On 2024-03-05 22:07:29 +0000, dgb (David) said:

> On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
>>>
>>> I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
>>> Apple Store.
>>>
>>> When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
>>> technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
>>> each make you /feel/ please?
>>
>> Hard to answer.
>>
>> The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
>> cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
>> contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
>> perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
>>
>> It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
>> least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
>> 24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
>> which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
>> likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
>>
>> 4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
>> sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
>> usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
>>
>> I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
>> nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
>> nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
>> work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
>>
>> Still a killer processor. But.
>>
>> When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
>> Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
>> spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
>> Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
>>
>> At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
>> display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
>> display.
>>
>> So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
>> sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
>> to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
>> development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
>> using this iMac M3).
>
> Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
>
> My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change
> it.
> However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
> I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop
> computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
> Mint and it does this quite well.
> I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
> Good for you! :-)
>
> (ACW added for info to others)

The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.

On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> On 2024-03-05 22:07:29 +0000, dgb (David) said:
>
>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
>>>>
>>>> I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
>>>> Apple Store.
>>>>
>>>> When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
>>>> technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
>>>> each make you /feel/ please?
>>>
>>> Hard to answer.
>>>
>>> The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
>>> cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
>>> contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
>>> perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
>>>
>>> It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
>>> least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
>>> 24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
>>> which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
>>> likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
>>>
>>> 4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
>>> sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
>>> usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
>>>
>>> I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
>>> nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
>>> nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
>>> work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
>>>
>>> Still a killer processor. But.
>>>
>>> When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
>>> Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
>>> spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
>>> Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
>>>
>>> At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
>>> display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
>>> display.
>>>
>>> So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
>>> sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
>>> to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
>>> development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
>>> using this iMac M3).
>>
>> Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
>>
>> My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change
>> it.
>> However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
>> I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop
>> computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
>> Mint and it does this quite well.
>> I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
>> Good for you! :-)
>>
>> (ACW added for info to others)
>
> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

That is my understanding too.

> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.

My Professor friend has done exactly that!
The Studio Display is just wonderful - but expensive!
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need to have
lots of on-board storage nowadays.

On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
>
> That is my understanding too.
>
>> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
>> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
>
> My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
> wonderful - but expensive!

Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.

> With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-03-06, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
>>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
>>
>> That is my understanding too.
>>
>>> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
>>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
>>> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
>>
>> My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
>> wonderful - but expensive!
>
> Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
> UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
> is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
> consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
> It's worth every penny I paid for it.
>
>> With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
>> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
>
> Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
> storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
>
It's an amazing display. Super clear, bright vivid colors and easy on the eyes. Even looking at
monitors in the big box stores where nothing tends to be adjusted properly, Apple monitors look
fantastic. I do think part of it has to do with the fonts Apple uses. I don't know for sure though.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

On 2024-03-06 08:07:38 +0000, dgb (David) said:
> On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-05 22:07:29 +0000, dgb (David) said:
>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
>>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
>>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our
>>>>> local Apple Store.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
>>>>> technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of?
>>>>> How does each make you /feel/ please?
>>>>
>>>> Hard to answer.
>>>>
>>>> The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
>>>> cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
>>>> contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
>>>> perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
>>>>
>>>> It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
>>>> least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
>>>> 24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
>>>> which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
>>>> likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
>>>>
>>>> 4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
>>>> sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
>>>> usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
>>>>
>>>> I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
>>>> nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
>>>> nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
>>>> work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Still a killer processor. But.
>>>>
>>>> When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
>>>> Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
>>>> spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
>>>> Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
>>>>
>>>> At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
>>>> display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
>>>> display.
>>>>
>>>> So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
>>>> sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
>>>> to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
>>>> development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
>>>> using this iMac M3).
>>>
>>> Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
>>>
>>> My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to
>>> change it. However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on
>>> to Sonoma. I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide
>>> another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using
>>> an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux Mint and it does this quite well. I'm
>>> impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac! Good for you!
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> (ACW added for info to others)
>>
>> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
>
> That is my understanding too.
>
>> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
>> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
>
> My Professor friend has done exactly that!
> The Studio Display is just wonderful - but expensive!
> With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need to have
> lots of on-board storage nowadays.

You can buy a build-to-order Mac Mini or Mac Studio with up to 8TB
internal storage from the Apple Store or a reseller ... if your bank
account can stand it.

Long gone are the good old days of easily being able to add RAM or
change drives or graphics cards in a Mac. It not even possible in the
so-called "Mac Pro tower", making that just another pointless Mac
model. :-(

On 6 Mar 2024 at 20:55:46 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> On 2024-03-06 08:07:38 +0000, dgb (David) said:
>> On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-05 22:07:29 +0000, dgb (David) said:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
>>>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
>>>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our
>>>>>> local Apple Store.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
>>>>>> technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of?
>>>>>> How does each make you /feel/ please?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
>>>>> cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
>>>>> contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
>>>>> perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
>>>>> least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
>>>>> 24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
>>>>> which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
>>>>> likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
>>>>> sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
>>>>> usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
>>>>> nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
>>>>> nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
>>>>> work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still a killer processor. But.
>>>>>
>>>>> When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
>>>>> Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
>>>>> spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
>>>>> Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
>>>>>
>>>>> At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
>>>>> display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
>>>>> display.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
>>>>> sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
>>>>> to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
>>>>> development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
>>>>> using this iMac M3).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
>>>>
>>>> My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to
>>>> change it. However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on
>>>> to Sonoma. I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide
>>>> another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using
>>>> an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux Mint and it does this quite well. I'm
>>>> impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac! Good for you!
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> (ACW added for info to others)
>>>
>>> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
>>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
>>
>> That is my understanding too.
>>
>>> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
>>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
>>> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
>>
>> My Professor friend has done exactly that!
>> The Studio Display is just wonderful - but expensive!
>> With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need to have
>> lots of on-board storage nowadays.
>
> You can buy a build-to-order Mac Mini or Mac Studio with up to 8TB
> internal storage from the Apple Store or a reseller ... if your bank
> account can stand it.

Ha! Understood. :-)

> Long gone are the good old days of easily being able to add RAM or
> change drives or graphics cards in a Mac. It not even possible in the
> so-called "Mac Pro tower", making that just another pointless Mac
> model. :-(

Thank you for emphasising that. Many folk get caught out by this.

Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive

An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

https://eclecticlight.co/2024/03/13/desktop-documents-folders-in-icloud-drive/

I hope this helps!

--
David

On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>
> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will, dumbo.

> I hope this helps!

Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic. Fuck off.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 13 Mar 2024 at 16:40:07 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>>
>> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!
>
> I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.

I didn't write the article. Do you think you know as much as Howard Oakley?

>> I hope this helps!
>
> Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic.

Then help me with this, please.

In Terminal, type " system_profiler " (no quotes)
and let it run.

In the generated output do you see an entry like this?

/Library/HTTPStorages/com.apple.ctcategories.service

And/or

/Library/HTTPStorages/com.apple.ctcategories.service

Please advise.

Thanks.

On 2024-03-13 10:10, dgb (David) wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2024 at 16:40:07 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>>>
>>> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!
>>
>> I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.
>
> I didn't write the article. Do you think you know as much as Howard Oakley?
>
>>> I hope this helps!
>>
>> Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic.
>
> Then help me with this, please.

Why would anyone help an asshole like you?

On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2024 at 16:40:07 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>>>
>>> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!
>>
>> I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.
>
> I didn't write the article.

I don't give a shit.
>
>>> I hope this helps!
>>
>> Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic.
>
> Then help me with this, please.

Nah. Fuck off.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR