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

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

Posted by Zonk
from the dell-box-better-than-an-osx-one dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • My Choice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:34PM (#21832960) Homepage Journal
    "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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by 0xdeadbeef (28836)
      Mercedes? The iMac is a Toyota Camry. Maybe you're thinking of the G5?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 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 (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_2000NO@SPAMyahoo.com> 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
        • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

            by falconwolf (725481)

            "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!

            Yea, corn gets all the publicity while sugar cane is a better feed source than corn and Switchgrass is even better than sugar. Corn gets it because the corn lobby is b

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Wdomburg (141264)
          The EV-1 was interesting, but not particularly practical. Limited range, limited seating, relatively high cost, primitive battery technology (low lifecycle, poor performance in lower temperatures). And ultimately limited appeal. The waiting list peaked at a whopping five thousand vehicles, and supposedly only fifty of the people who signed on the waiting list actually purchased a vehicle when offered. Even if all five thousand had bought that's still far too few vehicles to make it economically feasible
  • 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.
    • by JavaLord (680960)
      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.

      How long does a computer last you? I typically find myself looking for a new monitor when I want a new computer too (which is about every 4 years).

      As for the iMac vs the Dell One, I'd go with the iMac. The iMac runs OS X and Windows XP out of the box, The De
      • 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:4, Informative)

          by moosesocks (264553) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @06:02PM (#21834078) Homepage
          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: (Score:3, Informative)

            by 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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.
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

    by pwnies (1034518) * <j@jjcm.org> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:37PM (#21832982) Homepage Journal
    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... (Score:5, Funny)

      by pwnies (1034518) * <j@jjcm.org> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:40PM (#21833026) Homepage Journal
      On a side note, I can't believe I just made an argument that a Mac was cheaper from a hardware standpoint.
      *head asplode*
      • I think the article is only arguing that the Dell hardware is nicer, not cheaper, nor a better overall computer. I can believe it. The iMacs look to me like they could use a face-lift soon. They seem a bit clunky for an Apple product. Dell simply has them beat on style. I think the brains at Apple have been off designing phones and iPods lately, not iMacs.
        • I think the article is only arguing that the Dell hardware is nicer, not cheaper, nor a better overall computer.

          By "nicer" you mean less powerful but in a prettier case? I wonder if the reviewers took into account hardware reliability, as Apple was the top rated vendor on consumer reports last survey, while Dell desktops came in about middle of the road, at best.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by 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: (Score:3, Informative)

              by 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            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 the Dells, hands down, than we do with the Apples.

            Everyone has an anecdote to throw into this pool about how in their shop and the lot of systems they bought some brand is more reliable than some other brand. Anyone looking for objective data, however, should look at an independent study. I recommend Consumer Reports. Their methodology is not perfect, but it is better than anything else I've seen. They don't take ad money and they don't accept donated hardware from companies (who have been know to cherry pick models to send for review). They buy everythi

      • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000NO@SPAMyahoo.com> 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
        • 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 o
    • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fear the Clam (230933) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:43PM (#21833078)
      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: (Score:2, Informative)

        by pwnies (1034518) *
        Ahh I see. Didn't notice the TV tuner in the spec sheets.
        For those with mod points, mod Fear the Clam's comment up. It's a vital point I overlooked.
      • Not sure why they modded you troll, unless it's possible to mod: "Funny, Troll"
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cornflake917 (515940) *
        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 tro
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by stewbacca (1033764) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:59PM (#21833314)
      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.
    • Do some homework (Score:2, Informative)

      by jeffmeden (135043)
      Before you jump on the specs, find out what actually comes in the box. The Dell has a faster CPU; 2.2GHz vs 2.0 in the Mac, as well as a tv tuner, more RAM, and A/B/G/N wireless. The video card? The 2400XT 128MB is something of a joke card and not really worth bringing into this argument. Integrated video will stand up just fine comparatively. The rest of the specs are the same, and yet you are here insisting the Mac has better hardware? Try again.
      • Re:Do some homework (Score:5, Informative)

        by pwnies (1034518) * <j@jjcm.org> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:38PM (#21833770) Homepage Journal
        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.
      • 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!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jo42 (227475)
      The one thing that sucks goatse's backside on the 20" iMac is that the LCD is 6-bit (256K colors). They use a form of dithering to fake more colors. Is the XPS LCD 6-bit or 8-bit (16M colors)?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Isn't it obvious? Mossberg is shaking down Apple to come out with a new iMac and send him a review unit.
  • by bzudo (1151979) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:39PM (#21833000)
    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.
    • 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 motherboar

  • Why spend all that money? Buy the "Rebate Special" at Office Depot or wherever, then install Linux - Fedora, Ubuntu, whatever - good chance you'll match the performance of the other two, and at a MUCH LOWER price.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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: (Score:3, Informative)

        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.
  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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.
  • by scribblej (195445) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @04:44PM (#21833100)
    It goes to eleven.
  • 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.
    • by peragrin (659227)
      Hardware is useless without software?

      Software is useless unless you have something to run it on. Guess what my copies of windows are useless as I don't currently have hardware which can they can currently run. That means all of my windows only software is also useless.

      Yet my hardware can run far more than windows. I can run OS X, Linux, BSD, BeOS, GNUHurd if i am feeling adventerous, and even windows with special adaptors.

      Software doesn't do anything by itself, it only ties the pieces of hardware togethe
  • From TFA:

    includes a group of Adobe multimedia programs that are less well integrated and more complex.
    So you got Photoshop and you're whining that you want iLife back? That's like being given a table saw and complaining that it's not a dremel tool -- fine if you're going to complete your uber case mod, but it's going to suck trying to a build a fence with it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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.
      • Actually I Picasa for casuals photo takers.

        The article just states without proof that iLife is better than (admittedly pared down versions of) Adobe's tools, some of which are the most powerful around, because they're "complex." It's worth mentioning here that elements in particular has a freaking wizard for everything. If somebody wants to compare iLife and Adobe intro stuff side by side, I'd like to see it, but when it's on the short list of reasons why iMac is better, I need more than one sentence.

        I'd
    • by XaXXon (202882)
      Yeah. The machine comes with photoshop. Standard. You're paying $400 for hardware and $999 for photoshop (or whatever it costs these days).

      It surely comes equipped with some crappy 'starter' software.
      • It comes with Elements, which may as well be Photoshop unless you're planning on doing professional print work. Perhaps I should have noted in my analogy that you are building your own fence, not someone else's.
  • 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.

  • I'm a Mac fan now. It has it's quirks, so does XP(which have become quite tolerable) but Vista is really getting on my nerves. Unless I'm building a Linux or BSD machine, then it would be that XPS. It would make one nice looking *nix machine. But it's a personal choice, it took me awhile to learn to deal with XP's quirks, KDE's were easy to deal with though(actually refreshing) and recent advances only make it more-so. So I can see people choosing Vista over Mac, but personally I've dealt with my last Vista
  • (I have to keep this short 'cause I'm suppose to be listening in a classroom right now, not posting to Slashdot.. :)

    ..but having looked at both the Macbook Pro and the Dell XPS m1330(yes, I know the article is about desktops, but...), I ended up with the Dell. It was a very tough call, and for a while it seemed as if I would be purchasing a Mac, however, the Dell edged out on:

    1) Size. I really like small laptops. While the 15" MacBook pro was sleek and light, I like the carry-around feel of the Dell bet

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by maclizard (1029814)
      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
  • 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.
  • I'd take a computer running OSX without a built-in media card reader anyday over a computer running Vista with all the media card readers in the world built-in.

    Why anyone would actually pay $100 more for a Dell than a roughly equivalent iMac is also mysterious. I thought Dell's strong point was their ability to undercut their own Mothers.

    • No wait. Let me expand that. I just reread. No dedicated video card on the Dell???? Mooohahahahhah.
    • by MBCook (132727)
      I like Macs. My family owns quite a few. I'm typing on a MacBook Pro that is only about 6 months old. But I still don't see why Apple doesn't put a media reader (of any kind) on their computers. They don't have to put 7 kinds, they could put even just one (like SD), but no. For all their "this is a Mac, this is easy" you still need to connect the camera with a cable or get a card reader. PCs have been doing this for so many years, this is one thing I can't quite figure out.
  • and yet I have to concede that the Dell XPS One is an impressive looking AIO. I dare say its industrial design appears to be superior to the iMac's. It also bests the iMac with its TV tuner and Blu-ray option. I also have to admit that I'm typing on my office machine - an Inspiron - that I bought because Apple no longer offered a low-end laptop with dedicated graphics; consequently I have grown to appreciate Dell hardware. However, Dells will never run OS X (without hax0ring), and OS X is far superior to Wi
  • 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.

    Who cares what's inside the box? It could be a box full of wet sand and duct tape for all I care. If it runs your software faster and provides a better user experience, that's the winner.

  • I'm really confused. The dell is more expensive, has an intergrated graphics chip, which on a desktop is really ridiculous, and yet its ahead of the iMac? If you read the article you see that Mossberg is giving the edge to the Dell based on a side headphone jack and USB port, and a separate button to put just the display to sleep. These are valid points, but I don't see how you draw the conclusion that its ahead based on this whole equation.
  • I will buy neither, for Green reasons.

    A whitebox PC can be upgraded piece by piece without throwing the whole thing out, and is going to last a heck of a lot longer than those tiny things with all those parts crammed in close together, generating heat and vibration.

    My advice is to build your own machine, and buy parts that will last five years, then recycle responsibly. One way to do this is to use a friend's box from a Dell XPS one to ship your parts back to Dell for recycling.

    I haven't been impressed by t
  • Mossberg brings up the position of the USB ports. He prefers their placement on the side of the Dell, versus the back of the iMac. I have a Dell widescreen monitor with side mounted USB ports, and plugging cables into them is messy, asymmetric and ugly. If I were to spend the extra money for the show piece Dell, I would not want to ruin the lines, or create clutter by using those ports.
  • by mini me (132455)
    I'll take the one that runs OS X. Who really cares about the hardware?
  • I build my own (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sm62704 (957197) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @05:25PM (#21833622) Journal
    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
  • by reidconti (219106) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @08:07PM (#21835164)
    I swear I am going to go crazy if I keep hearing people say industrial design when referring to every single product (especially Apple products) under the sun.

    What ever happened to the word 'design?' Do you catch the ghey if you just say something has a nice design? Do you have to say 'industrial' before 'design' so you sound all high-tech? Is it like 'design' is a homosexual concept to men, so you have to say 'industrial' to make it sound manly?

    I mean, I get it. I have a Mac Pro at home and a Power Mac G5 at work. Industrial design is probably the best way to describe them. It is NOT the best way to describe other products which are simply well-designed. I have an iPhone, nice design. The Dell XPSOne looks very well designed. But what the hell is industrial about it? It was bad enough when every review of an Apple product that in some way incorporated metal had to say it had great industrial design. But now we're applying it to plastic Dells, too?

    What's next, man, I really like the industrial design of your tie?

    arrrrgh!!!!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by stewbacca (1033764)
      Design and Industrial Design aren't the same thing...that's why.

      From Wikipedia on Industrial Design: "Industrial Design (ID) is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer."

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.

Working...