subject:"Re\: The fun it keeps on happening"

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:37:26PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
 Have you inspected /var/log/system.log afterward? I'd look
 particularly for disk errors.

That was plan A, however, it will no longer boot at all.

Fortunately, a kind list member offered me one of his Friends and Family
apple discounts. I'm also planning on replacing the 4G of apple memory
with 16G of OWC memory.  So, by the time the dust settles, I'll have 
a quad core 2.3GHz I7 mac mini, with 16GB of ram, a 1TB fusion drive,
a 27 thunderbolt monitor, apple care for the cpu, keyboard and magic
track pad for about $2100.

In contrast, circa 1985, I bought a 10 MHz 286 AT clone, with a 20MB (IIRC)
hard drive, and 1 MB of 0 waitstate memory, and black and white monitor for 
about $1700. 

It's funny how a mid range home/office computer has stayed at around 
$2,000.  

It looks like the display was 720x350 pixels, so I've got 12 times the 
resolution, before adding a second monitor. 1000 times the cpu clocks
per second, not counting instruction efficiency, and supplemental processors,
16,000 times the memory, about 50,000 times the disk space, at I don't 
know how many times the through put.

And that's not even comparing with the Osborne 1, that my father bought
for about the same amount of money a few years previously. 

It looks like 1980-1984 gas was about $1.20/gallon, 
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
So the Osborne 1 and the AT clone were about 1400 gallons of gas.
The mac mini system is about 525 gallons of gas or a bit more than
a third as much in terms of gas.  I think it was Peter Egan that would
measure the cost of cars, and parts in units of a Pizza and a pitcher 
of beer. I'm afraid I don't remember prices of those well enough from
back then to compare. 

Meanwhile, when I get the chance, probably a few weeks from now, I'll
pull the iMac apart, and swap in a different drive to test it.

Fortunately, I didn't have much of import on the internal drive, the
only thing really important was my lightroom catalog, that just last
week I had copied over to my rejuvenated laptop. The raw files are 
elsewhere, so I only lost the edits on a couple of not terribly important
sets of photos, and that's only if I don't recover the drive, so 
I pretty much dodged a bullet on that one.


-- 
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread John

I think it was about 1990 when John Dvorak (or one of the other PC 
Magazine pundits) stated that what Moore's law really meant was that the 
computer you want will always cost $2500, but that every 18 months or so 
the power of that computer is effectively doubled.


As to gasoline, IF the price of gasoline had kept pace with inflation 
(as measured by the CPI), it would currently be just under $2.50/gallon. 
Inflation hasn't kept pace with the price of gasoline.


On 9/5/2013 3:31 AM, Larry Colen wrote:

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:37:26PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:

Have you inspected /var/log/system.log afterward? I'd look
particularly for disk errors.


That was plan A, however, it will no longer boot at all.

Fortunately, a kind list member offered me one of his Friends and Family
apple discounts. I'm also planning on replacing the 4G of apple memory
with 16G of OWC memory.  So, by the time the dust settles, I'll have
a quad core 2.3GHz I7 mac mini, with 16GB of ram, a 1TB fusion drive,
a 27 thunderbolt monitor, apple care for the cpu, keyboard and magic
track pad for about $2100.

In contrast, circa 1985, I bought a 10 MHz 286 AT clone, with a 20MB (IIRC)
hard drive, and 1 MB of 0 waitstate memory, and black and white monitor for
about $1700.

It's funny how a mid range home/office computer has stayed at around
$2,000.

It looks like the display was 720x350 pixels, so I've got 12 times the
resolution, before adding a second monitor. 1000 times the cpu clocks
per second, not counting instruction efficiency, and supplemental processors,
16,000 times the memory, about 50,000 times the disk space, at I don't
know how many times the through put.

And that's not even comparing with the Osborne 1, that my father bought
for about the same amount of money a few years previously.

It looks like 1980-1984 gas was about $1.20/gallon,
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
So the Osborne 1 and the AT clone were about 1400 gallons of gas.
The mac mini system is about 525 gallons of gas or a bit more than
a third as much in terms of gas.  I think it was Peter Egan that would
measure the cost of cars, and parts in units of a Pizza and a pitcher
of beer. I'm afraid I don't remember prices of those well enough from
back then to compare.

Meanwhile, when I get the chance, probably a few weeks from now, I'll
pull the iMac apart, and swap in a different drive to test it.

Fortunately, I didn't have much of import on the internal drive, the
only thing really important was my lightroom catalog, that just last
week I had copied over to my rejuvenated laptop. The raw files are
elsewhere, so I only lost the edits on a couple of not terribly important
sets of photos, and that's only if I don't recover the drive, so
I pretty much dodged a bullet on that one.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread John Francis

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 07:03:53AM -0400, John wrote:
 I think it was about 1990 when John Dvorak (or one of the other PC
 Magazine pundits) stated that what Moore's law really meant was that
 the computer you want will always cost $2500, but that every 18
 months or so the power of that computer is effectively doubled.

That's true now.  But earlier on what it meant was that the same
amount of computing got cheaper, so it could be more widely available.

When I was an undergraduate, the university computer (an Atlas) had
to serve the needs of the whole university.

In my first job I worked on a DECSytem-10; a machine of roughly the
same power as the Atlas.  But by now this only had to serve a small
university department (perhaps a hundred or so students and others).

Later on, at DEC, I worked in the VAX group; these machines were at
a price point that meant a small workgroup (maybe ten users) could
consider buying one for their exclusive use.

A few years on I was working at Apollo computer, who made single-
user workstations.

Somewhat after that I bought myself my first home PC. This was
a 386/20, with 2MB of memory and a 20MB hard drive. I paid a
bit over the norm get a 13 VGA+ 800x600 colour display.

These machines all had roughly the same amount of compute power,
but at very different price points.  The PC was, indeed, around
the $2000 region.  My next PC setup (a Gateway DX2-66/V system)
cost around twice that, but that was because I spent close to
another $2000 on a ScanJet flatbed scanner and a laser printer;
the core computer (CPU, RAM, disk  display) was much the same.

Since that time, though, the price of each successive system has
come down, while the amount of power has continued to climb.  I'm
not sure of the exact ratio, but just a single-threaded application
on my notebook PC (a quad-core I7 system roughly comparable to a
MacBook pro) delivers an order of magnitude more computation than
a Cray-1 supercomputer. An application such as PhotoShop that can
use all the power of the PC is better than two orders of magnitude
faster than the Cray, while the amount of memory and storage has
grown even faster than that!

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread Bruce Walker

And for me, the biggest disadvantage to the Mac Mini is not being able
to support a dual display with it. I'm completely dependent now on
using my iMac with an external monitor in dual display mode.

Otherwise the mini is tremendous value.


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:50 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
 on 2013-09-05 13:24 Larry Colen wrote

 The mac-mini seems to have a couple of major advantages over the iMac or
 laptops:

 1) more ports, and a wider range of ports. USB, firewire, thunderbolt,
 video  and gigabit ethernet


 i would consider the ports more of a trade of the Mini's HDMI and FireWire
 ports for a built-in display and an extra Thunderbolt port

 a Thunderbolt port is more flexible; it can become either of the ports you
 lose — a Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter is $29; a Thunderbolt (really
 DisplayPort) to HDMI or DVI adapter is under $10 — and since the display is
 built-in, you could get both of the Mini's ports back if you want (even
 after adding other Thunderbolt devices as long as they have pass-through)

 the Mini does have separate audio in  out, though for serious audio most
 would use an external ADC/DAC



 2) When the CPU is obsolete, you don't need to throw away the monitor.


 no one throws away (er, recycles) iMacs unless they are broken (that's the
 worst case scenario)

 if the CPU is obsolete, just put it in TDM and it will act just like a
 Thunderbolt display (the CPU can idle or remain booted headless)



 3) Even the single disk minis can be upgraded to dual disk. Upgrading the
 drive on an iMac is a bit of a pain.


 upgrading to dual on a Mini is only a lesser pain; ifixit rates it
 moderate, same as the 2011 iMac, versus difficult for the current iMac
 (i would not want to mess with the 2012 iMac):

 http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+Mac+Mini+Late+2012+Dual+Hard+Drive+Kit/11713/1

 http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2429+Dual+Hard+Drive+Kit/7575/1

 (ifixit sells a dual drive kit for 2011 iMac, but has no guide)

 http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2429+Hard+Drive/7555/1

 some advantages for the iMac:

 * iMacs have discrete graphics; this is the only major performance
 difference (assuming you aren't relying on spinning disks, which are slower
 on the Mini); when the GPU matters, the iMac will be *much* faster

 * the iMacs support Target Display Mode (TDM); also, if you have a
 Thunderbolt Display attached to a 2012 iMac, you can put it into TDM and the
 main display can be used by another machine while the iMac continues to run
 on the external display



 I do expect that it is just a bad drive.


 you could try to boot from an external (or another Mac in Target Disk Mode)
 to test that theory



 I'm also hoping that I can pull the superdrive out of
 a dead macbook to repair the dead drive in the iMac.


 probably simpler to pop it into a cheap USB case



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

I'll be interested to hear how your new system works out for you.
For the last six months I've grown more and more frustrated with my Late 2006 
2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac. Which only has 2 GB memory installed which is 
part of my issue. So I have been considering three options. The first is pretty 
much the package you've assembled built around a Mac mini. The 27 iMac also 
looks attractive, at about the same price with comparable processor, memory, 
and drive options. Since it can function as an external monitor, down the road 
I could get a mini or a Mac Pro and keep the iMac as a monitor, scavenge the 
memory and drive to repurpose. My third option is to wait for the new Mac Pro 
and hope the price isn't too far out of line. An advantage I see to the iMac 
and especially the Mac Pro would be the number of T'bolt and USB ports to 
connect my unwieldy farm of external drives. At the moment I am holding off 
on a decision until the Mac Pro finally arrives. (People waiting for a new 
upgraded Mac Pro are in much the same boat as those waiting for a FF P
 entax - long periods of limbo with no credible rumors to help shape decisions 
about current and future purchase plans.)

stan

On Sep 5, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Larry Colen wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:37:26PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
 Have you inspected /var/log/system.log afterward? I'd look
 particularly for disk errors.
 
 That was plan A, however, it will no longer boot at all.
 
 Fortunately, a kind list member offered me one of his Friends and Family
 apple discounts. I'm also planning on replacing the 4G of apple memory
 with 16G of OWC memory.  So, by the time the dust settles, I'll have 
 a quad core 2.3GHz I7 mac mini, with 16GB of ram, a 1TB fusion drive,
 a 27 thunderbolt monitor, apple care for the cpu, keyboard and magic
 track pad for about $2100.
 
 In contrast, circa 1985, I bought a 10 MHz 286 AT clone, with a 20MB (IIRC)
 hard drive, and 1 MB of 0 waitstate memory, and black and white monitor for 
 about $1700. 
 
 It's funny how a mid range home/office computer has stayed at around 
 $2,000.  
 
 It looks like the display was 720x350 pixels, so I've got 12 times the 
 resolution, before adding a second monitor. 1000 times the cpu clocks
 per second, not counting instruction efficiency, and supplemental processors,
 16,000 times the memory, about 50,000 times the disk space, at I don't 
 know how many times the through put.
 
 And that's not even comparing with the Osborne 1, that my father bought
 for about the same amount of money a few years previously. 
 
 It looks like 1980-1984 gas was about $1.20/gallon, 
 http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
 So the Osborne 1 and the AT clone were about 1400 gallons of gas.
 The mac mini system is about 525 gallons of gas or a bit more than
 a third as much in terms of gas.  I think it was Peter Egan that would
 measure the cost of cars, and parts in units of a Pizza and a pitcher 
 of beer. I'm afraid I don't remember prices of those well enough from
 back then to compare. 
 
 Meanwhile, when I get the chance, probably a few weeks from now, I'll
 pull the iMac apart, and swap in a different drive to test it.
 
 Fortunately, I didn't have much of import on the internal drive, the
 only thing really important was my lightroom catalog, that just last
 week I had copied over to my rejuvenated laptop. The raw files are 
 elsewhere, so I only lost the edits on a couple of not terribly important
 sets of photos, and that's only if I don't recover the drive, so 
 I pretty much dodged a bullet on that one.
 
 
 -- 
 Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:50:18PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
on 2013-09-05 13:24 Larry Colen wrote
The mac-mini seems to have a couple of major advantages over the iMac or
laptops:

1) more ports, and a wider range of ports. USB, firewire, thunderbolt, video
and gigabit ethernet

i would consider the ports more of a trade of the Mini's HDMI and
FireWire ports for a built-in display and an extra Thunderbolt port

There are also tbolt ports on the display.

a Thunderbolt port is more flexible; it can become either of the
ports you lose — a Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter is $29; a
Thunderbolt (really DisplayPort) to HDMI or DVI adapter is under $10
— and since the display is built-in, you could get both of the
Mini's ports back if you want (even after adding other Thunderbolt
devices as long as they have pass-through)

the Mini does have separate audio in out, though for serious audio
most would use an external ADC/DAC

2) When the CPU is obsolete, you don't need to throw away the monitor.

no one throws away (er, recycles) iMacs unless they are broken
(that's the worst case scenario)

if the CPU is obsolete, just put it in TDM and it will act just like
a Thunderbolt display (the CPU can idle or remain booted headless)

How would I do this with my old iMac? It doesn't have a thunderbolt port.

It would be awesome to use it as a second display.

3) Even the single disk minis can be upgraded to dual disk. Upgrading the
drive on an iMac is a bit of a pain.

upgrading to dual on a Mini is only a lesser pain; ifixit rates it
moderate, same as the 2011 iMac, versus difficult for the
current iMac (i would not want to mess with the 2012 iMac):

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+Mac+Mini+Late+2012+Dual+Hard+Drive+Kit/11713/1

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2429+Dual+Hard+Drive+Kit/7575/1

(ifixit sells a dual drive kit for 2011 iMac, but has no guide)

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2429+Hard+Drive/7555/1

Interesting. Kind of moot at the moment.

some advantages for the iMac:

* iMacs have discrete graphics; this is the only major performance
difference (assuming you aren't relying on spinning disks, which are
slower on the Mini); when the GPU matters, the iMac will be *much*
faster

I thought that Lightroom didn't make use of the GPU.

* the iMacs support Target Display Mode (TDM); also, if you have a
Thunderbolt Display attached to a 2012 iMac, you can put it into TDM
and the main display can be used by another machine while the iMac
continues to run on the external display

I do expect that it is just a bad drive.

you could try to boot from an external (or another Mac in Target
Disk Mode) to test that theory

I'm also hoping that I can pull the superdrive out of
a dead macbook to repair the dead drive in the iMac.

probably simpler to pop it into a cheap USB case

If I have everything apart anyways, I might as well just do it right.

Anyways, the die has been cast. The cpu and monitor are supposed to
show up tomorrow. I will upgrade the memory in it as soon as
practical. I'll wait to upgrade the drive until I have a reason to
*need* to, because the longer you can wait to upgrade drives, the more
that you get for your money. It's also quite possible that with
t-bolt and usb3, I can set up an external drive that is fast enough
I don't need to dig into the box.

There are certain eternal truths about buying computers.

1) Within weeks or months, you will always be able to get more for
less than you paid. Often this is true before you even get it home
and plugged in.

2) No matter how much you like what you bought, someone else will
argue that you made a poor choice because what you bought isn't
perfect for them.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

That link from Steve is nice.  I was wondering what the difference
betweent he 3000 and the 4000 was.  If I had gotten one with a
3000 gpu, I would have been bumming hard right now.

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:57:12PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
 Ah! Good to know. I hadn't dug deep enough on that yet.
 
 I'd want to drive two DVI monitors externally then and it *looks* like
 that's possible. I think that unfortunately the Apple thunderbolt
 display is insanely expensive.

Not quite insanely so if you get a refurb one, and can scrounge up 
a discount. By the time the dust settled mine was about $750, which is merely
damn expensive. But display+mini is about the same as an iMac.

I figure that it's the Apple tax.  I'm stoked that it looks like I can
run three displays, that could be very handy.  

At some point I'll need to research thunderbolt hubs, so that I can
run more t-bolt devices off the one port.

 
 
 On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:49 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
  on 2013-09-05 16:35 Bruce Walker wrote
 
  And for me, the biggest disadvantage to the Mac Mini is not being able
  to support a dual display with it.
 
 
  recent Minis support dual displays — two Thunderbolt or one Thunderbolt and
  one HDMI; the 2011 Mini with discrete GPU that i have supports three
  displays
 
  http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5219?viewlocale=en_US#dispnum
 
 
  --
  PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
  PDML@pdml.net
  http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
  to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
  follow the directions.
 
 
 
 -- 
 -bmw
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread Bruce Walker

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:50:18PM -0600, steve harley wrote:

 if the CPU is obsolete, just put it in TDM and it will act just like
 a Thunderbolt display (the CPU can idle or remain booted headless)

 How would I do this with my old iMac?  It doesn't have a thunderbolt port.

Sadly, you can't.


 some advantages for the iMac:

 * iMacs have discrete graphics; this is the only major performance
 difference (assuming you aren't relying on spinning disks, which are
 slower on the Mini); when the GPU matters, the iMac will be *much*
 faster

 I thought that Lightroom didn't make use of the GPU.

As all screen output goes through the GPU, _everything_ makes use of
the GPU. Some apps make additional use of it by sending CPU intensive
graphics work there to be handled in parallel with the main CPU.


 I'm also hoping that I can pull the superdrive out of
 a dead macbook to repair the dead drive in the iMac.

 probably simpler to pop it into a cheap USB case

 If I have everything apart anyways, I might as well just do it right.

Easier said than actually done. I'd use an external case myself. Also
allows you to move it around--more flexible.

-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread Bruce Walker

Ah! Good to know. I hadn't dug deep enough on that yet.

I'd want to drive two DVI monitors externally then and it *looks* like
that's possible. I think that unfortunately the Apple thunderbolt
display is insanely expensive.


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:49 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
 on 2013-09-05 16:35 Bruce Walker wrote

 And for me, the biggest disadvantage to the Mac Mini is not being able
 to support a dual display with it.


 recent Minis support dual displays — two Thunderbolt or one Thunderbolt and
 one HDMI; the 2011 Mini with discrete GPU that i have supports three
 displays

 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5219?viewlocale=en_US#dispnum


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


on 2013-09-05 16:03 Larry Colen wrote

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:50:18PM -0600, steve harley wrote:

on 2013-09-05 13:24 Larry Colen wrote

The mac-mini seems to have a couple of major advantages over the iMac or 
laptops:

1) more ports, and a wider range of ports. USB, firewire, thunderbolt, video  
and gigabit ethernet


i would consider the ports more of a trade of the Mini's HDMI and
FireWire ports for a built-in display and an extra Thunderbolt port


There are also tbolt ports on the display.


ah, there's also 4 x USB 2, Ethernet  FireWire on the display that i hadn't 
thought about, but once you plug the display into the Mini you will have one 
free Thunderbolt port total,




if the CPU is obsolete, just put it in TDM and it will act just like
a Thunderbolt display (the CPU can idle or remain booted headless)


How would I do this with my old iMac?  It doesn't have a thunderbolt port.


TDM only works on iMacs 2009  later (and 2009  2010 use DisplayPort instead 
of Thunderbolt)




[disk upgrade info]


Interesting.  Kind of moot at the moment.


yeah, but that info is for others reference as well …



I thought that Lightroom didn't make use of the GPU.


that's why i said when it matters; Photoshop does use the GPU, and Aperture 
(my main photo tool) certainly does, many other graphics, music  video apps 
too; a GPU will make a modest difference regardless because the OS uses it for 
windowing and some background tasks




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


on 2013-09-05 16:57 Bruce Walker wrote

Ah! Good to know. I hadn't dug deep enough on that yet.

I'd want to drive two DVI monitors externally then and it *looks* like
that's possible.


yes, with a displayport to dvi plus and HDMI to dvi adapters (assuming you have 
the 4000-level graphic chip); i would google up some people's real-world 
experiences to see if there are gotchas before investing in displays




I think that unfortunately the Apple thunderbolt
display is insanely expensive.


even at $800 for refurbs, i think the value proposition makes most sense for 
laptop users - the included charger and the fact it serves as a dock (leave 
your peripherals plugged into the display, connect only Thunderbolt  power); i 
have 6 cables plugged into my laptop 95% of the time, and i were still carting 
it around a lot, i'd be really tired of the plugging/unplugging




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


on 2013-09-05 13:24 Larry Colen wrote

The mac-mini seems to have a couple of major advantages over the iMac or 
laptops:

1) more ports, and a wider range of ports. USB, firewire, thunderbolt, video  
and gigabit ethernet


i would consider the ports more of a trade of the Mini's HDMI and FireWire 
ports for a built-in display and an extra Thunderbolt port


a Thunderbolt port is more flexible; it can become either of the ports you lose 
— a Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter is $29; a Thunderbolt (really DisplayPort) 
to HDMI or DVI adapter is under $10 — and since the display is built-in, you 
could get both of the Mini's ports back if you want (even after adding other 
Thunderbolt devices as long as they have pass-through)


the Mini does have separate audio in  out, though for serious audio most would 
use an external ADC/DAC




2) When the CPU is obsolete, you don't need to throw away the monitor.


no one throws away (er, recycles) iMacs unless they are broken (that's the 
worst case scenario)


if the CPU is obsolete, just put it in TDM and it will act just like a 
Thunderbolt display (the CPU can idle or remain booted headless)




3) Even the single disk minis can be upgraded to dual disk. Upgrading the drive 
on an iMac is a bit of a pain.


upgrading to dual on a Mini is only a lesser pain; ifixit rates it moderate, 
same as the 2011 iMac, versus difficult for the current iMac (i would not 
want to mess with the 2012 iMac):


http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+Mac+Mini+Late+2012+Dual+Hard+Drive+Kit/11713/1

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2429+Dual+Hard+Drive+Kit/7575/1

(ifixit sells a dual drive kit for 2011 iMac, but has no guide)

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Replacing+iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2429+Hard+Drive/7555/1

some advantages for the iMac:

* iMacs have discrete graphics; this is the only major performance difference 
(assuming you aren't relying on spinning disks, which are slower on the Mini); 
when the GPU matters, the iMac will be *much* faster


* the iMacs support Target Display Mode (TDM); also, if you have a Thunderbolt 
Display attached to a 2012 iMac, you can put it into TDM and the main display 
can be used by another machine while the iMac continues to run on the external 
display




I do expect that it is just a bad drive.


you could try to boot from an external (or another Mac in Target Disk Mode) to 
test that theory




I'm also hoping that I can pull the superdrive out of
a dead macbook to repair the dead drive in the iMac.


probably simpler to pop it into a cheap USB case


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:07:10PM -0400, Stan Halpin wrote:
 I'll be interested to hear how your new system works out for you.
 For the last six months I've grown more and more frustrated with my Late 2006 
 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac. Which only has 2 GB memory installed which is 
 part of my issue. So I have been considering three options. The first is 
 pretty much the package you've assembled built around a Mac mini. The 27 
 iMac also looks attractive, at about the same price with comparable 
 processor, memory, and drive options. Since it can function as an external 
 monitor, down the road I could get a mini or a Mac Pro and keep the iMac as a 
 monitor, scavenge the memory and drive to repurpose. My third option is to 
 wait for the new Mac Pro and hope the price isn't too far out of line. An 
 advantage I see to the iMac and especially the Mac Pro would be the number of 
 T'bolt and USB ports to connect my unwieldy farm of external drives. At the 
 moment I am holding off on a decision until the Mac Pro finally arrives. 
 (People waiting for a new upgraded Mac Pro are in much the same boat as those 
 waiting for a FF
  Pentax - long periods of limbo with no credible rumors to help shape 
decisions about current and future purchase plans.)

The mac-mini seems to have a couple of major advantages over the iMac or 
laptops:

1) more ports, and a wider range of ports. USB, firewire, thunderbolt, video  
and gigabit ethernet

2) When the CPU is obsolete, you don't need to throw away the monitor.

3) Even the single disk minis can be upgraded to dual disk. Upgrading the drive 
on an iMac is a bit of a pain.

If my iMac proves to be unrecoverable, I may have 6GB of memory for sale very 
cheap.
I do expect that it is just a bad drive.  I'm also hoping that I can pull the 
superdrive out of
a dead macbook to repair the dead drive in the iMac.

 
 stan
 
 On Sep 5, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
 
  On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:37:26PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
  Have you inspected /var/log/system.log afterward? I'd look
  particularly for disk errors.
  
  That was plan A, however, it will no longer boot at all.
  
  Fortunately, a kind list member offered me one of his Friends and Family
  apple discounts. I'm also planning on replacing the 4G of apple memory
  with 16G of OWC memory.  So, by the time the dust settles, I'll have 
  a quad core 2.3GHz I7 mac mini, with 16GB of ram, a 1TB fusion drive,
  a 27 thunderbolt monitor, apple care for the cpu, keyboard and magic
  track pad for about $2100.
  
  In contrast, circa 1985, I bought a 10 MHz 286 AT clone, with a 20MB (IIRC)
  hard drive, and 1 MB of 0 waitstate memory, and black and white monitor for 
  about $1700. 
  
  It's funny how a mid range home/office computer has stayed at around 
  $2,000.  
  
  It looks like the display was 720x350 pixels, so I've got 12 times the 
  resolution, before adding a second monitor. 1000 times the cpu clocks
  per second, not counting instruction efficiency, and supplemental 
  processors,
  16,000 times the memory, about 50,000 times the disk space, at I don't 
  know how many times the through put.
  
  And that's not even comparing with the Osborne 1, that my father bought
  for about the same amount of money a few years previously. 
  
  It looks like 1980-1984 gas was about $1.20/gallon, 
  http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
  So the Osborne 1 and the AT clone were about 1400 gallons of gas.
  The mac mini system is about 525 gallons of gas or a bit more than
  a third as much in terms of gas.  I think it was Peter Egan that would
  measure the cost of cars, and parts in units of a Pizza and a pitcher 
  of beer. I'm afraid I don't remember prices of those well enough from
  back then to compare. 
  
  Meanwhile, when I get the chance, probably a few weeks from now, I'll
  pull the iMac apart, and swap in a different drive to test it.
  
  Fortunately, I didn't have much of import on the internal drive, the
  only thing really important was my lightroom catalog, that just last
  week I had copied over to my rejuvenated laptop. The raw files are 
  elsewhere, so I only lost the edits on a couple of not terribly important
  sets of photos, and that's only if I don't recover the drive, so 
  I pretty much dodged a bullet on that one.
  
  
  -- 
  Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
  
  
  -- 
  PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
  PDML@pdml.net
  http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
  to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
  follow the directions.
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


on 2013-09-05 16:35 Bruce Walker wrote

And for me, the biggest disadvantage to the Mac Mini is not being able
to support a dual display with it.


recent Minis support dual displays — two Thunderbolt or one Thunderbolt and one 
HDMI; the 2011 Mini with discrete GPU that i have supports three displays


http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5219?viewlocale=en_US#dispnum

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:48 PM, steve harley wrote:

 on 2013-09-05 16:03 Larry Colen wrote
 On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:50:18PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
 on 2013-09-05 13:24 Larry Colen wrote
 The mac-mini seems to have a couple of major advantages over the iMac or 
 laptops:
 
 1) more ports, and a wider range of ports. USB, firewire, thunderbolt, 
 video  and gigabit ethernet
 
 i would consider the ports more of a trade of the Mini's HDMI and
 FireWire ports for a built-in display and an extra Thunderbolt port
 
 There are also tbolt ports on the display.
 
 ah, there's also 4 x USB 2, Ethernet  FireWire on the display that i hadn't 
 thought about, but once you plug the display into the Mini you will have one 
 free Thunderbolt port total,
 
 
 if the CPU is obsolete, just put it in TDM and it will act just like
 a Thunderbolt display (the CPU can idle or remain booted headless)
 
 How would I do this with my old iMac?  It doesn't have a thunderbolt port.
 
 TDM only works on iMacs 2009  later (and 2009  2010 use DisplayPort instead 
 of Thunderbolt)
 
 
 [disk upgrade info]
 
 Interesting.  Kind of moot at the moment.
 
 yeah, but that info is for others reference as well …

And  appreciate it Steve!
But I thought the USB ports on the T'bolt 27 were USB3?

stan
 
 
 I thought that Lightroom didn't make use of the GPU.
 
 that's why i said when it matters; Photoshop does use the GPU, and Aperture 
 (my main photo tool) certainly does, many other graphics, music  video apps 
 too; a GPU will make a modest difference regardless because the OS uses it 
 for windowing and some background tasks
 
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


On Sep 5, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

 That link from Steve is nice.  I was wondering what the difference
 betweent he 3000 and the 4000 was.  If I had gotten one with a
 3000 gpu, I would have been bumming hard right now.
 
 On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:57:12PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
 Ah! Good to know. I hadn't dug deep enough on that yet.
 
 I'd want to drive two DVI monitors externally then and it *looks* like
 that's possible. I think that unfortunately the Apple thunderbolt
 display is insanely expensive.
 
 Not quite insanely so if you get a refurb one, and can scrounge up 
 a discount. By the time the dust settled mine was about $750, which is merely
 damn expensive. But display+mini is about the same as an iMac.
 
 I figure that it's the Apple tax.  I'm stoked that it looks like I can
 run three displays, that could be very handy.  
 
 At some point I'll need to research thunderbolt hubs, so that I can
 run more t-bolt devices off the one port.
 
 
 
 On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:49 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
 on 2013-09-05 16:35 Bruce Walker wrote
 
 And for me, the biggest disadvantage to the Mac Mini is not being able
 to support a dual display with it.
 
 
 recent Minis support dual displays — two Thunderbolt or one Thunderbolt and
 one HDMI; the 2011 Mini with discrete GPU that i have supports three
 displays
 
 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5219?viewlocale=en_US#dispnum
 
 

One of the big issues for me will be how many ports of what modality. And one 
thing I am quite unclear on: I know that if I daisy-chain FW400 and FW800 
devices, I will limit throughput to the FW400 capacity. But what if I 
daisy-chain USB2 and USB3 devices? I am assuming that I take the same hit in 
potential speed. Which means I would want one or more USB ports free to use 
with USB3-capable externals, one or more USB ports to handle my older devices 
(printer, scanner, CD writer) which won't run at USB3 speeds. And one T'bolt 
port with FW adapter for FW800 externals, one T'bolt port with FW adapter for 
FW400 externals. Assuming all of the above is correct, I have thought of 
instead buying 2 new 4-6 TB RAID drives, backing up all of my legacy drives to 
the new drives, and stashing the old ones in a closet. But when I did the math, 
including memory and generous internal drive space, my projected 27 iMac was 
going to be close to $5000. Which is another reason I am putting off a decision 
for a while.

stan



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


on 2013-09-05 17:59 Stan Halpin wrote


On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:48 PM, steve harley wrote:

yeah, but that info is for others reference as well …


And  appreciate it Steve!
But I thought the USB ports on the T'bolt 27 were USB3?


they are USB 2; the design hasn't been updated

http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

Mac mini plus TBD27 nets the second TB port, adds more FW and USB ports too.

I don't know about ifixit ratings, but watching the OWC video on installing 
dual drives into the mini, I'd MUCH rather do that than try to take apart a 
current series iMac. The performance and RAM differences are pretty much a wash 
for my needs. :-)

Godfrey


On Sep 5, 2013, at 2:50 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:

 a Thunderbolt port is more flexible; it can become either of the ports you 
 lose — a Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter is $29; a Thunderbolt (really 
 DisplayPort) to HDMI or DVI adapter is under $10 — and since the display is 
 built-in, you could get both of the Mini's ports back if you want (even after 
 adding other Thunderbolt devices as long as they have pass-through)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

Same price as the Apple LED display. 

Godfrey


On Sep 5, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ah! Good to know. I hadn't dug deep enough on that yet.
 
 I'd want to drive two DVI monitors externally then and it *looks* like
 that's possible. I think that unfortunately the Apple thunderbolt
 display is insanely expensive.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


on 2013-09-05 18:16 Stan Halpin wrote

But what if I daisy-chain USB2 and USB3 devices? I am assuming that I take the same 
hit in potential speed. Which means I would want one or more USB ports free to use 
with USB3-capable externals, one or more USB ports to handle my older devices 
(printer, scanner, CD writer) which won't run at USB3 speeds. And one T'bolt port 
with FW adapter for FW800 externals, one T'bolt port with FW adapter for FW400 
externals. Assuming all of the above is correct, I have thought of instead buying 2 
new 4-6 TB RAID drives, backing up all of my legacy drives to the new drives, and 
stashing the old ones in a closet. But when I did the math, including memory and 
generous internal drive space, my projected 27 iMac was going to be close to 
$5000. Which is another reason I am putting off a decision for a while.


USB doesn't daisy-chain like FireWire, it uses hubs; plugging a USB 2 device 
into a USB 3 hub shouldn't slow the USB 3 devices - as i understand it the two 
protocols run on different wires




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening


On Sep 5, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

 That link from Steve is nice.  I was wondering what the difference
 betweent he 3000 and the 4000 was.  If I had gotten one with a
 3000 gpu, I would have been bumming hard right now.
 
 On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:57:12PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
 Ah! Good to know. I hadn't dug deep enough on that yet.
 
 I'd want to drive two DVI monitors externally then and it *looks* like
 that's possible. I think that unfortunately the Apple thunderbolt
 display is insanely expensive.
 
 Not quite insanely so if you get a refurb one, and can scrounge up 
 a discount. By the time the dust settled mine was about $750, which is merely
 damn expensive. But display+mini is about the same as an iMac.
 
 I figure that it's the Apple tax.  I'm stoked that it looks like I can
 run three displays, that could be very handy.  
 
 At some point I'll need to research thunderbolt hubs, so that I can
 run more t-bolt devices off the one port.

I've looked - they are rare and expensive, but getting less so IIRC.

stan

 
 
 
 On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:49 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
 on 2013-09-05 16:35 Bruce Walker wrote
 
 And for me, the biggest disadvantage to the Mac Mini is not being able
 to support a dual display with it.
 
 
 recent Minis support dual displays — two Thunderbolt or one Thunderbolt and
 one HDMI; the 2011 Mini with discrete GPU that i have supports three
 displays
 
 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5219?viewlocale=en_US#dispnum
 
 
 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.
 
 
 
 -- 
 -bmw
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.
 
 -- 
 Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

2013-09-05 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Sep 5, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote:

 One of the big issues for me will be how many ports of what modality. And one 
 thing I am quite unclear on: I know that if I daisy-chain FW400 and FW800 
 devices, I will limit throughput to the FW400 capacity.

This depends on two things: the specific FW implementation of the devices, and 
the order they appear in the chain. Devices fully implementing the spec will 
run at their rated IO speed even in a mixed chain setup, but almost all devices 
will operate at rated IO speed if the FW400 devices are at the tail of the 
chain, furthest from the port. 

I've measured this and found it to be true. 

G
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:34:14PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
 on 2013-09-05 17:59 Stan Halpin wrote
 
 On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:48 PM, steve harley wrote:
 yeah, but that info is for others reference as well …
 
 And  appreciate it Steve!
 But I thought the USB ports on the T'bolt 27 were USB3?
 
 they are USB 2; the design hasn't been updated
 
 http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

That's disappointing.  But with 4 USB 3.0 on the mini, I'll just plug
low bandwidth USB devices (keyboards and such) into the display.

Besides, I expect that as long as I don't run two high 
bandwidth USB devices at the same time on the same hub
I won't lose a lot of bandwidth getting more ports, if I 
need with a USB 3 hub.  

 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The fun it keeps on happening