Category Archives: Hardware

Stuff

Apple. Stupid.

Greed redefined.

You can get a top quality BenQ 27″ monitor, with stand for $600:


The 27″ calibrated BenQ monitor.

Apple however Thinks Different and has determined that not only will its new monitor sell for $5000 (likely using a regular LG panel) but wants you to pony up an extra $1000 for the stand ….


The $1000 stand for the $5000 monitor.

Either Apple has concluded that their professional customers base is, you know, stoopid, or they need a new CEO. Heck, they have needed a new CEO, someone who occasionally has an original idea, since Steve passed.

As for myself, I use a 30″ Apple LCD monitor in its elegant aluminum case which I bought used 5 years ago for $400. It calibrates nicely using a puck and is a joy to behold. And yes, it came with a stand included.


The elegant 30″ Apple LCD monitor.

Mac Pro 2019

Function over form returns.

For an index of all my Mac Pro articles, click here.


Meet the new Mac Pro, same as the old Mac Pro.

Solidly aiming at their right foot, Apple managed to disenfranchise a huge chunk of its professional user base with the idiotic ‘form over function’ Mac Pro 2013 which looked like a trash can. Designed to show off your fingerprints and collect dust and detritus in its open cylindrical center, the ads showed this wonder unconnected to any peripherals, devoid of the clutter of wires that so spoils the work aesthetic of the modern hipster. Of course once you added the required external storage and so on, the thing started looking like the mess it was:


2012 vs. 2013.

The result of this design disaster saw two results. AV and music pros started abandoning the Mac Pro for competent HP workstations running newly reliable versions of Windows. Those trying to stick with the Mac Pro applied a variety of upgrades to this wonderful modular chassis. These included faster CPUs, more and faster memory, fast SSD boot and system drives, and tons of storage, the latter easily accommodated inside the Mac Pro’s big box. The truly masochistic even upgraded wi-fi from 802.11b to 802.11n, masochism being the required mindset in securing those minuscule antenna wires. I have done many and the 50th is no easier than the first. The results were fine, the machine newly speedy and every bit as bog reliable. And in the event something failed, a rare occurrence, the bad part was easily replaced in minutes. The massive 980 watt power supply saw to it that there was always ample current available for all those internals and the truly enormous CPU heatsinks made for the most reliable computing platform ever.

So Apple determined they should throw away their base and the attendant goodwill in place of the joke that is the Trash Can Mac Pro. Of course there was always the overpriced MacBook Pro for ‘power users’, the only problem being that when real computing power was required the notebook would throttle back its CPUs lest they melt under the strain. The MacBook’s cooling was never its forte compared with the myriad fans in the big Mac Pro.

Now, after a 6 year hiatus with an offering that was never updated and had already obsolete graphics when it came to market, Apple has realized the error of its ways and introduced a large, modular Mac Pro chassis. Or is that ‘reintroduced’, for sticking with the original box with later CPUs and memory would have been trivial to do, and that large base of power user advocates would not have been largely lost?

You get faster CPUs with more cores and lots of options, faster memory and vast capacity, and a bill for some $10,000 if you max it out.

But, for heaven’s sake, why did they make that grate so ugly?

The Contarex

Wild complexity.

If you want engineering design excellence it’s generally a good idea to keep the accountants away from decision making. These are people who will not give a second thought to trashing design integrity and brand equity in the interest of saving a penny, which is why no accountants run Fortune 500 companies, and thank goodness for that. If accountants ran NASA the moon landing would remain a work in progress.

However, to totally divorce the design process from the real world is not such a great idea, either. An automotive example will suffice. In the 1970s the big Mercedes sedans, the W116 series, set a benchmark for performance, reliability and safety. And while the reliability wasn’t the greatest, for it included such cockamamie ideas like placing red hot catalytic converters under the hood, Lexus and Infinity were yet to appear and redefine what ‘reliability’ should mean. So, as these things go, the W116 was a reliable, big sedan.

Mercedes built from strength in the 1980s, crafting the W126 series of big sedans and coupes, some of the best grosser Mercedes ever made. And while they lacked modern twin cam, variable valve timing motors for power and efficiency – the 5.6 liter single cam V8 motor managed but 238 horse power – they were made like a vault and largely problem free. If there was an Achilles heel it was the daft idea of operating just about everything using vacuum lines and valves. Door locks, seat locks, a/c switches, you name it. The rubber diaphragms in the related circuitry would rot and split after a few years and, while they were $2 parts, accessing and replacing them was a half-day job. Awful. When the Japanese came along with their competing big sedans they saw to it that all these peripherals were actuated using small and reliable electric motors. No vacuum tubing required. And because these small and inexpensive motors were located at the point of operation – in the door for the locks, as an example – replacement was a simple matter should they fail, which they rarely did.

So two decades of success with their most lucrative product lines meant that the engineers were well and truly in charge, the accountants now hiding behind their green eye shades. And this is where it all went disastrously wrong with the successor to the W126 line, the W140. One favored German vacation strategy is to place your car on a railroad flat bed, have the Deutsches Bahnhof diesel it to your favorite spot for reminiscing – you know, Berchtesgaden, the Berghof, the Nuremburg rally site, the location of the Fuhrer bunker – and then drive it around at your destination while reliving German charm and history. So the first thing the engineers did was to make sure that the W140 was too wide to allow it on the railroad’s flatbed. A winner for sales, that one.

Then, because you need total silence while listening to the Ride of the Valkyries on your 12 speaker system, those same engineers saw to it that the windows were double paned, with a vacuum seal which promptly leaked, allowing in condensation. And finally, engineering installed a faulty air conditioning evaporator which failed after a couple of years. So buried was this device in the innards of the W140 that the shop time – which is what Mercedes reckons it should take – was 23 hours to replace the faulty part. 23 hours! Call it $3,000 in labor and $2,000 in parts so you could continue enjoying those Valkyries in air conditioned comfort. Little wonder that most mechanics refuse to even do this job as 23 hours on your back inside the car removing everything from the dashboard to the firewall is not fun. And the resulting behemoth was not only quite especially ugly, it also weighed over 5,000 lbs. And did I mention the $1,000 interior rear view mirror? Sales were poor, used values quickly dropped to 15 cents on the dollar (“$80,000 Mercedes S500, five years young, just $12,000. Drive the best.”)


The W140. Subtlety was not a design dictate. The V12 motor compounds complexity.

But Mercedes’ engineers were not breaking new ground here. Rather they were following an honorable legacy of ridiculous over-engineering which probably peaked with the Zeiss Ikon Contarex of 1958. When they were not making sights, scopes and binoculars for the Wehrmacht the better with which to invade their neighbors, Zeiss had a long and honorable tradition of making fine optics and a range of cameras for most pocketbooks. The folding Ikontas of the 1930s brought compactness to roll film bodies, whether in 6×4.5, 6×6 or 6×9 formats, paired with excellent Zeiss optics. To compete with the Leica, Zeiss came out with the Contax range of 35mm rangefinders, whose integrated view/rangefinder of 1936 pre-dated the magnificent design of the Leica M3 which was first marketed almost two decades later. True, the stirrings of needless complexity were to be found in the brass slatted focal plane shutter, not know for its reliability as the silk (no kidding!) cords guiding its movement were known to break, but that aspect did not bother the likes of Robert Capa who took one to Omaha beach in 1944 to document the D Day landings.

So in the late 1950s, seeing its lead in 35mm cameras threatened by the Nikon F – the AK47 of cameras being crude, bold, robust, reliable – Zeiss decided they would make the ultimate 35mm SLR. It would have everything in the one body, interchangeable film backs with a dark slide to permit change of film stock in broad daylight, a built in coupled exposure meter and a large range of the highest quality Zeiss lenses to fit the bayonet mount. But something went awry while the accountants were at the Oktoberfest getting blasted, for the resulting Zeiss Ikon Contarex came out large, quite specially ugly, massively heavy and unbelievably complex. How about a complex and fragile gear train for the film rewind mechanism, in lieu of a simple slotted post? W140 anyone?


The Contarex Bullseye. The nutty name font portended problems to come.

The ‘Bullseye’ moniker was added by the press and they were probably thinking of the target painted on the foot of the lead designer for this disaster. The lenses were, in the great Zeiss tradition, some of the best made, with exotic designs even in those distant days.


Some of the lenses offered were way ahead of the time.

In addition to the vast complexity of the design – 40 steps alone required to remove the top plate – some of the design decisions were downright befuddling. The lens would remain at its stopped down aperture after the shutter was released, meaning all was dark if you elected a small aperture. Unlike with the Nikon F the prism was fixed, so scientific use was tricky. Confusingly, the frame counter started at 36 and counted down. The interchangeable backs were a solution looking for a problem. And the whole thing was silly expensive. After a period of professional use reliability was found to be poor at best, and the superb chrome plating of the exterior, which was very wear resistant, would hide a shop of horrors inside. And those fine optics did not benefit from production line manufacturing which makes all parts interchangeable. Oh no. They were ‘hand assembled’ which is a euphemism for poor parts consistency owing to the use of outdated machining tools.

Zeiss struggled along with the Contarex in a fruitless effort to recover all those sunken design costs, coming out with the Professional (a meterless body with an interchangeable prism), the Super (a TTL semi-spot metered design like that in the excellent Leicaflex SL) and the Electronic (whose electronics promptly failed with spare parts quickly becoming unavailable). None managed to avoid the wild complexity of the original Bullseye. Indeed, the Electronic managed to compound that complexity, which was quite an achievement.

Some aver that the Contarex was the cause of the demise of Zeiss Ikon but I rather think that the Nikon F and its many excellent Japanese competitors, fair priced and reliable, were the real cause. As a collectible the Contarex is peerless. As a working camera it is next to useless.

Camera prices unchanged in 50 years

More capability, same price.

I happen to still have my copies of the Wallace Heaton ‘Blue Book’ gear catalogs from the 1960s. These were published annually by the bespoke supplier of gear to HM QE2, the firm going bankrupt a few years later when they failed to see discounted high street retail coming. They remain an interesting historical artifact, or artefact if you speak the Queen’s English.

Here is the listing for the best 35mm film SLR of the time – I would argue it was the best film SLR of all time – the Nikon F. This is from the 1969 Blue Book, 50 years ago:


Nikon F in 1969

With the clunky Photomic FTN metering head the Nikon F retailed for £270.73 (converted to decimal from pounds, shilling and pence – long live the Empire).

Going to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics web site for the history of the Consumer Price Index and to the Bank of England site for the exchange rate of the pound sterling against the US dollar (yes, it’s been downhill those 50 years) the multiplier for the 1969 price converted to 2019 US dollars comes to 15.4. So that £270.73 of 1969 is $4,170 today.

Looking at the current price for the top of the line Nikon DSLR today, the D5, discloses a retail price of $6,500 for the body and $200 for the 50mm f/1.8G standard lens, a total of $6,700. For the like-equipped D850 the total comes to $3,200 and the Z7 comes to $3,150.

Now capabilities of the 1969 and 2019 gear are not easily compared other than to say that the modern digital body and lens are superior in every way – speed, reliability, ISO range, storage capacity and so on. The 1969 Nikon F falls in the middle of the price range of the (arguably overpriced) D5 and the extremely capable D850. Indeed, common sense probably dictates the choice of two D850s over one D5 at the same price. The overall price change, inflation adjusted, has not changed at all. But the capabilities of the modern hardware are two orders of magnitude removed from that of the 50 year old predecessor.

MacBook 2017/2018

A fine replacement for the 11″ MacBook Air.


The 11″ MacBook Air at left next to the 12″ MacBook.

My son and I have long been aficionados of the 11″ MacBook Air. Light, adequately fast and with sufficient internal chip storage for all but large video and photo catalogs, it was affordably priced. Sadly, Apple discontinued the 11″ version in 2015, and only the 13″ version continues in the line.

As my son works his way to the Ivy League he has stepped up his efforts and just scored an A+ mid-term grade in calculus, so it seemed only fair to hear his complaint about the slowness of his 2013 MacBook and procure him an upgrade. There were, however, two issues. First the closest match in size to the 11″ MBA is the 2017/18 MacBook – the specifications remained unchanged in 2018 – but the asking price of $1300 is outrageous. Second, when the current MacBook first surfaced in 2015 we tried one in the Apple Store and were very disappointed by the mushy feel of the keyboard.

Well, both issues have been happily resolved. First, B&H in New York had a special on the 2017 MacBook a few days ago, slashing the price by $500 to $800, albeit available in gold finish only. No big deal – it looks OK, even if silver would have been preferred. Second, Apple redesigned the keyboard in 2017 and the feel is now superb. The keys are crisp and light and every bit as good as those in the MBA.

Memory is doubled to 8gB and speed is now up to 1867MHz. The latest integrated Intel GPU sees to speedy screen response of the Retina display and data storage is now 256gB of quick RAM compared with 128gB in the 2013 MBA. The CPU is Intel’s Core m3 with a Geekbench score of 6643 compared with 4974 for the 2013 MBA despite the slower clock speed of 1.2gHz vs. 1.3gHz in the older laptop. That’s 33% faster. (The last 11″ MBA made, the 2015, scored 5568).

Display pixels? 1366 x 768 in the MBA compared with 2304 x 1440 for the MacBook with retina Display, or almost three times as many pixels per unit area. My son reports that the Retina Display in the MacBook is noticeably sharper than the regular one in the MBA.

Testifying to continued improvement in engineering the MacBook weighs in at a scant 2.0 lbs compared with 2.4lbs for the 2013 MBA, yet the screen is 19% larger in the MacBook. Wonderful. Battery life is a claimed 10 hrs, presumably measured in a dark room with minimum screen brightness and no activity ….

What’s not to like. Well, yet another connector switch with the MacBook using USB C at both the laptop and power brick ends. And because the laptop has only one USB C socket for power and data (the MBA has two USB A sockets and a power socket) this means that an adapter will be required if, say, you want to use the laptop with an external display while simultaneously charging it. Not great.

Transfer of apps and data from the old MBA was a breeze as my son backs up everything automatically to iCloud. While Apple really should include a progress bar when recovery to the new laptop is in progress – the screen display just remains static and you have no idea if anything is happening – the whole process took but 10 minutes. Very nicely done, Apple.

The old 2013 MBA will sell for $400 or so on Swappa making the net upgrade outlay just $400. Now that’s what I call a bargain, given the six years of hard use my son got from the machine. Be sure to wait for the B&H discount to reappear as the $1300 full retail price is way too high.