Slashdot Mirror
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?"
If I could only choose between the 2 of them, I'd go with the cheaper one. If I could choose anything else, I'd never get an all-in-one computer. I just hate having to part with a good LCD monitor every time I want to upgrade or switch computers.
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?
I choose the Dell XPS One. If I'm going to have to throw the whole thing out once it becomes obsolete, I'm going to buy the one that's going to last the longest.
I hate to say it but I think that the Mac is a better solution for most people.
I just told my father to get a Mac.
He is tired of the security problems with his PCs. He has 3 PCs right now. One at his home here, one at his place in North Georgia, and a Laptop.
All he uses his computer for is Email, digital pictures, and paying bills on line.
I could set him up with Ubuntu but where would he find support for it when I am not around? I don't know how good Dell is at Ubuntu support and frankly he isn't the most technical person on the planet.
Apple has figured out what most people want to do with a PC at home and produce a nice bundle that just works.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It goes to eleven.
No one buys a computer just for the hardware. Hardware is pretty useless without software. If someone is only choosing the Dell over a Mac because the hardware is slightly better, then they deserve Vista.
Choose the best tool for the job. If you'll be more productive with OS X, and you're only choosing between these two systems, then obviously choose the iMac.
Developers: We can use your help.
Why? Because the iMac comes with Leopard and the Dell comes with Vista. I have been recommending Macs to everyone now that they contain Intel chips. You can buy a Mac and if you hate OS X, you can just install Windows or Linux. You can't install OS X after you realized Windows Vista sucks on your brand new Dell.
With Boot Camp - although I prefer VMware for my legacy windows needs - you are guaranteed a machine with excellent Windows driver support. Apple provides all the drivers you need right on the Leopard DVD.
Want to try something new and have a perfect fallback plan if you hate your new OS? You get the iMac. If you buy the Dell and hate Vista you're out of luck unless you find a Linux distro the suits your needs. Unfortunately, as a Linux user since the mid-90's, I still can't recommend it as a viable home desktop alternative for most people I know.
Mercedes? The iMac is a Toyota Camry. Maybe you're thinking of the G5?
You know you can take that money you save and buy Windows XP and install it on the Mac. You know you can do that now, right? So why not have the best of both worlds, or even, run Windows programs in the Mac OS using VMware or Parallel software. You can also find software for the Mac to do what you want to do by going to sites like www.versiontracker.com and finding and alternative, or even the same Company makes a Mac version. The quote "for what I use a computer for" doesn't apply anymore.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Interesting comparison to cars. That also brings into point my first consideration. I remember back in the 70's or 80's when a lot of the American car companies were having trouble because of the new Japanese models. American companies kept putting out more and more of what they wanted the public to buy and the Japanese companies were finding out what sold and focusing on that. It was only when American companies began to realize what was going on that they started listening to customers instead of telling them what was good or desirable.
In this case, Dell has proven they care what the customer says, but if it comes down to the OS, I'll go with Apple. They have been known to listen to the customer at least once in a while. Microsoft? Vista was all about telling customers what they wanted instead of listening to them and the rest of the world (which explains the YouTube videos of Gates showing off features and being asked if they weren't the same as what Mac had already and Gates not realizing it).
Personally, I hope MS ends up having as many problems as the American car makers did back in the 70's and 80's. Then they'll either end up as a has been or learn to listen to customers instead of telling customers what they should want.
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.
Mmmm, Apple pi!
-- Alastair
That also brings into point my first consideration. I remember back in the 70's or 80's when a lot of the American car companies were having trouble because of the new Japanese models. American companies kept putting out more and more of what they wanted the public to buy and the Japanese companies were finding out what sold and focusing on that. It was only when American companies began to realize what was going on that they started listening to customers instead of telling them what was good or desirable.
American car companies still haven't learned the lessons form the '70s and '80s. They still refuse to produce fuel efficient autos. Though there are more flex fuel American autos where are the hybrid and all electric vehicles? GM withdrew the one all electric vehicle they had, the EV1 while there was a waiting list of people wanting to buy, or lease as GM was only leasing them, one.
FalconShould there be a Law?
On a side note, I can't believe I just made an argument that a Mac was cheaper from a hardware standpoint.
*head asplode*
Depending on what the configuration is some Macs are cheaper than equivalent Windows PC. this has been true for a few years. The key though is that you have to start with a Mac then configure a Windows PC to the same specs as Apple doesn't offer nearly as many configurations as PC OEMs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Intel's desktop processor page
The Dells have either a E4500 or E6550
2.2 GHz clock / 2 MB cache / 800 MHz FSB
2.33 GHz / 4 MB / 1333 MHz
All ship with only 667 MHz DIMMs
Intel's mobile processor page
The iMacs have either a T7300, T7700, or X7900.
2.0 GHz / 4 MB / 800 MHz
2.4 GHz / 4 MB / 800 MHz
2.8 GHz / 4 MB / 800 MHz
All ship with only 667MHz SO-DIMMS
BTW, if a 128MB 2400XT is a joke, then WTF do you call integrated video?
The highest specced XPS ONEs have Mobility Radeon HD 2400's, memory is unlisted
while BASE iMacs have Mobility? Radeon HD 2400 XT's with 128MB GDDR3
The highest end iMacs have Mobility? Radeon HD 2600 PROs with 256MB GDDR3.
The iMac has better specs, flat out. It most likely uses a lot less power and weighs less also. The XPS ONE is a very well integrated _PC_ for sure, and has other nice features the iMac doesn't. I think Dell did a great job with the hardware integration and bundled features, and it is somewhat on par with the iMacs, IF you leave Leopard and iLife out of the picture anyway.
Personally, those speakers have got to go!
Oh, and this goes double for our own machines. If I've just spent 8+ hours making sure some company's computers work, the last thing I want to do when i get home is tinker with my own.
Please don't group us with gamers.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
With apple you're paying more for what they think is stylish looks and a brand name.
You nailed that one right on the head. I've been using Macs since the late 1980s.
At first I paid more because the Mac had that whole "GUI" thing, and I thought it was important. Of course, the "GUI" was just a bunch of hooey, until Microsoft brought Windows 3.1 to market. Then the "GUI" actually was worthwhile.
But I still stubbornly continued to use the Mac because I thought I could get a lot done with it, using flashy, stupid tools like HyperCard and AppleScript. I realize now that they were just hogwash, but for a long time I thought I was really productive with them. I ran a 1,200 page website with BBEdit and AppleScript, but I was just fooling myself. Deep inside, I was just transfixed by the smooth beige of the PowerMac series of desktops and towers.
Then the G3 and G4 machines came out, and I was transfixed by the colors and the spicy new advertising. Again I was confused. They *seemed* like reliable computers. When OS X came out, it seemed like a more powerful and stable OS, but in retrospect, I was just taken in by the fact that the hardware and the software *seemed* to work so well together. But of course, that was just an illusion.
Now that I use a Mac laptop and Leopard, it's the same thing, only worse. All of the Mac-only apps really suck, and I'm only keeping my Mac because of those bitchin' "'I'm a PC.' 'And I'm a Mac!'" ads. Goddammit! I just wish Apple would stop messing with my teenie little brain! Give me strength so I can escape the grip of their stylish good looks and that overwhelmingly powerful brand name! Please! Help me!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ