What computers do you use to edit? Everyone keeps suggesting

Lenovo Thinkpad
i7
8GB
SSD + HDD(s)

Great for 16mp raw files, probably great for 24 or 36mp ones too.

A dedicated GPU might help with 7 layer 16 bit TIFF stacks, but it works fine with a little patience.

Built for $450. Runs like a dream.

AMD3.5GHz 6-Core CPU
8GB DDR3
120GB SSD
1TB 7200 RPM HDD
Radeon HD 7850 2GB GPU

I've got a 2015 mpb. Performance wise it works very well with Ps/Ai/Lr, never had any hiccups working with enormous files or large batches, but considering photo editing isn't that demanding I'm sure you can find cheaper options that does the job as well. If you're into vidya then just get a desktop. The screen works pretty well for most cases, but if you want to be super precise it's not as good as a proper grading monitor. I've graded a couple of short films on it, and it was a pretty frustrating process at times. The color gamut, black levels, viewing angle and resolution is great, but the contrast ratio is pretty high and it tends to crush the blacks a bit, so deep shadows can be a bit tricky work on. Trackpad, battery, keyboard and build quality is superb.

>>2919014
15", 16gb, i7 2.2, 256gb, integrated graphics btw

>>2918968
Depends, laptop or desktop? Cheap/expensive?
Laptop cheap - thinkpads
Laptop expensive - MBP
Desktop cheap - build one, FirePro or quadro graphics + Intel processors
Desktop Expensive - iMac with GPU/Mac Pro

>>2919024
which thinkpad?

>>2919023
what's that bench/table in the bg

>>2919047
Any with these specs: an i5/i7, 4< GB ram, Intel iris graphics/nvidia 970m/amd r7 series - or better. And obviously, Windows 10. Win7 is no good no more

Built myself
I7-6700k
980ti
32gb RAM
250gb SSD for OS and working

Cut my regular workflow time in half.

>>2918968
I personally use a 15" 2015 rMBP base model.

However I didnt buy it for editing photos, I bought it for scientific Python/Matlab development. If I'd bought it for editing photos, I would have wanted the model with a GPU.

>>2918968
PC is fine. Windows has some annoying bullshit regarding the alt key functionality in Photoshop but unless you're working really quickly using certain functions you won't notice it.

I use my MBP sometimes, my custom PC sometimes and at work I use a Mac Pro.

>>2918968
Toshiba Portege circa 2011, 4GB RAM, i5 of some sort, no functioning battery, low res screen for which the WB is too cold.

Works with the 16MP RAF's ok but it slows down on more complicated editing and import/export is slow. Looking at an XPS 13 or possibly the Yoga 910 when it is released.

What about monitors?? What setting do you use on your monitor? I wonder how many people have theirs set on cooler or warmer. Are high end monitors better for post processing on your computer?

>>2918968
Macs are great, but you don't really need one.
People talk about using them for photography or design because they look great if you have an office full of them, or just one or two in a small workspace. And how your company looks is important when dealing with clients.

I use a lenovo Y510p ideapad
i7-4700MQ
16GB RAM
1TB HDD + 8GB SSD
NVIDIA GT755M 2GB
Works great for editing photos with a Dell U2415 as an extra monitor.

I also have an iMac for work, which works just as well, and the big screen is really nice (especially using dual monitors) but the price isn't really worth it when it doesn't give any difference in performance.

>>2919020
>integrated graphics

I just threw up in my mouth.

>>2919098
> Being this new to /g/raphics

I'll be honest with you OP.

I use to only run PCs. Switched over to a rMBP 15" and haven't looked back. Just try it and you will understand. Don't let PC master race fags tell you otherwise. Try it for yourself and make your own decision

>>2919084

if u want to do serious color work, you'll need to use a color calibrator (ie. colormonkee) to make sure that your whites are balanced for ambient light in your editing environment. also, if youve got the cash, might as well invest in a 100% AdobeRGB monitor, shit is cash

If you want a laptop wait a bit, new intel Kaby Lake processors coming out, and new nvidia GPUs that are actually the same as desktop class.
The XPS 15 is pretty nice balance, probably will be a new one out soon.
Macbooks are usually kinda underspec'd but if you like OSX go for it I guess. They aren't required tho.

>>2919059
do you sleep on it?

whats the best way to calibrate a windows 7 laptop?

File: 1469834812596.png (137KB, 526x436px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 526x436px

Toshiba Satellite

File: alienware_alpha_2.jpg (68KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1600x900px

Hey /p/

Asked this on /g/ and got tore a new one.. I have been using Apple products for the last 10 years but now want to make the switch to PC.

I am not interested in building my own, I just want something I can buy that will work out of the box and have great bang for buck.

I am thinking about buying an Alienware Alpha, specs are as follows..

>Processor
Intel® Core™ i7 6700T Processor (Quad-Core, 8MB Cache, up to 3.6GHz w/ Turbo Boost)

>OS
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit English

>Memory2
16GB Single Channel DDR4 2133MHz (16GBx1)

>HD
512GB PCIe Solid State Drive

>Video Card
NVIDIA® GeForce GTX 960 GPU with 4GB DDR5

>PRICE
$1,850AUD

It is solely for my post processing (not gaming) and maybe some 4k video editing.

I edit several thousand images per week.

>>2919353

I will also add that if I only get Windows 10 home (not pro) and the standard 256GB SSD the price would go down to $1599.

>>2918968
>What computers do you use to edit?
it's either an old HP pavilion
core 2 duo 2,53GHz
3GB ram
Radeon 4650
old 7200rpm 3,5" HDD
monitor is an eizo flexscan S1721
or a 2015 macbook pro
i7-4870HQ 2,5GHz
16GB ram
GTX750M
512GB SSD
both its monitor and an eizo flexscan S1721

the PC is really slow with opening apps, updating image previews and so on, but I can work with it
the mac is faster for everything, the screen is pretty good, and when shooting tethered there's a big difference there
>I've always avoided apple in general, and never fell for the memes and buzzwords filled marketing.
while you're right about the buzzwords, if it's my job and I need something reliable I'd go for a mac, regardless of everything else
also for a lot of stuff it plain works better than a win machine
if you want something relatively cheap, just for photo editing you need
an intel core i7
16GB of ram, doesn't matter if it's very very fast
a good enough monitor (an eizo flexscan IPS for example)
a color calibration unit, like the spyder or the colormonkee
if you're doing stuff with Ps you might wanna invest in something like a radeon firepro
>>2919098
Lr, just to name one, doesn't use hardware acceleration last time I checked tho, so a powerful GPU won't change anything
stop being this dense and read a book on how this stuff works

>>2918968
>>2919075
Basically the main reason to prefer Macs for photo editing is that Apple takes quality and factory calibration of their displays fairly seriously. Even MBAs with their cheapo TN panels are okay for amateur photo editing, and MBPs and iMacs are almost as good as professional monitors (fuck Apple's fetish for glossy coatings though).

On the Windows side, if you're assembling a desktop PC, it's not too hard to get a quality monitor, but screens on 95% of Windows laptops range from "needs calibration" to "unsalvageable", and digging through reviews to find one that doesn't suck can be frustrating.

>>2919353
>I am not interested in building my own, I just want something I can buy that will work out of the box and have great bang for buck.
then you want a mac
>I am thinking about buying an Alienware
>It is solely for my post processing (not gaming) and maybe some 4k video editing.
these two don't go together well
also according to PCpartpicker.com, these exact same things you chose (I chose a popular case, cooler and psu, dunnow what's inside that thing you posted exactly) would cost 998USD

for photo editing you want a decent proc and a good monitor
for 4k video editing you need a good GPU, especially if you'll be using more than one monitor
also that video card is a bad choice, you'll want a "workstation" type card, namely a radeon firepro or an nvidia quadro

considering your budget I'd stay on macs

if you end up for that, def go for win 10 home edition, and possibly get a bigger SSD or a lot of external storage, 4k vid isn't lightweight, and nor are several thousand images per week

>>2919353
Do you really need such a small computer though? I can point at least two significant trade-offs you're making: 6700T is slower than a 6700 for the same price (it's choked to 35W instead of 65W to make cooling easier), and I don't think it has any bays to install mechanical hard drives (so you'll have to rely on slower USB 3.0 external drives to offload finished images)

>>2919362
I don't think he can afford the trashcan, and iMacs have regular "gaming" GPUs and the same problem with expanding internal storage. I'd definitely go the self-build route, but that's not for everyone.

>win 10 home edition
I think you can still buy workstation-type machines from HP etc. that are downgradeable to Win7.

>>2918968
AMD 8120 @ 4GHz - Akasa X4 Cooling
Nvidia 970 Strix Edition - Don't buy Asus products their QC is shit, this one rattles at load
8GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM

500GB Crucial SSD - Boot Drive/Program storage
1TB WD - Primary storage drive
600GB - Legacy drive I needed to recover files from but couldn't be bothered removing again

------

Also have a Lenovo Yoga 14 3 although I haven't edited on it I'd assume it'd handle it ok

i7 5500u
8GB RAM
256SSD - Thinking of upgrading this in the future but apparently the drive thickness is 5mm compared to standard 7mms? What in the fuck? Where do I get 5mm drives from:/

But at the moment it's just a fancy ultrabook for word documents and facebook whilst at uni

------

Z3c with Snapseed

>>2919362
>great bang for buck
so not mac

just never mac /p/. please. do a quarter days research and look past marketing hype.

>>2918968
laptop: le mac
desktop: spend on newest CPU+ IPS monitor, dedicated gpu later

>>2919571
If I get a mac, should I go for the laptop or the iMac?

>>2919574
Depends for what use and budget, if you move around a lot and are rich, 15" MBP with GPU

>>2919591
>need to be rich to own a mac
>on a board where people waste money on old cameras, film, lenses, etc
You for real? there's the financing option too.

>>2918968
Most important thing is a matte screen.
So no Apple.

>>2919359
>factory calibration

Completely useless 3 months down the road.

>>2919620
Enough for most kinds of /p/ stuff.

And those who really need a deltaE of 1 will calibrate everything regardless of the factory state.

>>2919574
Mac mini + non Apple monitor because glossy screens suck

If You are going to Shell out 2 grand for Video editing, Lenovo P50.
M7510 is also nice.

I would not recommend a Mac with competition like that.

I use a Dell 5520 laptop, i5 CPU, 16Gb DRD memory, 120Gb SSD RAM.
Win7, LR and PS, I use an external HHD for storage.
Oh, and a separate monitor for better color depth.

i've built an Hackintosh about 2 yrs ago for like 1000$, still works like a charm

consider that if you want a cheap mac with good performance

>>2919709
>getting your jimmies rustled this hard

>>2919647
>Enough for most kinds of /p/ stuff.

I meant it will be the same as an uncalibrated monitor.

>>2919709
>being this fat

>>2919650
>Mac mini

Far too weak.

Make that a Mac Pro.

>>2919748
Mac Pro starts at $3000 without a monitor, with a lot of that cost going towards ECC memory and dual GPUs that are useless for photo editing.

>>2919743
No. The panels do not drift that wildly. A shitty panel will drift the same, but from a much worse start.

>>2918968
I use a 2010 mbp with extra ram and an SSD

>>2919323
I don´t know if is the best, but you can use a soft called calibrize to do it.

>>2919709
Get a load of this guy

I switched back from Mac to PC a couple of years ago and couldn't be happier. I spent around $1800 on a rig with an i5, GTX780, SSD+HDD, 16GB RAM, etc. Not only does it run the hell out of editing apps, but I can also play vidya on it.

I also have a 13" HP Spectre X360 laptop with an i7, it's fast but the small screen is pretty limiting. Good for working in the field and the tablet mode + stylus compatibility is useful.

Mac is fine, though. I'd go for the MBP over the iMac, just for versatility. I'd get an external monitor, mouse, and keyboard for home use.

have a or 14 MBP 13"
2.8 GHz Intel Core i5
8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Intel Iris 1536 MB
I find it now struggles with my lightroom catalog(that stoo big at 10k+)

Biggest problem is it has always rainbow wheeled trying to use the heal tool pretty much everytime. It also now just generally browses slow even with 1:1 smart previews loaded
Looking into building a mini desktop exclusively to work lightroom and photoshop

>>2919405
>just never mac /p/. please
why?
please thoroughly explain it
>>2919650
>non Apple monitor because glossy screens suck
a monitor as good as an iMac cost a bit less than the base iMac tho

>>2919946
Base iMac is 21". I don't think quality monitors of that size exist at all nowadays.

>>2918968
> What computers do you use to edit?
i7 920 with 12GB RAM. Now almost 8 years old.

The only piece of software that starts to be annoying is Lightroom, but that's ultimately the problem of it being an inefficient piece of shit.

I am pretty much more likely to switch that one out for DxO or Phase One or even Corel or open source software eventually than upgrade the hardware because of it.

> I might get something cheap first and then build my own pc.
Uh, why not just build your own PC and upgrade?

>>2919951
>8 years old

c-core2duo here

>>2919975
While the i7 920 was an extremely lucky release, it is not like even a decent desktop C2D from then should be too little for image editing.

24MP or whatever aren't actually terribly much for common 2D image edits. Besides, you might have a dedicated GPU too with way more processing power for some tasks,

If it's slow, even *your* problem is probably mainly Adobe crapware.

>>2919985 (cont'd)
A C2D E6600 can run ~29000 million 64bit integer instructions per second.

That is plenty of room to do a series of things with 24 million 14bit pixels, and still run the rest of the computer too. Really doesn't need the most perfectly written software to work okay.

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-08 at 10.16.53 PM.png (16KB, 265x97px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 265x97px

>>2918968

>>2919359
Fanboy is strong here.
Apple has terrible monitors for editing. Hell, Dell has profoundly better monitors and some are even surprisingly cheap.

OP when you read these replies you should consider the parts that are actually important and try to keep in mind anyone who says Mac is better than PC or vice versa is probably insufficiently informed to answer your question.

I have a desktop that I built, and a MacBook Pro with retina display and I've used each for edits. I did not buy the laptop for editing so it is not really specced out for it but it's pretty smooth in lightroom. I am a /g/fag so my desktop is pretty powerful and so obviously it is noticeably faster.

The most important thing in my mind is the screen. I like the MacBook screen but some people will say it's contrast is a bit high or whatever. I think that's not an unreasonable comment but if you're really serious you can calibrate it. I've never had a problem.

If you're getting a desktop though make sure you invest in a screen with good colour reproduction. Some professional monitors can be very expensive which is probably beyond what you need but I hsve 3 screens of the same model from Asus and, despite my best attempts with manual and hardware assisted (Spyder) calibration, they all show slightly different colours and it is enraging.

If I wanted a photo editing computer I would build a pc for it with lots of RAM and quick CPU (and maybe a graphics card if I was doing lots of Photoshop stuff, but I think lightroom mostly used CPU. I may be wrong) but I would spend up big on a monitor that I could be confident would display colours accurately and consistently.

>>2918968
I built a PC in Feb with 32gb of memory, 256gb SSD/2 TB 7200 HDD, Intel i7 skylake and a GTX 970. It's complete overkill for photo editing. If you got an i5 or AMD equivalent and 16gb ram you would be set performance wise.

Get lots of storage and a good IPS monitor with at least 2560x1440 res. Don't bother with expensive GPUs at all. Get a decent processor but you don't need too of the line unless you do video too.

I would recommend a desktop unless you absolutely need a laptop.

File: Capture.png (67KB, 893x837px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 893x837px

>>2920095
>Apple has terrible monitors for editing.
[citation needed]

Like, check any of the screen reviews
http://www.notebookcheck.net/?&items_per_page=50&tagArray[]=13&typeArray[]=1
Yeah, they still require calibration if you're really serious, but you can actually use them out of the box without fearing that you're seeing everything wrong.

Oh, and I actually use a Dell monitor for photo editing. But the "IPS" display on my Thinkpad is a total bag of dicks.

desktop:
>dual xeon x5650
>2x24gb ram
>amd 390x 8gb
>bmd mini monitor
>os and programs off SSD
>work either off internal raid0 or 10gbe attached network storage
>2x dell up2516d, cine-tal cinemage 24

notebook:
>lenovo w541
>i7 4710
>16gb ram
>quadro k2100m
>2x500gb ssd
>3k self calibrating screen thingy

>>2919359
>>2920095
What bothers me about Apple displays is the glare. I worked with mac pros and those thunderbolt displays show a level of glare that is completely unacceptable for what is marketed as a professional display for photographers and designers. Not to mention it costs one thousand fucking dollars.

>>2918968
I'm in a situation where I need a quad core laptop with discrete graphics and an SSD, but I'd also benefit from 8 hours of battery, an IPS screen, and under 2kg. After a lot of research, I've found that pretty much my only choices are:

asus zenbook pro: £1500
macbook pro: £2000
dell xps 15: £1650

The macbook obviously beats the zenbook on design, but the zenbook is cheaper and uses a newer processor. The XPS doesn't really have a niche. I'm currently deciding whether to by a zenbook now or wait till the new year, by which time the macbook will surely have been updated.

Some people don't care about the battery, weight, or screen, because they don't really need to take it anywhere and use an external monitor. In that case there are a plethora of adequately powerful computers for under £500 and none of them are by apple.

>>2922590
the discrete graphics in all these aren't really worthwhile

>>2919709
Let me just say I enjoy your work here on /p/. Keep it up, I'll be disappointed the day I stop seeing these in random threads.

>>2922567
Apple probably believes that if you can afford the trashcan with a couple thunderbolt displays, you can also afford a separate room with calculated dim lighting.

On my gaming computer. It sucks traveling though because I end up having to come home to thousands of shots of shit I have to go through.

I'll probably pick up a cheap Thinkpad or something before my next trip to at least moderately edit some of it.

Problem is most of those don't have remotely color accurate displays, anyone recommend a cheap (used is fine) laptop in the $300-400 range for some light editing?

>>2922667
news to me, can you elaborate?
I mean, I know they don't really compare to desktop graphics cards, but I'd assumed they'd give me a decent boost compared to integrated
btw I also need to do 3d modelling and rendering

>>2922945
Laptop GPU's generate a lot of heat, drain power from the computer faster, and raise the price of those systems substantially. Not to mention they do not compare to their desktop equivalents.

At least that's how it was a few years ago. It might be better now.

>>2922567
I actually strongly prefer the glossy display. This is all subjective, but I feel that matte displays compromise colour fidelity. In a controlled environment, I just need to make sure the light source isn't in the angle of reflection.

Besides, if the gloss bothers you so much, you can buy a matte screen protector, but you can't do the opposite.

>>2919709

You lie on an uncomfortable looking slab of wood in your depressing undecorated box room. What's worse is you imply to have wealth whilst your poor mans macbook sweetly rests upon an awkwardly centered shit plywood desk

>>2922968
To each their own then. Been using the same BenQ matte screen for a few years and every image I edit comes printed with identical colors from labs and higher end printers.

What would be the bare minimum specifications a PC would need in order to edit projects of 4K resolution?

>>2922962
ah, well these laptops only use the discrete where necessary so power drain shouldn't be too much of a problem.
on the other hand, I've heard that intel integrated graphics have improved a lot compared to nvidia over the past few years, so the boost isn't as much as it was.

>>2922999

Bare minimum for editing = absolute perfection for annoying.

I don't bother with these threads because my Maya / Bryce / AE days are behind me, but that question gave me a panic attack.

>>2922999
The bare minimum specs will annoy the shit out of you. You'll be pissed at your desk wondering why your piece of shit computer won't fucking render faster damn it

Trust me

>>2922962
The 10xx series of nVidia mobile GPUs are almost the same as their desktop equivalents, and laptops with powerful GPUs are no longer 3" thick bricks with 20 minutes of battery life, but still, a desktop computer is going to be significantly more cost-efficient (not to mention that you can tailor it to a particular task instead of choosing from a couple preset configurations)

Anyone /Linux/ here?

I've been slowly trying to make the switch and I'd be interested in hearing what programs you use and what your workflow is like.

>>2918968
Selfbuild with a great Dell screen.
Plus a precision 5510 on the go.
Needing that AdobeRGB colorspace.

>>2924100
It's very do-able.
If you are on the "zomg pro editor/tograph0rz" mindwagon then you'll never make it.
If you don't enjoy finding out how things work, writing your own scripts and occasionally not having some bell or whistle (while simultaneously having a whole bunch of other less obvious bells and whistles), then you'll never make it.
Windows is a mindset, just like mac, so is linux.
After using linux for everything since about (iirc) 2009 I find windows incredibly tedious and insulting to use. But I can. Just not on my system. Apple is linux at it's outer core, so it's sometimes an interesting cousin. eg: a few days ago i used the mac blurb installer to run their java based software. It was easy, and doesn't totally suck.

Geeqie for previewing
Gimp if you ever really need to photomanipulate something.
Darktable or Rawtherapee or Ufraw for general editing. I usually only tweak exposure, crop and WB in several hundred images at a sitting, so I like DT, and avoid RT because it makes everything pastelly looking by default. But RT is still useful and less gumby by design.
Imagemagick is usually default installed, and the key to all the right click context menus you want for specific common operations.
There's other "management" type software, but I prefer to avoid that shit and keep it simple and not tied to any one software.
Filemanagement by folder structure.
Backup by rsync to usually-off USB bank of 3Tb drives. I also rsync all my devices this way via SSH. On demand, but could easily crontab it.

Kubuntu for OS interface customisability and windows familiarity. Ubuntu for slightly more integral color management but gumby UI
Kubuntu can run almost anything written for Ubuntu, and googling either is often the right answer. The online documentation is colossal now, so answers are almost always easy. Also ArchWiki is an incredible resource for anyhting debian.
Debian based ftw. This ftw therefore flows on into MacOS and Android to some degree,

>>2924337
>If you are on the "zomg pro editor/tograph0rz" mindwagon then you'll never make it.
what did he mean by this???

File: IMG_20160914_101811-1-y1080px.jpg (255KB, 724x1080px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 724x1080px

>>2924100
General-use system is an Intel NUC with 6Gb
http://www.intel.com.au/content/www/au/en/nuc/nuc-kit-d34010wyk.html
And I *can* edit on it, but it's a bit slower than the GTX660 & 4Gb i5, so I tend to download off camera and do my culling on the nuc and then switch to the i5 for editing.
The NUC serves the files via gigabit lan, via sshfs, so if anyhting is a bottleneck that's it, but if it bothered me I'd download off camera to the i5's ssd and move only USB bays afterwards. But it doesn't bother me.

Color management is a thing.
I used to use an expensive gaming monitor that was supposedly very decent at color profiling, but after seeing numerous screens side by side i don;t trust any one thing anymore. I also don't print, so I'm not that concerned.
If I ever really want to see how thigs look I crank two phones and one tablet and put them on the shelf next to my two tv's - which are my primary monitors.
Between the oversaturated 50", the samsung panel 55" and the typically device-saturated and deceptively concentrated devices.. i just kind of eyeball it based on what DT does when I hit auto on an image I already know is well exposed.
It's completely fallible, but that's how I roll.. for now.
I have calibrated the 50", but that dont; do anything different from it;s default internal profile. And did calibrate the gaman monitor, but that was also a waste of effort.

At one point I was running Ufraw on a debian Pi3, and VNC 'd it to a tablet for interface. Worked ok. Would be ok for a travel or emergency field setup.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	1 dp
Vertical Resolution	1 dp
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: Photoshop_lolPro.png (157KB, 557x228px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 557x228px

>>2924338

>>2918988

>AMD

H-hello b-brother...

FX 8350 8 core OC'd to 4.7GHz (watercooled)
32GB RAM
120GB SSD (system)
3x 3TB 7200 RPM HDDs
2x R9 280X in crossfire

I have other systems, including i7, but this one's my favorite because it's such an underdog, and gets the most use. Can't wait for Zen to release!

>>2919082
>2011 portege
my nigga, posting from one as we speak

Just bought a MBP 15", it has the AMD R9 Card & 512Gb SSD (Technically).

Works well. Gets a little toasty when I work on motion graphics and such; works perfect for photo editing and lasts much longer than my last machine.

>>2919947
What did you even say lmao.


Hold on one sec lemme just buy the most recent 4k UHD 144hz 0ms Ghosting time Acer Netbook Pro Series 13.


What the fuck are you even trying to say about monitors/resolution when they're talking about things like CPU / GPU / Ram? The display on my 15" MBP works fine; it's a pushed resolution from 1920x1200 to 3400x2600.

>>2918968

13" rMBP. Wouldn't use anything else.

>>2925349
I said that there's nothing in the Windows world to compare the base iMac to, since all monitors of this size suck dicks.

This thread must be a joke. Seriously? You are discussing tec specs for software tasks which can be done on a pentium I processor?

What do you think you do? Rocket science? >1Mio texture layers 3D animation rendering? Real-time processing of robotic sensor data?

Please all gtfo and delete the thread. The cringe is unbearable.

(And for those who really wonder: open a computas catalog, close your eyes, point at a random offer .. then take the cheaper one and there you go .. lmfao ... gosh)

>>2925818
I love the combination of ignorance and self righteousness, and use of "gosh" just put it over the top.

10/10