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?"

My Choice

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

"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?"
 
Personally, I'm still choosing neither. Why? Because I can't afford them and I don't spend enough time using a desktop machine to justify it if I could. I put money into my laptops, because that's where I live and work. For my desktop, I want a big case that I can dig around and play in. And for the most part it's all cheap stuff. Would an imac be nice? Sure. Just like a Mercedes would be a lot nicer than my '95 Taurus. But the Taurus and my gateway case with a motherboard I got on special at Frys do the job - and that is enough.
 
When family our friends are looking for a new home pc - if they are looking for something in the price range of the imac - I encourage them to go that route without hesitation.

Re:

[0xdeadbeef (28836)]

Mercedes? The iMac is a Toyota Camry. Maybe you're thinking of the G5?

Re:

[Abreu (173023)]

The Toyota Camry is considered a luxury car where I live, you insensitive clod!

(not joking: while the elite here drives BMWs and Mercedes like everywhere else, cars are so expensive here that a Camry is "upper middle-class only" and a VW Jetta is considered a "nice family car")

Re:My Choice

[TheWanderingHermit (513872)]

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.

Interesting comparison to cars.

[falconwolf (725481)]

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 [wikipedia.org] American autos where are the hybrid and all electric vehicles? GM withdrew the one all electric vehicle they had, the EV1 [wikipedia.org] while there was a waiting list of people wanting to buy, or lease as GM was only leasing them, one.

Falcon

Re:Interesting comparison to cars.

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Though there are more flex fuel American autos...

"Flex fuel" is bullshit. All it means is that they use slightly better rubber hoses and have extra programming in the ECU. It doesn't actually help anything (at least not until ethanol from sources other than corn is widely available); it's just a way for US auto makers (in collusion with the corn lobby) to weasel out of real improvements!

Re:My Choice

[Shag (3737)]

the only people who upgrade all the time are gamers.

Fixed that for you. I spent years as a sysadmin, and believe me, anyone who's been a sysadmin for a few years does not upgrade all the time. That entails actual (and quite possibly unnecessary) work, which is anathema to sysadmins. We get it built, get it stable, automate as much as possible with shell scripts, and then leave it alone unless it breaks or misbehaves. Although our tinkering skills are probably far superior to yours, tinkering to us is nothing but a means to an end, not a raison d'etre - and worse yet, it's something that cuts into time we could be spending doing other things, like playing games, reading slashdot, watching movies, eating, or sleeping.

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. :)

Personally?

[the_humeister (922869)]

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.

Re:

[Fahrenheit 450 (765492)]

What I would do, of course, is wait a couple of weeks to see what they release at MacWorld before considering buying any Mac this time of year.

Re:Personally?

[orclevegam (940336)]

It's funny, I find myself in the exact opposite situation. My monitors tend to last a rather long time, but I need to upgrade my PC fairly regularly. Of course I also spend a load of money to get a really nice monitor when I do replace it (usually close to or more then the cost of my current computer).

Re:Personally?

[moosesocks (264553)]

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.

Re:

[rsmith-mac (639075)]

"Good" LCDs are not inexpensive, only "lame/good enough" LCDs are. The cheap LCDs you find today are all TN panels guaranteed to have horrible viewing angles and 18bit (262,144) color, if not additional gotchas like backlight bleeding and few OSD options like scaling modes. Good panels are still expensive, and are in practice going out of production. The only panels you're going to find that are genuinely "good" are IPS panels, which offer true 24bit (16,777,216) color with excellent color accuracy and a vi

Re:

[MBGMorden (803437)]

I probably upgrade my computers far more often than my monitor, but then again, when I'm ready for a new monitor (like when I went form CRT to LCD, or 17" LCD to 19" LCD, or normal LCD to widescreen), I'm often not looking to replace my computer either. They are essentially 2 entirely different impulse purchases. That's why I peronsally hate any computer that combines the monitor and main system unit, ESPECIALLY in the case of the iMac where it's so obvious that they could have split them for almost no ad

Stylish looks and a brand name keep burning me

[Infonaut (96956)]

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!

Re:Stylish looks and a brand name keep burning me

[Stamen (745223)]

Of course most Mac users are sheep, most people, in general, are sheep. People buy ipods because that's what everyone uses. People buy Windows also because that is everyone uses. At least the Mac sheep spent some time and made a conscious decision to buy something that most of the other sheeple didn't; so there is some hope for them.

For most people computers are just appliances. My wife introduced me to Macs. She bought one solely because she loved her iPod, and when she went to Circuit City, she looked at both PCs and a Mac, and because of her experience with her iPod she bought an iBook (this was many years ago). She's a smart cookie, but doesn't have an interest in technical stuff, so she said to her self: if the iPod works well the Mac must too; and for her it has; she now has a MacBook.

When we started dating, I started learning OS X on her machine. I was kind of amazed of what she was doing with her computer. Sure you CAN do everything she was doing on Windows, but no-one in my family had ever figured out how to do it. She was doing it on her Mac without really thinking of it. That got me intrigued.

For me, I'm a developer, a *nix developer to be precise. I had never been interested in Macs pre OS X, as the OS was kind of lame. But I felt right at home in the Terminal in OS X; I did have to learn the BSD way of doing things, but that was very easy.

I bought the cheapest Mac Mini to play with; ripped it apart, upgraded it, installed and reinstalled everything, etc. I then started to KVM between my Linux workstation and my Mac Mini. The mini was slow, but I started using it more and more. My next computer was a MacBook Pro; at that point I had my Mac laptop and my desktop Linux workstation.

When my Linux workstation was getting long in the tooth, I debated between a new shiny 4 core PC, or a 4 core Mac Pro. I had just built a very nice 4 core Linux workstation for a co-worker, and that worked really well for him. In the end I decided on a Mac Pro, and I've been very happy; I now have no PCs for workstations, only servers. OS X makes an excellent Unix workstation, and a great development environment. I'd be happy with a Linux workstation too, but I really like that the things I don't want to mess with (music, creating movies, etc) "just work" on the Mac, and things I really care about (development, the command-line, unix environment) work really well on OS X. Plus little things like OS X is 64 bit, and I can put 16gigs of memory in my Mac Pro; you really don't have to think about it (yes I know the 64bit versions of Windows and Linux can too, but most people aren't using those)

So I think my wife and I show two ends of the Mac spectrum; it's not as easy as saying "Mac users are non-technical sheep" because there are many people like me who need high powered unix workstations. And there are many people like my wife, who just want to do what they need to do and get back to what really interests them.

Hmm...

[pwnies (1034518)]

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?

Re:Hmm...

[pwnies (1034518)]

On a side note, I can't believe I just made an argument that a Mac was cheaper from a hardware standpoint.
*head asplode*

are Macs or PC cheaper?

[falconwolf (725481)]

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.

Falcon

Re:

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

Just looking at it I don't see where you get "clunky"...They both just look like bloated monitors to me. The only difference is, one's black, and the other one is white.

Surface appearances aside, it's time to talk about the quality of the internal hardware...Apple hardware vs Dell hardware.

Tossing all OS considerations, I think that Apple's hardware is traditionally much more robust and reliable than Dell's has been. I'm working in a shop that always buys Dell PCs and Apple iMacs. We have more problems with

Re:

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

I think that Apple's hardware is traditionally much more robust and reliable than Dell's has been.

Maybe in the past, but I'm not so sure of the present. We have mid range Dell's at work (can't recall exactly what they are). We're a small hospital and there are about 75 PCs of various ages, all running XP. They just work. There is the occasional hard drive failure, the occasional monitor going south, but that's about it.

I recently bought a Mac Book Pro hoping to get off the Microsoft treadmill and yet

Re:

[smilindog2000 (907665)]

I'm totally with you on the support. Dell blew it big-time earlier this decade by firing all their legendary support staff and moving support to India. My company no longer buys support contracts, and our sister company buys HPs instead, with support contracts. There's a fairly new "gold" support level which I hear is nice, but we bought it for a couple machines, and since there's been no hardware problems, we haven't had any need to call. Consensus seems to be to drop it. The problem for Dell is that

Re:Hmm...

[jdray (645332)]

I didn't think (from reading the article) that Mossberg thought the Dell was better, just that there was a reasonable all-in-one option for someone who wants to run Windows. He neglected to mention that such people could just buy a copy of Vista (or its XP upgrade) and load it on their Mac hardware. The cost differential with the Dell probably isn't that different.

Re:Hmm...

[binford2k (142561)]

I still don't get why you'd buy either an iMac *or* an XPS One when you can buy something like this [bestbuy.com] instead,

Because that is a Compaq. I prefer something that works.

Re:

[Jugalator (259273)]

The XPS One come in four basic configurations: The Essential One, The Music One, The Performance One, The Entertainment One. I'm unsure which one you compared to, but depending on which one you get, you also get various hardware over that of the iMac, as far as I can tell. For example, The Entertainment One comes with a Blu-ray drive. The Music One comes with wireless headphones, etc. All configurations come with a TV tuner and remote control.

Re:Hmm...

[pwnies (1034518)]

I compared both of the low end models (thus the parenthesized "low-end" after each of the titles).

Re:Hmm...

[Fear the Clam (230933)]

So this begs me to ask, why do they consider the more expensive, less equipped, and weaker operating system computer better than the other?

The Dell comes with a TV tuner. People who like Dells also like American Idol and Fox news.

Re:Hmm...

[Fear the Clam (230933)]

Not sure why they modded you troll, unless it's possible to mod: "Funny, Troll"

It is, indirectly. Actually, my post was modded 30% Funny, 30% Troll and 30% Informative.

(This post is Informative.)

Re:Hmm...

[stewbacca (1033764)]

From TFA:

I still recommend the iMac over the XPS One for several reasons other than hardware design.

Funny how a misleading slashdot summary can make everyone in the thread think that Walt Mossberg is saying the XPS is better than an iMac.

Re:Do some homework

[pwnies (1034518)]

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 [slashdot.org] ), 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.

iMac 2.0 has 2X cache than Dell 2.2

[ToasterMonkey (467067)]

Intel's desktop processor page [intel.com]
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 [intel.com]
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 [amd.com], memory is unlisted
while BASE iMacs have Mobility? Radeon HD 2400 XT's [amd.com] 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!

Re:Hmm...

[stewbacca (1033764)]

Are you serious? Why would you repeat such myths about the Macbook trackpad, when they have been rebuked a million times just on this site. Not only does the Mac trackpad register taps as clicks, it does double clicks, click and drags, two finger scroll (right and left AND up and down), AND second finger right clicking. Perhaps it doesn't carry over into Windows, but is that really Apple's shortcoming, or Windows (or probably both, since Apple would need to make the driver and Windows would need to support it)? Or maybe it does work in Windows too?

Dell XPS One

[bzudo (1151979)]

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.

Re:Dell XPS One

[B3ryllium (571199)]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think he meant "lasts the longest" in terms of flight time when the machine defenestrates at a fixed velocity.

Buy a Mac.

[LWATCDR (28044)]

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.

Re:

[Pojut (1027544)]

Sounds to me like both you and your dad need to spend five minutes downloading some free programs. With AVG, ZoneAlarm, Spybot, and Firefox, I haven't gotten a single virus or piece of spyware in over three years...except for hardware and software updates, haven't needed to reboot in nearly 8 months, either.

It's extremely easy to secure (and keep secure) a Windows box... While I agree that you shouldn't NEED to, it's still very easy to do...and the best part is, none of the software will cost you a penny.

Re:

[LWATCDR (28044)]

As I said I do use those programs myself or one just like them.
But...
No anti virus program will stop every virus. I honestly don't worry much about viruses since I don't click on .exe I get in email or install codecs from questionable websites. AVG works well.
But again this is for my father. He is almost 70 and likes to travel, go hiking, and go on cruses. He just doesn't want to worry about his PC.
Even with your solution to one of his problems I would still have to find software to install to replace iLife

Re:Buy a Mac.

[Bert64 (520050)]

And considerably slower than it should be...

I'm sure most people would rather buy a machine and have it be able to access the internet securely out of the box and take full advantage of all the performance they paid for.

Nowhere in the ads for the machine did it say:

* Knowledge of how to obtain, install and maintain third party security applications required.
** Due to background security software, actual system will be slower than advertised.

It's One Better!

[scribblej (195445)]

It goes to eleven.

Hardware?

[truthsearch (249536)]

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.

I'll Take the iMac

[d3xt3r (527989)]

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.

The hardware only needs to be fast enough...

[QuietLagoon (813062)]

It is the software that you have to live with, and Leopard is hands-down better than Vista could ever hope to be.

I build my own

[sm62704 (957197)]

But if forced at gunpoint I'd pick the mac. First, I like simple and elegant. Second, Dells all run Microsoft OS and I absolutely hate the way MS writes their software. MS software all seems bass-ackwards to me, starting with the directory seperator ("\ is ass backwards, Bill) to its double click.

If there is one thing that confounds me when I'm trying to show someone how to use a computer it's that godoffal damned fuckwitted doubleclick. I wind up exasperated saying "click on the icon and press 'enter'. It's easier. Its frustrating to new users.

And it's pointless. There's no reason why you should have to have two clicks in a certain time period; one click should highlight, a second should execute. Especially since MS and Linux mice have more than one button!

There are so many things I hate about MS software (not even including bloat, bugs, etc) I'd run out of bits listing them all.

So give me a few new parts and let me install Linux. If I have to buy a whole box it'll be a mac.

-mcgrew

Re:Hmm

[varmittang (849469)]

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.

Re:

[LWATCDR (28044)]

Yes but if you don't build fences, houses, or furniture but you do do case modes, build models, or other small craft style jobs then the Dremel tool is a better tool for you!
It probably includes Photoshop Elements and not full Photoshop.
My wife is really into digital scrapbooking. She has both Photoshop Elements and Gimp. She actually likes Gimp more than Elements.

From what I have seen iLife is a good tool for the average user.

Re:

[lakeland (218447)]

The imac was not designed for price, it was designed for all-in-one ergonomics, fitting into a lounge setting and all of that. As in, if it isn't all-in-one it really isn't in the running.

Re:

[pushing-robot (1037830)]

Actually, the 24" iMac is a great deal if you're looking for a professional LCD.

It uses a H-IPS panel, which provides great color accuracy, contrast, and brightness from almost any viewing angle. There are only a couple other 24" H-IPS displays on the market, and they cost $1250-$1500. Yes, just for the screen.

So, in effect, you're getting the rest of the iMac for $300-$550.

Re:

[ducomputergeek (595742)]

I switched to Mac 6 years ago when 10.2 was released. The reasons being I could never get my Windows Desktop totally stable (Not even under 2Kpro), Linux was missing half the device drivers (sound card never worked) and lacked general software support.

I saw OSX with a Unix core, commercial application like Office and Adobe, and said screw it and bought an iBook. i got the stablity of Unix with the commerical software support that Linux lacked. Further more it just works. After I graduated from college

Re:"Standard all-in-one desktop computer?"

[AJWM (19027)]

Mmmm, Apple pi!

Re:"Standard all-in-one desktop computer?"

[orclevegam (940336)]

That may be 3.1416% for Apple's share of the entire market. But the iMac has got something like 90% of the all-in-one market.

Yep, nothing like lies, damn lies, and statistics to prop up arguments one way or another. Until fairly recent Apple had 100% of the all-in-one market, because they created it (the market that is, not the concept). It's only just now that some of the others (Dell, Sony, etc.) are starting to put out credible all-in-one systems to compete with the iMac.

Re:

[eclectic4 (665330)]

The original Macintosh [lowendmac.com], from 1984 was an all-in-one. It's been their mantra under Steve, and will continue to be. Having an easy to use computer that you can also move at will by just unplugging one power cord, moving it, and then just plugging it back in is nice, and always has been. The question is why have all other attempts at duplicating this idea sucked so much, for so long?