Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Businesses Apple Hardware

Is the Dell XPS One Better than the Apple iMac? 627

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the Dell XPS One Better than the Apple iMac?

Comments Filter:
  • Personally? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_humeister ( 922869 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:36PM (#21832972)
    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:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jdray ( 645332 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:42PM (#21833060) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Buy a Mac. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:43PM (#21833082) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:44PM (#21833106) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by d3xt3r ( 527989 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:46PM (#21833122)

    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.

  • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by varmittang ( 849469 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:50PM (#21833190)
    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.
  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:51PM (#21833208)
    It is the software that you have to live with, and Leopard is hands-down better than Vista could ever hope to be.
  • Re:My experience (Score:2, Insightful)

    by maclizard ( 1029814 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:53PM (#21833232)
    I wish I had recommended mac to my family, they use linux now, and I HATE fixing there problems. I like fixing things, but not more than once, and they aren't young enough to learn new tricks
  • Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:55PM (#21833254)

    So this begs me to ask, why do they consider the more expensive, less equipped, and weaker operating system computer better than the other?
    So they can tweak Mac fanboys and drive page hits?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:08PM (#21833416)
    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.
  • Re:Personally? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:08PM (#21833424) Journal
    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? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:11PM (#21833460)
    Yup. I chose an iMac 24" 1 year ago. Now, I have Leopard, maxed the memory at 3GB. Trying to give it a fair shake. I'm now in hindsight wishing I had gotten the separate display and built a new PC. OSX is kind of cool, I don't use iLife, don't care about that crap. The differences in BSD to linux are enough to really annoy me sometimes. I saw stuff working on FreeBSD that didn't work on Mac's version of BSD. I couldn't switch to bootcamp and just use windows cause the power management won't put the display to sleep (I can't just hit the power button on the display like I used to). I looked on the net for answers, only saw other people with the same problem, but no solution.

    I miss it when I had linux as my main server/desktop and another PC running windows for everything else. The style of the Mac is nice, but it's skin deep. In the end I see it usually getting in my way and me trying to think of how to work around the problem since I just spent so much money trying to immerse myself in this great mac experience. For proprietary software, there's nothing on the Mac that I use that isn't also on Windows. I know Windows suffers malware trouble, but realistically it is possible and actually pretty easy to run a clean Windows machine.

    So at least from my experience (and BTW did I mention I hate finder and iTunes too?)... Skip the Mac. If you're a techie nerd, skip the all-in-one, or consider carefully before you jump on it. If it breaks, the whole unit has to go back, if you upgrade you lose the display too, and at least in the case of the iMac, there are no additional inputs for the display. Normal monitors now come with 2 DVI, HDMI, composite, and other inputs. That means you can plug in 2 computers, PS3, or TV and stuff into the display and use it for more than just your desktop. I think for as much as I spent on my Mac I should be happy with it. Sucks to be me since I'm not. I'm not saying it's horrible either, but some of the Apple ways of doing things just don't do it for me and I often times don't have an option or a convenient option as a work around. There's just enough minor things that don't quite work as expected it makes me dream about the kind of PC(s) I could have been running if I had gone the other route. I'll never buy a Mac again. Big $3000 or maybe a bit more w/ software and addons OOOOOPS... :(
  • by orclevegam ( 940336 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:16PM (#21833514) Journal

    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:Personally? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:18PM (#21833550)
    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 additional cost. The iMac specs are really what most of the computing world is after, but I (like I'm sure many more) don't want a monitor tied to it. The Mac Mini is underpowered and the Mac Pro is overpowered.

    I know it's almost hopeless but I still continue to wish for a regular little tower from Apple with a decent (and upgradeable) graphics card, a single Core 2 Duo processor, and a decent sized SATA drive (500gb?), with no monitor duct taped on. Put those out for around $899 and I'll be ready to jump on the Apple (hardware - I already run OS X on a homebuilt machine) bandwagon.
  • Re:My Choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:25PM (#21833618)
    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.
  • by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['hoo' in gap]> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:45PM (#21833856)

    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:Personally? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ILuvRamen ( 1026668 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:52PM (#21833924)
    well then lucky for you whenever there's a PC and a mac of the same price, the PC is always faster if it doesn't have Vista and sometimes even if it does. With apple you're paying more for what they think is stylish looks and a brand name. 2 people I know ordered $2000+ macs last year and I read the hardware spec list and was like "what the hell? This is it?!" You could have got the same parts in a PC for $1300-1500.
  • Re:Buy a Mac. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <(bert) (at) (slashdot.firenzee.com)> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @06:25PM (#21834338) Homepage
    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.
  • by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['hoo' in gap]> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @06:44PM (#21834546)

    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
  • by ToasterMonkey ( 467067 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @06:51PM (#21834592) Homepage
    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!
  • by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['hoo' in gap]> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @07:09PM (#21834740)

    Yes, I know Apple makes laptops too. I have no problem with them if you're a Mac person. I just don't "get" the whole category of computers that the iMac and XPS One fit into. What is it, the bigger screen vs. a laptop? Hell, you could buy a laptop *and* a 24" LCD screen for less than an XPS One, and then you'd have a really nice computer with the same huge screen *and* it'd be fully portable!

    I agree compeatly. A laptop is a terrific all-in-one and if you want a larger monitor get one.

    Falcon
  • by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['hoo' in gap]> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @07:36PM (#21834942)

    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.

    If I were to go strictly on how long it would last I'd have to pick the iMac. I bought 2 Macs that were about 3 years old when I bought them. The first one I got 1992, it lasted until 2000. The second I got in 2000 a few months after the first one died, it died in 2006. During the same tyme I bought 2 brand new Windows PCs. In the first year the hdd and the motherboard had to be replaced on both. And because of OS crashes I had to reinstall Windows on both a bunch of tymes.

    Oh, and the PCs were major brands. The first was a Gateway and the second was an HP.

    Falcon
  • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Thursday December 27, 2007 @07:41PM (#21834988)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @10:42PM (#21836166) Journal

    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. :)
  • by jhRisk ( 1055806 ) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @11:27PM (#21836402)
    When making any purchase it's about the right tool for the job. A 4x4 jeep in NYC, planting a cactus in Siberia, etc. makes no sense. Consumers need help in becoming better educated in the computer purchasing process and this does not help matters. First and foremost they need to be informed that there is no Ipod of computers as it's simply a more complex situation. The right computer from both a hard and software perspective requires a little investigation into the consumer to ensure you get the right tool for the job.

    For example, thus far those modded up to the limelight regarding Macs are certainly right about how easy it is to use especially for older folks. However, have you ever tried to get a retiree in their 50s used to working on Windows their whole lives to use a Mac? Heck they don't want to learn anything new much less a completely new operating system regardless of how much safer or easier it is over time. I know a number of people who tried because they were told it'd be incredibly easy but it really isn't for many. Buying a Mac and booting Windows is not necessarily the ideal solution either as perhaps they'd loose out on the benefit of their wiz-kid grandson who lives nearby and loves canabolizing HPs or something.

    The most important step in educating consumers on computer purchasing I think is first to get folks to understand that comparing Macs and Windows-based PCs is like comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended.) Sure they're both fruit and if you're hungry both will do the job. But if you know nothing of what an apple or orange is but hate tangerines, peeling things, have a vitamin C deficiency and countless other specifics aren't introduced into the decision then you'll have a less than optimal outcome at best.

    Also, computers to some degree are luxury items and thus a qualitative analysis of price I think further confuses folks in what's an already nebulous situation. Someone may laugh at the $100 difference between the two machines Walt compared but would clearly go with the cheapest if not properly informed about the dramatic differences in the experience they'd have with each. Wouldn't you buy the cheaper hammer if both appeared and were proposed to you as being the same?

    As with buying a car and many other items one needs to find out about their past experiences, current needs, customer support and product life expectations and a number of other particulars to find the ideal solution. I even see grandmas do so with power tools in Home Depot worth a fraction of the cost of a new computer but with computers uneducated folks are overwhelmed... and we're not helping matters with over-simplifications.
  • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cornflake917 ( 515940 ) * on Friday December 28, 2007 @03:29AM (#21837404) Homepage
    Here is an example of where slashdot's moderating system fails. The parent post says something inflammatory and barely informative and they get a +5 informative.

    Now if I were to say

    "The Mac doesn't come with a TV tuner. That's because people who like iMacs are too busy taking it up the ass to bother watching TV."

    While equally as informative and slightly more inflammatory (I almost rather be accused of being gay then be accussed of frequently watching Fox news, however), this post will be modded either troll or flamebait (assuming a few moderators see this) not because of the lack of information or the inflammatory remark, but simply because I said something mean about mac users. We might as well just add a "-1, Anti-Mac, Anti-Nintendo, Pro-Microsoft" at least then moderators can be honest why they are modding something down.
  • Another caveat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @01:27AM (#21846146) Journal
    Another thing that some Mac fanatics gloss over is that Apple has never really competed for the low-end or mid-low-end computer segment, though. I'm not even talking about beige boxes--just look at a cheap Dell vs. Apple's offering. The Mac Mini has style, smallness, lower power consumption (and of course OS X) going for it... and pretty much nothing else. The phrase "low-end Macintosh notebook" is nothing more than a contradiction. I haven't priced them recently, but last I checked the cheapest one they offered was over 2.5x the price of the cheapest full-featured Intel notebook available.

    The budget crowd is probably the BIGGEST group of consumers, and for these people Apple is still nowhere near competitive. That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind you--in my opinion, Apple SHOULDN'T be cutting any corners trying to offer a bargain-basement option--but it's still something the fanboys tend to neglect when they spout off about how "Macs are cheaper now!!!!!!!!!". No, they aren't. They're arguably cheaper for a very specific middle-of-the-road, I'm-not-ever-going-to-bother-building-my-own minority market segment. But, the thing is, Macs weren't designed to compete with PC's cost-effective hardware... it was designed to be a cohesive hardware + software package, and in this regard they blow away Windows entirely.

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth

Working...