demands will reflect this at well.
I concur. It?s future-proofing your investment and even if you upgrade in a couple years the resell value will be higher because of that future proofing. I?d stick with the stock RAM. If you need more in the future, you can always get it.
that means more waiting until the quad ones come out... hopefully it is the beginning of the month and not the end...
and i had my mind set on the i7 except i can only buy them from bestbuy and not online and i7 is not available except from online, so i was wondering if there's a point to getting i5 or just go really cheap and get the dual core model, i guess there IS a point to getting the i5 then, thanks guyss!
that means more waiting until the quad ones come out... hopefully it is the beginning of the month and not the end...
and i had my mind set on the i7 except i can only buy them from bestbuy and not online and i7 is not available except from online, so i was wondering if there's a point to getting i5 or just go really cheap and get the dual core model, i guess there IS a point to getting the i5 then, thanks guyss!
I’d wait, but if you need a new PC now then you need it now.
They are better than even Core2Quads in so many ways. If you are waiting you’re sure to see performance comparisons shortly, then consider how the future of Snow Leopard and applications will enhance users will multiple cores and the newer architecture. I have no need for a desktop but I now want one because of these changes, just can’t justify it.
truee.. and the i7 loooks extra good cuz it's hyper threading, that seem to be the real bonus to me. but i guess the i5 is not bad itself, and it'll have to do
Spoke to Apple yesterday about this vague 'November' delivery time on my i7 quad order. No one could give me a reason for it, especially when all the other models are available for shipping in a few days. Well, I think it has something to do with the GPU. The C2D 27" has this as an option too. I can change the configuration of the C2D in anyway I want without altering the shipping time EXCEPT if I choose the HD 4850, then it moves to November. The Core i7 has it as standard. It's not the first time they've offered these GPU's so why should it cause such a delay I wonder?
Spoke to Apple yesterday about this vague 'November' delivery time on my i7 quad order. No one could give me a reason for it, especially when all the other models are available for shipping in a few days. Well, I think it has something to do with the GPU. The C2D 27" has this as an option too. I can change the configuration of the C2D in anyway I want without altering the shipping time EXCEPT if I choose the HD 4850, then it moves to November. The Core i7 has it as standard. It's not the first time they've offered these GPU's so why should it cause such a delay I wonder?
It?s at least the GPU as that brings all shipping dates to November across the board, but we really don?t know for sure since the i5 with the i7 option are the only ones with the Lynnfield CPUs from Apple using the LGA 1156 socket. Keeping it simple, it makes sense to assume it?s the GPU.
Spoke to Apple yesterday about this vague 'November' delivery time on my i7 quad order. No one could give me a reason for it, especially when all the other models are available for shipping in a few days. Well, I think it has something to do with the GPU. The C2D 27" has this as an option too. I can change the configuration of the C2D in anyway I want without altering the shipping time EXCEPT if I choose the HD 4850, then it moves to November. The Core i7 has it as standard. It's
not the first time they've offered these GPU's so why should it cause such a delay I wonder?
I think this happens with nearly every iMac revision, some option or another pushes delivery back a month. It's hard to say, but it's probably a different circuit board in question. The alternative is to delay the entire product line until absolutely every variation is ready to go, but I don't think that's realistic.
Upconverting DVD players are only popular because they are dirt cheap, and people buy them as regular DVD players. Whether they upconvert or not doesn't matter to most I imagine.
If Apple are really knobbling their own flagship consumer desktop PCs just to drive iTunes sales, them they are brain dead. Apple should provide the consumer with as much choice as it's reasonable to do so, and as BD is now a very successful format, it should certainly be included.
As for convenience beating quality, if that were the case, blu-ray would stand no chance against DVD. Where I live in the UK, the BD sections in stores are getting bigger and bigger. The format is clearly doing okay.
What are you talking about? On what planet is Blu Ray as successful as you imagine?
On what planet is it a bad idea for Apple to continue their insanely successful iTunes store model, instead of adding a menial disc drive which is not only already outdated and irrelevant, but is NOT sold through Apple?
Why? Other than the fact that You find it to be a good idea, provide one reason WHY Apple should go Blu Ray?
To save you time, there is no reason why, because there is only a reason for why not: the iTunes store.
Apple has products, the Apple TV and ALL Macs, that have direct access to Downloadable HD movies and TV. This. Is. The. Future. Burned disc media is long long long over. Just because it will take another 10 years before it's no longer taking shelf space, is no indication of anything. The environment developing around physical media is dictating all.... And Apple will continue to be poised to dominate said distribution, regardless of whatever glimmering temporary distractions pop up to syphon money from clueless technophiles.
Comments
In the very near future I will be spending my savings on one of those gorgeous looking 27" i5 or i7 iMacs, for use in my home recording studio...
Everything about it I like!
It is true that I need to be able to work in a dark room with very little light, but it is also true that I need to work in a bright room with a lot of light. Basically, as a general rule, it is always good to be working in a space that resembles the space that your product will be used/consumed (that is partly why film people work in dark spaces; they are optimizing the product in the same environment in which it will most often be consumed). Because I work primarily with type – and by extension I design books – I often need to work in a bright space since books are very rarely used in the dark.
Same goes for people designing outdoor banners, posters, street signs, etc. These are all largely being viewed in the daytime, with natural sunlight, so it is imperative to work on them in a room with good natural lighting (lots of windows).
It is easy to debate the best working conditions for a designer, both in their home and office workspace, but we could as easily reach a consensus on a few points: A designer should have a large computer screen, and should work in a space with good adaptive lighting. This means they can easily view their work from many different lighting configurations, from very bright natural light to a dark room with all the blinds closed and the lights turned off.
From my experience, extensive experiments, and to the best of my knowledge, the optimal screens for consistent image quality in many different lighting configurations are matte / anti-glare screens. And for my home workspace (which has lots of windows; don't tell me to move), if I can purchase a computer for < $2000 that has a > 24" matte / anti-glare screen and works on the mac OS, I would be very satisfied for a very long time.
Doesn't sound like such a big request to me. Doesn't sound like such an offensive suggestion. No one would be forced to buy a matte / anti-glare screen. But it does seem to get people who understand very little about a designer's work to make a big fuss.
Thanks for clearing that up! The problem isn't the lack of a matte option, it's the lack of a
I'll smash all my lightbulbs, put up thick curtains, and trade in my Lacie monitors for a couple of those state-of-the art sonys you've got there immediately. I can't believe I never noticed that all good design studios are dark caves, and all good graphic designers work in dark holes!
Wow, I guess that's why no graphic designers use Apple products
Especially not these guys
And it's very dark here:
I really don't care about that company you've shown. Any company that works that way isn't going to have the highest quality work anyway. If any of my clients coming to my company to see the way we worked, would have seen something like that, they would have left us flat. You can do basic design that way, but not critical color. Anyone who tries, is simply not understanding the situation. Any employer who insists on its people working that way doesn't understand it either, and any client who doesn't mind it, doesn't.
It just seems "cool" to the dot.com companies to work in these bright environments, even though they aren't proper. Make it "fun" for people, rather than correct.
It's true that standards have come down in a number of areas the past few years as everyone seems to think they know what they're doing. too bad that they don't.
We have people who argued endlessly about the lack of Blu-Ray, despite the fact that you can hook up an external drive easier than ever before.
Now we're arguing over glossy vs. matte, despite the fact that a simple third party hood will easily solve most glare problems.
Up next, how the lack of USB 3.0 means this Mac will only work for three months...
SD card reader? About time. Why no other card reader? CF, sony, xd, micro sd, etc... Stop being so chinnzzy.
TV tuner? These imacs scream HD and tv replacement. Why no tuner? Windows AIO have them. Don't tell me to buy an add-on tuner.
Blueray? imac is hd. I want it. Pcs have them Even laptops have them. don't tell to buy a blueray player and plug it in. What's the point then in a AIO?
Quad core? Consumer pcs have them. Why is quad core only for the high end imac. Quad core is not a premium technology. You're flagship mac is dated with duo core.
Get with the times apple! No sale to you!
Why is Apple such a laggard in offering basic features that windows users have had for a very long time?
SD card reader? About time. Why no other card reader? CF, sony, xd, micro sd, etc... Stop being so chinnzzy.
TV tuner? These imacs scream HD and tv replacement. Why no tuner? Windows AIO have them. Don't tell me to buy an add-on tuner.
Blueray? imac is hd. I want it. Pcs have them Even laptops have them. don't tell to buy a blueray player and plug it in. What's the point then in a AIO?
Quad core? Consumer pcs have them. Why is quad core only for the high end imac. Quad core is not a premium technology. You're flagship mac is dated with duo core.
Get with the times apple! No sale to you!
Isn't the iMac a computer? Should it attempt to become a " jack of all trades master of none"?
Why no other card reader? CF, sony, xd, micro sd, etc... Stop being so chinnzzy.
Because the others add nothing to the feature set, while decreasing economies of scale.
CF is the only one with any real advantages, and those will disappear with the next SD version (SDXC)
TV tuner? These imacs scream HD and tv replacement. Why no tuner? Windows AIO have them. Don't tell me to buy an add-on tuner.
A PCI TV tuner fried my Power Mac 7200. I'll take a USB add-on please.
Blueray? imac is hd. I want it. Pcs have them Even laptops have them. don't tell to buy a blueray player and plug it in. What's the point then in a AIO?
We have debated this endlessly. Only a very vocal minority cares, as the sales for these iMacs will no doubt show. If you want a feature that will bog down your entire OS with DRM, go to Windows and don't look back.
Quad core? Consumer pcs have them. Why is quad core only for the high end imac. Quad core is not a premium technology. You're flagship mac is dated with duo core.
Apple doesn't add features "because PCs have them". They add features that are useful to users. Quad cores are nice, but add little right now to users who are just doing email, web surfing and low-end creative stuff. That's why its a higher-end feature.
Isn't the iMac a computer? Should it attempt to become a " jack of all trades master of none"?
His "I want it.? comment sums up his perspective on what should Apple offer without thinking of what is best for Apple or even considering that Apple may not be able to put i7 in the smaller iMac. The 27? doesn?t look overly cramped but who knows about the other one. I?m just glad they were able to go with more desktop-class components.
What about going from the dual core to i5? How much of a performance gain should I expect? I mean, right now, the dual core 2.66 is already good enough for me as i dont do any heavy video/graphic editing. But buying the new imac makes me wanna think a couple of years ahead, is the i5 necessary just to maintain a workable performance 3, 4 years down the line?
Core i5 is faster from an architecture standpoint.
I think that in 3-4 years down the road it'll be necessary to have 4+ cores and our software demands will reflect this at well.
What about going from the dual core to i5? How much of a performance gain should I expect? I mean, right now, the dual core 2.66 is already good enough for me as i dont do any heavy video/graphic editing. But buying the new imac makes me wanna think a couple of years ahead, is the i5 necessary just to maintain a workable performance 3, 4 years down the line?
Core i5 is faster from an architecture standpoint.
I think that in 3-4 years down the road it'll be necessary to have 4+ cores and our software demands will reflect this at well.
I concur. It?s future-proofing your investment and even if you upgrade in a couple years the resell value will be higher because of that future proofing. I?d stick with the stock RAM. If you need more in the future, you can always get it.
and i had my mind set on the i7 except i can only buy them from bestbuy and not online and i7 is not available except from online, so i was wondering if there's a point to getting i5 or just go really cheap and get the dual core model, i guess there IS a point to getting the i5 then, thanks guyss!
that means more waiting until the quad ones come out... hopefully it is the beginning of the month and not the end...
and i had my mind set on the i7 except i can only buy them from bestbuy and not online and i7 is not available except from online, so i was wondering if there's a point to getting i5 or just go really cheap and get the dual core model, i guess there IS a point to getting the i5 then, thanks guyss!
I’d wait, but if you need a new PC now then you need it now.
Here are different iMac CPUs from Intel’s site.They are better than even Core2Quads in so many ways. If you are waiting you’re sure to see performance comparisons shortly, then consider how the future of Snow Leopard and applications will enhance users will multiple cores and the newer architecture. I have no need for a desktop but I now want one because of these changes, just can’t justify it.
Spoke to Apple yesterday about this vague 'November' delivery time on my i7 quad order. No one could give me a reason for it, especially when all the other models are available for shipping in a few days. Well, I think it has something to do with the GPU. The C2D 27" has this as an option too. I can change the configuration of the C2D in anyway I want without altering the shipping time EXCEPT if I choose the HD 4850, then it moves to November. The Core i7 has it as standard. It's not the first time they've offered these GPU's so why should it cause such a delay I wonder?
It?s at least the GPU as that brings all shipping dates to November across the board, but we really don?t know for sure since the i5 with the i7 option are the only ones with the Lynnfield CPUs from Apple using the LGA 1156 socket. Keeping it simple, it makes sense to assume it?s the GPU.
Spoke to Apple yesterday about this vague 'November' delivery time on my i7 quad order. No one could give me a reason for it, especially when all the other models are available for shipping in a few days. Well, I think it has something to do with the GPU. The C2D 27" has this as an option too. I can change the configuration of the C2D in anyway I want without altering the shipping time EXCEPT if I choose the HD 4850, then it moves to November. The Core i7 has it as standard. It's
not the first time they've offered these GPU's so why should it cause such a delay I wonder?
I think this happens with nearly every iMac revision, some option or another pushes delivery back a month. It's hard to say, but it's probably a different circuit board in question. The alternative is to delay the entire product line until absolutely every variation is ready to go, but I don't think that's realistic.
I just called Apple and they confirmed that the date is correct.
Was sure that "November" would mean end of November, but I guess not.
I hope you guys get yours soon - I can't wait to try mine out
PS. I ordered mine within 10 min. of the Apple Store coming online, after the downtime Tuesday.
Upconverting DVD players are only popular because they are dirt cheap, and people buy them as regular DVD players. Whether they upconvert or not doesn't matter to most I imagine.
If Apple are really knobbling their own flagship consumer desktop PCs just to drive iTunes sales, them they are brain dead. Apple should provide the consumer with as much choice as it's reasonable to do so, and as BD is now a very successful format, it should certainly be included.
As for convenience beating quality, if that were the case, blu-ray would stand no chance against DVD. Where I live in the UK, the BD sections in stores are getting bigger and bigger. The format is clearly doing okay.
What are you talking about? On what planet is Blu Ray as successful as you imagine?
On what planet is it a bad idea for Apple to continue their insanely successful iTunes store model, instead of adding a menial disc drive which is not only already outdated and irrelevant, but is NOT sold through Apple?
Why? Other than the fact that You find it to be a good idea, provide one reason WHY Apple should go Blu Ray?
To save you time, there is no reason why, because there is only a reason for why not: the iTunes store.
Apple has products, the Apple TV and ALL Macs, that have direct access to Downloadable HD movies and TV. This. Is. The. Future. Burned disc media is long long long over. Just because it will take another 10 years before it's no longer taking shelf space, is no indication of anything. The environment developing around physical media is dictating all.... And Apple will continue to be poised to dominate said distribution, regardless of whatever glimmering temporary distractions pop up to syphon money from clueless technophiles.