Ugh, why doesn't anyone do 16:10 monitors anymore? 16:9 might be more functional for movies, but I don't use my PC for that, I use it for work, and 16:10 is much better IMO for business use. Shame only the overpriced jammer comes in 16:10. When I've got toolbars in Photoshop and rack stands in Reason 4, 120px makes a difference, it really does.

@Sheppard

Pretty sure it is burned properly because the program does RUN it just cannot write the EFI section.

The funny part is RebelEFI is junk. It doesn't work on ANY of the 9-10 machines I've tested, it simply conks out with multiple write errors when booting the demo CD. Which I would had actually bought it if it did work. A triple boot rig would be awesome but I have a weird OEM board so Hackintoshing has been unsuccessful for me.

@mikmik111

It doesn't, as Dell has shown with the Latitude Z. But alot of the things in the M6500 require alot of space.

"support for up to three storage devices with optional RAID configurations"

That one primarily comes to mind.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .,/ /|\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\’|\ |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :

These are very cute, and I'm sure would be very entertaining. I don't even own an iPhone or iPod Touch but I still think these would be a very, very cool conversation starter when guests come over!

HOLY CRAP this would be fantastic for work!

obo

Your little tirade still doesn't stop the data from being incomplete. If you had READ what I wrote, you'd notice majority of my criticism was with where the iMac was placed, being a clearly faster machine by a factor of several TIMES the Atom PC's, yet still able to rank among them. The mini's position over Atom based nettops is even more remarkable; but they simply do not tell you the machine is faster, or offer a link to benchmarking. I have a hard time believe I'm the only person who would think this is suspect.

To go back to my car analogy, the iMac would be akin to seeing a Corvette get about 35MPG on the highway with 435HP vs the Corolla's 120HP, and saying "Oh, the Corolla get's 3 more MPG". You don't see a shootout between different engine categories in car mags, because that would make the results inaccurate at best, worthless at worst.

The lack of data on the chip speed or differences in display size is a huge omission because it EXISTS on other product categories on this site, namely LCD/Plasma TV's. Why weren't these machines divided by processor type or screen size? Awfully fishy to me.

Wee! I want one!

These comparisons are largely stupid and irrelevant. If you've seen my posts, you know I'm not a fan of Apple's computers (moreso of the iPod/iPhone); but there's a few glaring holes in the arguement that would easily tip the scales in Apple's favor

1 - Are we looking at comparable processors in these all-in-ones? If we are not, then the article becomes irrelevant. That's like saying your 1.8L 4 cylinder Toyota Corrolla gets better gas mileage than a Corvette but it gets you to 60mph in 3x the ticks on the stopwatch. In the case of the MBA vs the HP, a middle of the road 1.86ghz C2D E6320 (which I would assume is close to or is the chip in the MBA, I don't know what chip it uses admittedly) runs all over the HP's SP9300. It does take more power, but it's a faster chip. In the case of a Core 2 Duo vs any of those Atom based, this is ridiculous. In NO MACHINE do these Atoms deliver the performance of a Core2. Not even in the ballpark. Not a PC vs Mac debate, it's common sense. The Atoms were made for low power usage and battery longevity for notebooks; and they're thusly slow as shit. As a matter of fact, the iMac is the most frugal dual-core machine in that list.

2 - Are we looking at comparable displays for the all-in-ones? Same sizes? IPS displays in the other machines that are being compared to the iMac? Again, saying my 17" widescreen in an MSi Machine yields lower power results than a 20" or 24" iMac of last generation is a no brainer. Bigger needs more power in this generation.

3 - Power supplies? Video hardware? Again, no brainer. Crappy power supplies are usually going to be less efficient, more powerful peripherals would also need more power

So if you REALLY want to look at the facts, the iMac and Mini blow away the competition in power usage because they are SEVERAL TIMES FASTER for a negligable power draw different in light of the machine speed. I mean I get what the article is trying to convey, but it's not that black and white really.