Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 5:46 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 02:48:23 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 11/21/2017 4:46 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 November 2017 17:05:14 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 11/20/2017 5:44 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip


I did that too, I didn't need to take the computer apart either.
For me technology is still moving fast enoguh for me to to want to leave it 8 years before upgrading, you prefer upgrading individual components, I prefer for the most part getting a new computer.





You must have more money than I:

Perhaps or I just spend more wisely, I wouldn't spend 400 on a graphics card unless I was well into gaming which I'm not.

And just where did that come from.

From a PC users that spent 400 on a gamers graphics card in the hope it's be better when editing using photoshop. The basic idea that throwing money at a particualer thing will make any computer so much better than a new computer.

I could ask where this came from
"You must have more money than I:"

What has that got to do with anything.


Figure it out for yourself.




my earlier quote from Cato is applicable he

"Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Quod non opus est, asse
carum est."

Me : When you can't think for yourself, quote someone else. Stardate 95491.5

When somebody says things well, why reinvent the wheel.

Why have differnt types and sizes of wheel ?

Buying a wheel from an F1 won't make yuo're car and F1 and won't make your commute time much shorter unless yuo;re in a F1 and have a wheel missing.


Your comment implies that I said that. If you are talking about me, say
so, and then apologize. The only game I ever really liked was flight
Simulator. I was on the verge of setting up three monitors with a
simulator seat. Shortly after 9/11, I uninstalled the game and haven't
touched it since.

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

On 11/22/2017 2:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

--
PeterN

Ripe Apples
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:


As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

you *clearly* don't understand the benefits of retina displays and your
workflow is completely broken too.

Ripe Apples
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

Ripe Apples
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:45:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/22/2017 2:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 23:15:06 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

.... and they *were* excluded.

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

That's interesting. I've always thought that there was an ideal size
at which to display a particular image but I have never thought of
fiddling with the image to make it better suit a different size. I
would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the
experience.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:08:10 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:


As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

you *clearly* don't understand the benefits of retina displays and your
workflow is completely broken too.

You are stuck in a rut.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As an experiment I created an image that looked good on my screen. I
downsized it and displayed the image on a lower res screen. The image
looked like crap. I tweaked the image and got it to show much better in
the lower res screen, of the type used in many competitions,

you *clearly* don't understand the benefits of retina displays and your
workflow is completely broken too.

You are stuck in a rut.

not at all.

Ripe Apples
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:08:11 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Excuses like: I've got a computer already and all I want is a screen
that will run from it and which will let me do the work I want to do.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want is a matte-finish
screen that will run from it.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want are two matched
matte-finish screens that will run from it and which will let me do
the work I want to do.


Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

So anyone who has wants which are different from yours is
fundamentally wrong?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Ripe Apples
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I won't comment about the new Retina, because I haven't
examined one,

exactly the point.

you failed to examine all options.

He examined all the stand-alone monitor options.

which excludes some of the highest quality displays available.

... and they *were* excluded.

you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a lower quality
display.

Excuses like: I've got a computer already and all I want is a screen
that will run from it and which will let me do the work I want to do.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want is a matte-finish
screen that will run from it.

Or, I've got a computer already and all I want are two matched
matte-finish screens that will run from it and which will let me do
the work I want to do.

in other words, you're ok with numerous compromises and therefore must
make excuses for settling for a lower quality display and having
blindly dismissed a display which was never objectively evaluated and
most likely never even viewed at all (and a brief glance in a poorly
lit store does not count).

Monitors built into a computer did not qualify. But you already knew
that, didn't you?

sure did, but the problem is that *he* doesn't realize what he gave up
by doing so. nor do you.

How do you know that?

from what both of you have said.

So anyone who has wants which are different from yours is
fundamentally wrong?

it has absolutely nothing to do with what i want or what anyone else
wants.

as i said, you're desperately trying to make excuses for getting a
lower quality display.