I bet it happens a lot more with self installed, cheapest RAM you can buy. Than it does for vetted, tested, factory soldered RAM. That latter which I suspect has reliability as good as it gets for the rest of the motherboard.
I bet it happens a lot more with self installed, cheapest RAM you can buy. Than it does for vetted, tested, factory soldered RAM. That latter which I suspect has reliability as good as it gets for the rest of the motherboard.
It would be whatever RAM Apple happened to be flogging at the time.
I've been an elec eng since the days of valves and one thing has been consistent throughout my time, the more devices become solid state integrated the far more reliable the technology has become, I too have suffered macPro mechanical disc failures both opt and HD and celebrate their demise as we did with floppies and cassettes, ssd especially pcb soldered pci integrated chips will be far more stable faster and reliable than any old mechanical device, that's a fact.
This new top end i7 nvidea powered iMac is easily more powerful than any single editing workstation needs with a thunderbolted on HD array heck you could even use two iMacs together, you only need to buy the interconnect leads once to last the lifetime of TB so ditch the legacy 800 sh1t and upgrade, if that's all too expensive then buy a "cheap" PC if you think you'd be saving cash. If your running an editing workstation studio then several thousand $s expenditure is really pretty cheap.
Save for top end 4k red or high frame rate slo mo real time edit rendering where a Maingear quantum shift would be more your bag, but that is in the $16 to 20K studio edit workstation realm.
Independents like myself doing photography and documentary or weddings vids indesign and the like would really be quite happy on an augmented top end iMac.
Bluray discs do offer the highest current resolution video with minimum compression for 1080HD, streaming the same 1080 download is full of compression artifacts that are viewable onscreen, their are 3 factors involved, 1- copyright limits streaming quality, 2- isp download speeds and capping are not quite high enough in many areas yet, high speed 100mhz optical fiber cables are being rolled out to solve this problem once and for all, and 3- isp TV convergence is only just getting upto speed, and 4k super high def TV standard is a whole new kettle of fish to fry for the future.
Audio quality is somewhat simpler and streaming 192k 24bit multichannel surround flack quality is mainstream now, far above 48k 16bit CDs, and you can buy full HD bluray master quality video downloads to store and playback at a premium on a DLNA HD device, You'll also need an external usb d-a conversion to appreciate the hi-fi sound quality.
All of these peripheral devices generate heat and trying to incorporate the highest quality components into an integrated computer such as the iMac would defeat its purpose,
So for me at least as a most common professional level of user I find this new Imac and the mobile retina macbkpro to offer a near perfect solution, but I also agree with what someone previously mentioned the best watching experience is to be had sitting in a comfortable chair watching a big screen with suitable speakers for the whole HDmovie experience.
I've been an elec eng since the days of valves and one thing has been consistent throughout my time, the more devices become solid state integrated the far more reliable the technology has become, I too have suffered macPro mechanical disc failures both opt and HD and celebrate their demise as we did with floppies and cassettes, ssd especially pcb soldered pci integrated chips will be far more stable faster and reliable than any old mechanical device, that's a fact.
I knew it. Simply had to be better, this whole integration of parts.
Independents like myself doing photography and documentary or weddings vids indesign and the like would really be quite happy on an augmented top end iMac.
What about the screen? I'm a photography hobbyist and never bought iMacs but PowerMacs (now Mac Pro's) with separate ACD, because there matte Are these new iMacs screens a bit less glossy, way less glossy, or totally matte nowadays?
The timescale for completing the HEVC standard is as follows:
February 2012: Committee Draft (complete draft of standard)
July 2012: Draft International Standard
January 2013: Final Draft International Standard (ready to be ratified as a Standard)
Establishing the spec is only one-third of the battle. The second part is getting content creators to USE it. The third, and this is the hurry-up-and-wait part, is to get HARDWARE support for it like we have with h.264 now.
[...] I'm a photography hobbyist and never bought iMacs but PowerMacs (now Mac Pro's) with separate ACD, because there matte Are these new iMacs screens a bit less glossy, way less glossy, or totally matte nowadays?
I despise glossy screens, but bought the glossy version of the 17' Pro anyway because the color reproduction was way way way way way way better. Not a little better, way lots holy crap night and day no comparison better. It is not only better than the matte equivalent of the same machine, it's much better than the 23" ACD I use at my day job.
It means I sometimes have to adjust the position to avoid annoying reflections and/or glare, but I figured I owed it to my clients to work with the widest color gamut I could within the confines of a portable machine.
I haven't seen the new iMacs (has anyone?), but I'd urge you to examine any new screen in person and compare all your alternatives before making a buying decision.
What about the screen? I'm a photography hobbyist and never bought iMacs but PowerMacs (now Mac Pro's) with separate ACD, because there matte Are these new iMacs screens a bit less glossy, way less glossy, or totally matte nowadays?
your concern is well founded Phil, glossy screens are a pig to work and I have stuck with a way outdated MacPro and 2 quadro driven Cinima screens for a loooong time and have never been totally happy with it spending hours with the Eye1,
.Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I despise glossy screens, but bought the glossy version of the 17' Pro anyway because the color reproduction was way way way way way way better. Not a little better, way lots holy crap night and day no comparison better. It is not only better than the matte equivalent of the same machine, it's much better than the 23" ACD I use at my day job.
I would equally dispair trying to get contrast right on a full gloss screen more so, I have always yearned for a mid house solution and technically (as neither have I actually seen a 27" yet) the retina display is the nearest to perfect ideal solution high contrast with 75% less reflection I have got to see,
The display being bonded to the front glass removes interglass reflextion artifacts completely and as seen on the Rmacbkpro is one of the best screens on the pro photographic market, if they pull it off then the 27" iMac comes with the highest resolution affordable calibrated screen on the market built in driven by one of the best new nVidea cards avaliable today, altenativly you'd pay $6-7k each to get a better lower res calibrated monitor then you'd need the Maingear to drive them.
Signal degredation through serial cabling convertion is another tech problem that is perfectly solved by haveing the main screen and processing in the same casing eliminatingf that unholy mess ofcables, so yep integrated is the best compromise in design providing the display is not compromised by the heat given off, I rather trust Apple have now learnt that lessen already.
One of the biggest benifits also comes from the fact this top end 27" iMac is now technically more powerful than my MacPro! and probably just as fast, I could by 2 of them for the same price as paid for a complete MacPro and seperate displays with a TB superdrive inc. this gives me studio quality from my home to work with the same pro apps as high street studios, and I'll be investigating a 4k Canon workflow in future. worrying times???
I despise glossy screens, but bought the glossy version of the 17' Pro anyway because the color reproduction was way way way way way way better. Not a little better, way lots holy crap night and day no comparison better. It is not only better than the matte equivalent of the same machine, it's much better than the 23" ACD I use at my day job.
It means I sometimes have to adjust the position to avoid annoying reflections and/or glare, but I figured I owed it to my clients to work with the widest color gamut I could within the confines of a portable machine.
I haven't seen the new iMacs (has anyone?), but I'd urge you to examine any new screen in person and compare all your alternatives before making a buying decision.
Thanks, good to know! Wow, option to go for matte and then choosing a 17" glossy MBP. Of course to each his own, but you tell a convincing tale here. Not in need of a new display, but I will check out these iMac screens. Will be interested, if possible putting them side-by-side, if they differ any from the 27" ATD.
[...] Wow, option to go for matte and then choosing a 17" glossy MBP.
I had no intention of buying a glossy screen, but Apple's marketing loudly trumpeted the improvement if offered so I figured it was worth taking a minute to at least give it a look before buying the matte version. I trotted off to the Apple store where I could see matte and glossy side by side.
As I mentioned earlier, I was floored. Not only were blacks much deeper, but details in shadows that were clearly visible on the glossy screen were completely absent on the matte display. Colors were much more vibrant on the glossy screen. The white point seemed much more accurate.
I still really wanted a matte display, but made a choice to sacrifice the benefits of the matte screen, which are really about convenience, for the advantages of the glossy, which improve the performance and utility of the tool. That's why I suggest you really have to see screens in real life and make comparisons. You may be surprised, like I was, to find that you're inclined to make compromises you didn't expect.
How clever of Apple with their stated reasoning and courage for removing the DVD drive, but I can't help but wonder if there was some bean counter that brought up to Tim Cook about how much cost could be cut per unit in removing the drive. Thats got to be a chunk of change. (dollars per unit made).
…I can't help but wonder if there was some bean counter that brought up to Tim Cook about how much cost could be cut per unit in removing the drive. Thats got to be a chunk of change. (dollars per unit made).
Given recent leadership shakeups, I fail to see how you can say this with a straight face.
"competitors who are "afraid" to streamline their products"
Well, not so much "afraid" as they are in fact held hostage by large enterprises who demand legacy support forever, or they'll take their billions elsewhere. Microsoft will cease all Windows XP support in 2014, by which time the system will be 13 years old... not because they're thrilled to do it but because enterprises refuse to upgrade. I've dealt with big enterprises before when I worked in e-learning... it was depressing. "So can the program be at least Flash 8 compliant? There are some crucial features we like to use that -" / "Nope, sorry. IE6, Flash Player 6." / "Huh? But those are like a thousand years old..." / "IE6, Flash Player 6, those are the latest that our IT department has tested and deployed, sorry." (The production was a training program for a DOS application that a lot of new employees had trouble using because they were too young to remember DOS...)
Apple never bothered with enterprises... and boy am I grateful.
[...] "IE6, Flash Player 6, those are the latest that our IT department has tested and deployed, sorry."
Why *IS* that? Why are corporate IT departments so reluctant to move forward? There seems to be a culture of resistance to change ingrained in that industry that is contrary to very enterprises they are there to support. There must be a reason that I, as an outsider, just can't see, right?
Why *IS* that? Why are corporate IT departments so reluctant to move forward? There seems to be a culture of resistance to change ingrained in that industry that is contrary to very enterprises they are there to support. There must be a reason that I, as an outsider, just can't see, right?
Sometimes they're held back by rigid regulations and requirements... I'm reading a thread just now about Windows 8 and there are comments by some enterprise IT dudes who are only now preparing the migration to Win7, saying stuff like "...working in the pharma sector and being regulated/validated systems which take years to replace/validate and verify are FDA & 21CFR compliant..."
I guess sometimes paranoia is a contributing factor, too. When everything's running smoothly, nobody wants to be that guy who flicked a switch and mass deployed some patch that wrecked 5000 systems and resulted in 40,000 man hours of downtime.
That is very recognizable. The ramifications are so large that a [I]'if it breaks when you bent, you better not put it in'[/I] approach is more safe than being up-to-date on the versioning numbers of software. Pathetic, I know, but hé, who in their right IT-mind is going to upgrade a perfectly fine XP box with W7/8 if there is no incentive at all for the users' requirements for the job?
Comments
Originally Posted by v5v
Less compression and different algorithms. You wind up with huge files though so I understand why they made the trade-off.
HEVC!
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I've had RAM go bad on me a few times.
I bet it happens a lot more with self installed, cheapest RAM you can buy. Than it does for vetted, tested, factory soldered RAM. That latter which I suspect has reliability as good as it gets for the rest of the motherboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
I bet it happens a lot more with self installed, cheapest RAM you can buy. Than it does for vetted, tested, factory soldered RAM. That latter which I suspect has reliability as good as it gets for the rest of the motherboard.
It would be whatever RAM Apple happened to be flogging at the time.
I've been an elec eng since the days of valves and one thing has been consistent throughout my time, the more devices become solid state integrated the far more reliable the technology has become, I too have suffered macPro mechanical disc failures both opt and HD and celebrate their demise as we did with floppies and cassettes, ssd especially pcb soldered pci integrated chips will be far more stable faster and reliable than any old mechanical device, that's a fact.
This new top end i7 nvidea powered iMac is easily more powerful than any single editing workstation needs with a thunderbolted on HD array heck you could even use two iMacs together, you only need to buy the interconnect leads once to last the lifetime of TB so ditch the legacy 800 sh1t and upgrade, if that's all too expensive then buy a "cheap" PC if you think you'd be saving cash. If your running an editing workstation studio then several thousand $s expenditure is really pretty cheap.
Save for top end 4k red or high frame rate slo mo real time edit rendering where a Maingear quantum shift would be more your bag, but that is in the $16 to 20K studio edit workstation realm.
Independents like myself doing photography and documentary or weddings vids indesign and the like would really be quite happy on an augmented top end iMac.
Bluray discs do offer the highest current resolution video with minimum compression for 1080HD, streaming the same 1080 download is full of compression artifacts that are viewable onscreen, their are 3 factors involved, 1- copyright limits streaming quality, 2- isp download speeds and capping are not quite high enough in many areas yet, high speed 100mhz optical fiber cables are being rolled out to solve this problem once and for all, and 3- isp TV convergence is only just getting upto speed, and 4k super high def TV standard is a whole new kettle of fish to fry for the future.
Audio quality is somewhat simpler and streaming 192k 24bit multichannel surround flack quality is mainstream now, far above 48k 16bit CDs, and you can buy full HD bluray master quality video downloads to store and playback at a premium on a DLNA HD device, You'll also need an external usb d-a conversion to appreciate the hi-fi sound quality.
All of these peripheral devices generate heat and trying to incorporate the highest quality components into an integrated computer such as the iMac would defeat its purpose,
So for me at least as a most common professional level of user I find this new Imac and the mobile retina macbkpro to offer a near perfect solution, but I also agree with what someone previously mentioned the best watching experience is to be had sitting in a comfortable chair watching a big screen with suitable speakers for the whole HDmovie experience.
Almost here!
Schedule
The timescale for completing the HEVC standard is as follows:
I knew it. Simply had to be better, this whole integration of parts.
What about the screen? I'm a photography hobbyist and never bought iMacs but PowerMacs (now Mac Pro's) with separate ACD, because there matte Are these new iMacs screens a bit less glossy, way less glossy, or totally matte nowadays?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Almost here!
Schedule
The timescale for completing the HEVC standard is as follows:
February 2012: Committee Draft (complete draft of standard)
July 2012: Draft International Standard
January 2013: Final Draft International Standard (ready to be ratified as a Standard)
Establishing the spec is only one-third of the battle. The second part is getting content creators to USE it. The third, and this is the hurry-up-and-wait part, is to get HARDWARE support for it like we have with h.264 now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
[...] I'm a photography hobbyist and never bought iMacs but PowerMacs (now Mac Pro's) with separate ACD, because there matte Are these new iMacs screens a bit less glossy, way less glossy, or totally matte nowadays?
I despise glossy screens, but bought the glossy version of the 17' Pro anyway because the color reproduction was way way way way way way better. Not a little better, way lots holy crap night and day no comparison better. It is not only better than the matte equivalent of the same machine, it's much better than the 23" ACD I use at my day job.
It means I sometimes have to adjust the position to avoid annoying reflections and/or glare, but I figured I owed it to my clients to work with the widest color gamut I could within the confines of a portable machine.
I haven't seen the new iMacs (has anyone?), but I'd urge you to examine any new screen in person and compare all your alternatives before making a buying decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
What about the screen? I'm a photography hobbyist and never bought iMacs but PowerMacs (now Mac Pro's) with separate ACD, because there matte Are these new iMacs screens a bit less glossy, way less glossy, or totally matte nowadays?
your concern is well founded Phil, glossy screens are a pig to work and I have stuck with a way outdated MacPro and 2 quadro driven Cinima screens for a loooong time and have never been totally happy with it spending hours with the Eye1,
.Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I despise glossy screens, but bought the glossy version of the 17' Pro anyway because the color reproduction was way way way way way way better. Not a little better, way lots holy crap night and day no comparison better. It is not only better than the matte equivalent of the same machine, it's much better than the 23" ACD I use at my day job.
I would equally dispair trying to get contrast right on a full gloss screen more so, I have always yearned for a mid house solution and technically (as neither have I actually seen a 27" yet) the retina display is the nearest to perfect ideal solution high contrast with 75% less reflection I have got to see,
The display being bonded to the front glass removes interglass reflextion artifacts completely and as seen on the Rmacbkpro is one of the best screens on the pro photographic market, if they pull it off then the 27" iMac comes with the highest resolution affordable calibrated screen on the market built in driven by one of the best new nVidea cards avaliable today, altenativly you'd pay $6-7k each to get a better lower res calibrated monitor then you'd need the Maingear to drive them.
Signal degredation through serial cabling convertion is another tech problem that is perfectly solved by haveing the main screen and processing in the same casing eliminatingf that unholy mess ofcables, so yep integrated is the best compromise in design providing the display is not compromised by the heat given off, I rather trust Apple have now learnt that lessen already.
One of the biggest benifits also comes from the fact this top end 27" iMac is now technically more powerful than my MacPro! and probably just as fast, I could by 2 of them for the same price as paid for a complete MacPro and seperate displays with a TB superdrive inc. this gives me studio quality from my home to work with the same pro apps as high street studios, and I'll be investigating a 4k Canon workflow in future. worrying times???
Thanks, good to know! Wow, option to go for matte and then choosing a 17" glossy MBP. Of course to each his own, but you tell a convincing tale here. Not in need of a new display, but I will check out these iMac screens. Will be interested, if possible putting them side-by-side, if they differ any from the 27" ATD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
[...] Wow, option to go for matte and then choosing a 17" glossy MBP.
I had no intention of buying a glossy screen, but Apple's marketing loudly trumpeted the improvement if offered so I figured it was worth taking a minute to at least give it a look before buying the matte version. I trotted off to the Apple store where I could see matte and glossy side by side.
As I mentioned earlier, I was floored. Not only were blacks much deeper, but details in shadows that were clearly visible on the glossy screen were completely absent on the matte display. Colors were much more vibrant on the glossy screen. The white point seemed much more accurate.
I still really wanted a matte display, but made a choice to sacrifice the benefits of the matte screen, which are really about convenience, for the advantages of the glossy, which improve the performance and utility of the tool. That's why I suggest you really have to see screens in real life and make comparisons. You may be surprised, like I was, to find that you're inclined to make compromises you didn't expect.
How clever of Apple with their stated reasoning and courage
Originally Posted by bootamac
…I can't help but wonder if there was some bean counter that brought up to Tim Cook about how much cost could be cut per unit in removing the drive. Thats got to be a chunk of change. (dollars per unit made).
Given recent leadership shakeups, I fail to see how you can say this with a straight face.
Originally Posted by TBell
Students still use their computers to do things like burn CDs, DVDs, and watch movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Been to college recently? This really isn't the case.
Actually my son does all of those things in addition to burning Blue rays. Needless to say he isn't using a Mac.
"competitors who are "afraid" to streamline their products"
Well, not so much "afraid" as they are in fact held hostage by large enterprises who demand legacy support forever, or they'll take their billions elsewhere. Microsoft will cease all Windows XP support in 2014, by which time the system will be 13 years old... not because they're thrilled to do it but because enterprises refuse to upgrade. I've dealt with big enterprises before when I worked in e-learning... it was depressing. "So can the program be at least Flash 8 compliant? There are some crucial features we like to use that -" / "Nope, sorry. IE6, Flash Player 6." / "Huh? But those are like a thousand years old..." / "IE6, Flash Player 6, those are the latest that our IT department has tested and deployed, sorry." (The production was a training program for a DOS application that a lot of new employees had trouble using because they were too young to remember DOS...)
Apple never bothered with enterprises... and boy am I grateful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anuba
[...] "IE6, Flash Player 6, those are the latest that our IT department has tested and deployed, sorry."
Why *IS* that? Why are corporate IT departments so reluctant to move forward? There seems to be a culture of resistance to change ingrained in that industry that is contrary to very enterprises they are there to support. There must be a reason that I, as an outsider, just can't see, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Why *IS* that? Why are corporate IT departments so reluctant to move forward? There seems to be a culture of resistance to change ingrained in that industry that is contrary to very enterprises they are there to support. There must be a reason that I, as an outsider, just can't see, right?
Sometimes they're held back by rigid regulations and requirements... I'm reading a thread just now about Windows 8 and there are comments by some enterprise IT dudes who are only now preparing the migration to Win7, saying stuff like "...working in the pharma sector and being regulated/validated systems which take years to replace/validate and verify are FDA & 21CFR compliant..."
I guess sometimes paranoia is a contributing factor, too. When everything's running smoothly, nobody wants to be that guy who flicked a switch and mass deployed some patch that wrecked 5000 systems and resulted in 40,000 man hours of downtime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylersdad
Sure, why put a spinning disc in a computer when we can charge you more for an external one?
"Why go for a walk in the park, when you can just pop a pill?"