Lenovo Introduces Slimmest, Most Powerful All-In-One Desktop for Business Pros

[Wile E]

What does that have to do with Windows being magically better for all forms of production?

And 9.5? No, it doesn't ring a bell.

And none of this in any way shows how the Lenovos are somehow superior to the iMac. Which, in case you forgot, was the original point.

 

[TheMailMan78]

What does that have to do with Windows being magically better for all forms of production?

I have to find two articles for you. One has to do with OS 9.5. If you have been using Mac for as long as you say then you know ALL ABOUT OS 9.5 and the BS they pulled with it and the OSX transition.

Second I need to find a Maximum PC article. Where they took a real hard Mac vs PC shootout and the results were vastly different then the one you posted. Mainly because they used two completely different but same spec rigs.

What does that have to do with Windows being magically better for all forms of production?

And 9.5? No, it doesn't ring a bell.

And none of this in any way shows how the Lenovos are somehow superior to the iMac. Which, in case you forgot, was the original point.

Better built. My iMac has a "hole" in the screen from the HD heat. Common problem with them when under heavy use. Mine is the 4th one to do it in the art dept.

 

[Wile E]

Oh yeah, I remember all about that. Yes, it was BS, but that is completely irrelevant to the current debate. You are going off on tangents, and not focusing on the topic at hand, which is iMac 21.5" vs this.

Better built compared to yours, irrelevant to current market. My white 20" iMac was a folding rig for a solid year with no probs, so it was built well.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Oh yeah, I remember all about that. Yes, it was BS, but that is completely irrelevant to the current debate. You are going off on tangents, and not focusing on the topic at hand, which is iMac 21.5" vs this.

Better built compared to yours, irrelevant to current market. My white 20" iMac was a folding rig for a solid year with no probs, so it was built well.

My point to the 9.5 was they are not above crappy tricks to make themselves look better. This guy you posted was running a bench of windows on a mac. Thats why I don't buy it. Also it contractive the scores I have read elsewhere. (Which I am looking for now)

White iMacs were fine. Not meant for work (Mac Pros) but were good computers without a doubt. Latest gen is what I am talking about. The black faced bastards. They are not "well built".

 

[kaneda]

Keep your OS X and Win7. I'm happy with Linux
Keep your CS, I'm happy with gimp/blender

 

[Wile E]

My point to the 9.5 was they are not above crappy tricks to make themselves look better. This guy you posted was running a bench of windows on a mac. Thats why I don't buy it. Also it contractive the scores I have read elsewhere. (Which I am looking for now)

White iMacs were fine. Not meant for work (Mac Pros) but were good computers without a doubt. Latest gen is what I am talking about. The black faced bastards. They are not "well built".

The latest ones are the quad cores they just released. I have not seen any reports of burnt screens in them. (They just released them maybe a week ago.)

And the fact that he ran Windows on the Mac makes it a perfect comparison. Same hardware, so no deviation. Windows doesn't magically perform worse on a Mac computer. Mac hardware shows the same performance in Windows as the same hardware in a PC from a different brand.

Keep your OS X and Win7. I'm happy with Linux
Keep your CS, I'm happy with gimp/blender

You can keep Linux. At least I can just download then drag and drop or double click to install just about any program I find in the wild for OS X and Windows.

 

[TheMailMan78]

The latest ones are the quad cores they just released. I have not seen any reports of burnt screens in them. (They just released them maybe a week ago.

No the ones relesed last year. First gen of the black face. Unless I am my time line confused.

Edit: Anyway I am going to have to cave on this one. I for the life of me cannot find an online version of that article and this being a forum, my "word" is no good. But basically they did the something this guy did and ran windows on an iMac. All benches came back as OSX being vastly slower on its native platform then windows. If I find the damn article I'm making a new thread and calling you out! lol

Keep your OS X and Win7. I'm happy with Linux
Keep your CS, I'm happy with gimp/blender

Gimp vs CS? Are you on crack?

 

[Wile E]

No the ones relesed last year. First gen of the black face. Unless I am my time line confused.



Gimp vs CS? Are you on crack?

The first gen black faces are a couple years back already. 2007 I think. And yeah, they are crappy.

And don't forget that the article you are referring to is likely pre 10.6. 10.6 on 64bit hardware is noticeably faster than 10.5 or 10.4. (10.5 was slow in general, tbh. I like 10.4 vastly better.)

 

[TheMailMan78]

The first gen black faces are a couple years back already. 2007 I think. And yeah, they are crappy.

And don't forget that the article you are referring to is likely pre 10.6. 10.6 on 64bit hardware is noticeably faster than 10.5 or 10.4. (10.5 was slow in general, tbh. I like 10.4 vastly better.)

I agree. 10.4 was a better OS. But after being burned with 9.5 I have a hard time with anything they do.

 

[Easy Rhino]

lmao trolling is easy! no wonder mailman does it.

 

[kaneda]

Gimp vs CS? Are you on crack?

GIMP vs Photoshop CS5:
With plugins, properly configured to your needs... Yea, it fares rather well while using fewer resources.

You can keep Linux. At least I can just download then drag and drop or double click to install just about any program I find in the wild for OS X and Windows.

That's not a problem for me, I don't mind using the terminal

 

[Easy Rhino]

ok i guess we should get back on topic or something.

 

[Wile E]

Is there a configuration page up for this yet? I want more specs.