On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:53:52PM -0600, steve harley wrote: > on 2013-09-08 14:04 Larry Colen wrote > >It turns out that the 27" display isn't noticably taller, just wider. > >This gives me a bit more room on the sides for menus and such. My second > >display is a Dell u2312hm in vertical format. I'd prefer something with > >less of a wide aspect ratio in vertical format so it worked better on > >horizontal photos as well. > > the thunderbolt display has more vertical pixels (1440 vs 1200), > though they may be more dense; a Thunderbolt display on an > appropriate VESA mount can be ad hoc rotated 90 degrees; i've had > displays on VESA mounts for a few years and only sometimes bother to > do that
I was talking physical dimensions. I only had a 12" ruler handy, and both displays are a little taller than that. > > i think you are saying the TB display is too wide to rotate > comfortably, but is the u2312 also too wide? - if you want a large > 4:3 format monitor, your options are limited; here's a faceted > search showing some options: I have the u2312 mounted vertically as my second monitor. It works great for vertical format photos, but I find myself using it for horizontal a lot more than I expected. The images on the second display pop up a lot faster than the ones on the primary display. > > <http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600030156%20600416633&IsNodeId=1&name=20%20-%2022%20inches> > Thanks. > > >I think that I will want to go for a pure SSD for things like my > >lightroom catalogs, and quite possibly initial editing of my photos. > > note that the fusion drive takes up both bays I hadn't realized that. I was still thinking of an external USB 3.0 SSD for my catalog. > > > >I am going to need to explore thunderbolt storage options. > >Unfortunately they are not nearly as inexpensive as usb 3 or > >firewire. > > i wouldn't invest in any new Firewire storage unless you need it for > legacy machines — USB 3 is faster and cheaper; a single spinning > disk won't saturate USB 3, but current SSDs are getting there; for > tomorrow's drives, Thunderbolt may have enough of an edge to be an > easier choice; choose carefully - note the surprising variation of > some available SSD-based external storage options: Yup, it's looking like USB 3 is the sweet spot for external storage. I was surprised to note that a four port USB 3.0 hub starts at $50 at Fry's. > > <http://barefeats.com/hard168.html> Thanks, for the link, it looks handy. > > btw, at $100, this is the cheapest SATA-to-thunderbolt option i know > of (you also need a cable): > > <http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Portable-Thunderbolt-Adapter-STAE128/dp/B009HQCARY> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
