Is the Dell XPS One Better than the Apple iMac?
An anonymous reader writes "The Apple iMac is probably the standard all-in-one desktop computer. Great operating system, built-in software and design around solid, but pretty normal, hardware guts. According to Walter Mossberg, there's a new kid in town that not only matches it but is 'sightly ahead': the Dell XPS One. His latest review is already causing the usual suspects to weigh in. Mossberg says it is a better machine, but Vista and its built-in software make it inferior than Apple iMac's Leopard and iLife suite. Would you choose the better hardware of the Dell XPS One -which is more expensive- or the elegant design and software of the Apple iMac?"
I don't quite understand why they rate the XPS one higher than the iMac.
First off, let's compare tech specs.
iMac (Low-end) $1199
20" wsxga+ screen
1GB Ram
250GB HDD
Dual Layer DVD burner
ATI Radeon HD 2400XT (128MB)
802.11n Wireless
XPS ONE (Low-End) $1399
20" wsxga+ screen
2GB Ram
250GB HDD
DVD burner Integrated Video
"WiFi" (doesn't say which)
Now notice that the only thing the dell beats the mac in is memory. However, for $150 you can upgrade to the same amount when you order an iMac (or get a stick on newegg for half that), and have a machine that still is $50 LESS (and with a real video card, a dual layer burner, and guaranteed 802.11n). Gizmodo also already agreed that Leopard was the better operating system (see the link in the article below the video). So this begs me to ask, why do they consider the more expensive, less equipped, and weaker operating system computer better than the other?
First off, I noted that the RAM was less in the Mac. That's why I said that you could upgrade it to an equal amount, and still pay less for the mac.
Also, "Fear The Clam" already noted my forgetting the TV tuner ( http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=400096&cid=21833078 ), and I noted this. Read others comments before you flame.
And Integrated Video versus a dedicated graphic card? Please. I just bought a Lenovo X61 with one of intel's latest integrated chips, the Intel GMA X3100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3100) and I have trouble playing Counterstrike on it ( i get about 25 fps @ 640x480). Not Counterstrike Source mind you, the original CS from 1999. My old Radeon 9800 out performs it greatly ( 100 fps @ 1280x1024), and that has about one third [270Mhz clock vs 800 Mhz clock] the power of the 2400XT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units#Radeon_R600_series). Granted CS isn't a full benchmark (and it can't run on a mac) but it at least gives us a basic comparison between the performance of the cards.
However, yes, the dell does have 200Mhz more. I overlooked that.
Yes, but "good" LCDs have gotten extremely inexpensive these days. The display on the iMac is just about as good as you're going to get, and the glass surface is a huge plus -- I just got done deploying a couple hundred of the new aluminium iMacs in a school district, and I've got to say that All-in-one design is AMAZING for our purposes, with the indestructible glass screens as icing on the cake.
Likewise, I predict that extremely-high-resolution displays are just over the horizon. It's almost 2008 -- we should be able to make a display that can at least come *close* to the resolution of a laser printer. Take a look at the financial section of your newspaper, hold it up next to your computer screen, and you'll realize just how poor our current display technology is. In 4 years time, when it's time to replace your Dell or iMac, I imagine that you'll want a better monitor.
Either way, I'm sticking with Apple. The Dell doesn't have any compelling features over Apple, and the price frankly isn't that good either. Being able to run Mac OS *or* any version of Windows (simultaneously if you want) on the iMac is the dealbreaker, considering that just about every other aspect of the machine is the same.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose