iMac 24" or Dell XPS 210?

[Sesshi]

I would forego the 'gamingness' of the XPS range if it's something to compare against an iMac, and go for a Vostro or an Inspiron (I'd reco Vostro, simply because it'll be a cleaner install). You should be able to cook up an iMac-pulverising spec for less.

I have a Vostro 400 which I got in a bundle with the 2407WFP monitor, and comparing it alongside the 2.8 24" iMac I also have it's amusing how comparatively little the iMac offers in terms of spec for the price, even given the design premium. Noisewise it's kind of a moot comparison since the iMac can't keep itself cool anyway and is situated right in front of your nose so it HAS to be quiet, whereas the slightly noisier (and notably more powerful) Dell system unit can be tucked away under the desk.

Of course, it's not all about spec. I'm sure the... shall we say, less informed Mac apologists, can think up of a whole lot more reasons. Really, ultimately it's about whether you want the Mac experience, which obviously is unique to the iMac.

Given the choice if I was limited to one machine, unless I needed something to run under OS X I'd go for the Dell, be assured of an upgrade path over the coming years especially in terms of GPU's and spend what I save on focused software that exceeds the capabilities of iLife / iWork for what I wanted to do.

However, the iMac is in itself a pretty nice all-purpose noodling machiine.

 

[RRK]

I would forego the 'gamingness' of the XPS range if it's something to compare against an iMac, and go for a Vostro or an Inspiron (I'd reco Vostro, simply because it'll be a cleaner install). You should be able to cook up an iMac-pulverising spec for less.

I have a Vostro 400 which I got in a bundle with the 2407WFP monitor, and comparing it alongside the 2.8 24" iMac I also have it's amusing how comparatively little the iMac offers in terms of spec for the price, even given the design premium. Noisewise it's kind of a moot comparison since the iMac can't keep itself cool anyway and is situated right in front of your nose so it HAS to be quiet, whereas the slightly noisier (and notably more powerful) Dell system unit can be tucked away under the desk.

Of course, it's not all about spec. I'm sure the... shall we say, less informed Mac apologists, can think up of a whole lot more reasons. Really, ultimately it's about whether you want the Mac experience, which obviously is unique to the iMac.

Given the choice if I was limited to one machine, unless I needed something to run under OS X I'd go for the Dell, be assured of an upgrade path over the coming years especially in terms of GPU's and spend what I save on focused software that exceeds the capabilities of iLife / iWork for what I wanted to do.

However, the iMac is in itself a pretty nice all-purpose noodling machiine.

Oh come on can't you phrase your opinion in a way that is less abrasive? Your condescending remarks are aimed at what is the majority in this setting. In the iMac forum you are labeling us all "noodlers". Which I assume means we can not be doing any serious work on our iMacs. You said you would only get one if you had to run something under OS X. OS X is obviously a much preferred choice around these parts. You are even condescending toward the OP's desire for a quite computer. Just please don't assume that we are all less informed because we chose Apple.

 

[HLdan]

 

[Eidorian]

The XPS 210 offers half height slots so your graphics options are very limited. I'd go with the iMac.

 

[Sesshi]

You are even condescending toward the OP's desire for a quite computer.

Not in the least, and perhaps I wasn't very clear because I thought it might be obvious - but maybe I shouldn't assume that. So I'll flesh out what I said.

What I am saying that because the iMac is right in front of your face, it needs to be engineered to run quieter than a two-box PC to have the same level of perceived noise.

I am saying that a slightly noisier (if you have the system unit up on the desk right next to the iMac) two-box arrangement makes little practical difference over a quieter one-box arrangement in the end, simply because the noisemaking box is not as close to the user in a two-box arrangement.

Just please don't assume that we are all less informed because we chose Apple.

No I don't think that in the least simply because you chose Apple. I don't make such arbitrary assumptions. I only assume that after reading post(s).

 

[mahonmeister]

Oh come on can't you phrase your opinion in a way that is less abrasive? Your condescending remarks are aimed at what is the majority in this setting. In the iMac forum you are labeling us all "noodlers". Which I assume means we can not be doing any serious work on our iMacs. You said you would only get one if you had to run something under OS X. OS X is obviously a much preferred choice around these parts. You are even condescending toward the OP's desire for a quite computer. Just please don't assume that we are all less informed because we chose Apple.

Wow, you need to chill, and not be so paranoid. Sesshi made some valid points and is perfectly entitled to express his/her opinion about Macs and Mac users.

While OS X is enjoyable to use, I can't understand how some users refuse to even consider a PC because of Windows. An equally priced PC will generally beat the iMac in most performance categories. For example, you can build a Dell Vostro 400 for about $1600 with better hardware then a $2300 iMac. The iMac does have a larger screen, bigger HDD, wireless, iSight, etc. but the Dell has tons of room for expansion, so you can easily add the features you want. For me, I prefer performance over all those fancy extras of the iMac.

 

[HLdan]

Wow, you need to chill, and not be so paranoid. Sesshi made some valid points and is perfectly entitled to express his/her opinion about Macs and Mac users.

While OS X is enjoyable to use, I can't understand how some users refuse to even consider a PC because of Windows. An equally priced PC will generally beat the iMac in most performance categories.For me, I prefer performance over all those fancy extras of the iMac.

Okay you prefer performance and for the rest of us, WE DON"T WANT TO USE WINDOWS! Why would you think it's that easy to just dump OS X and go back to Windows. Maybe you don't understand but the majority of Mac users have used Windows which is why we use Macs to this day.

You are downplaying Mac OS X like it's a toy to play with. It's not just enjoyable to use, Mac users get work done while the Windows registry keeps PC users working. Where are you getting the idea that it's very easy to get a much faster Windows machine for equal price? The iMac is very powerful, that's your Windows centric ignorance that tells you otherwise.
Also why buy a PC when a Mac can do both OS's?

 

[mahonmeister]

I'll try and address each of your arguments individually:

Okay you prefer performance and for the rest of us, WE DON"T WANT TO USE WINDOWS! Why would you think it's that easy to just dump OS X and go back to Windows. Maybe you don't understand but the majority of Mac users have used Windows which is why we use Macs to this day.

I understand that. I used to use Windows exclusively, and now I use both. Windows now is much more stable and usable, and Vista is a decent upgrade, despite it's flaws. If Windows was still exactly the same from a few years ago (insecure, unstable), then I would be in the same boat as you: OS X would be the only choice. It seems to me that you are making this assumption, which is silly. Don't get me wrong, I still prefer OS X, but both have their strengths and weaknesses.

You are downplaying Mac OS X like it's a toy to play with. It's not just enjoyable to use, Mac users get work done while the Windows registry keeps PC users working.

I'll admit, I'm not a computer expert, so I don't know the significance of the Windows registry other then what I can read on wikipedia. To suggest that it impedes progress to a point of making the PC almost unusable is ridiculous. What proof do you have for this? When Mac folks duel-boot on their Intel machines, they experience similar performance in both operating systems; at least that is what I have read here on Mac Rumors and elsewhere.

Where are you getting the idea that it's very easy to get a much faster Windows machine for equal price? The iMac is very powerful, that's your Windows centric ignorance that tells you otherwise.
Also why buy a PC when a Mac can do both OS's?

Where am I getting this idea? It's not an idea at all, it's reality. I gave you one example in my post, and there are many more. The iMac is very powerful, I'm not arguing otherwise. What I am arguing is that there are many machines out there that are more powerful for the same price, sometimes cheaper.

Windows centric ignorance? Um... ok.

Yes, Macs can now run any OS, but I'm arguing hardware here. I have no specific interest in running Windows. The argument is that the iMac is not a suitable hardware choice for any budget conscious consumer. Better hardware can be had for cheaper prices, but if OS X is your final decision then you are stuck.

Look, I'm an Apple fan, but I would never buy a Mac mini or iMac because they use unnecessarily expensive hardware to achieve a small, quite form factor. That is why I will always buy a Mac portable or maybe eventually a Mac Pro.

 

[HLdan]

I'll admit, I'm not a computer expert, so I don't know the significance of the Windows registry other then what I can read on wikipedia. To suggest that it impedes progress to a point of making the PC almost unusable is ridiculous. What proof do you have for this? When Mac folks duel-boot on their Intel machines, they experience similar performance in both operating systems; at least that is what I have read here on Mac Rumors and elsewhere.




Yes, Macs can now run any OS, but I'm arguing hardware here. I have no specific interest in running Windows. The argument is that the iMac is not a suitable hardware choice for any budget conscious consumer. Better hardware can be had for cheaper prices, but if OS X is your final decision then you are stuck.

The budget conscious customer is not looking for performance. What generally sells nowadays in the computing world are price, aesthetics and form factor. I know this because I do a lot of movie editing and encoding along with the usual and some gaming and I just dumped my G5 and Cinema Display for the iMac. I wanted form factor and space saving and it's very quiet and I disagree that a desktop won't exude much noise since it sits on the floor. My G5's fans were always sounding off and I kept it tucked away.

I never said that the Windows Registry made working on the PC so horrible that it was unusable, you certainly took that way further. The Windows Registry is a pain and requires constant maintenance. You will be punished if it's not kept up.
Windows Vista is more stable now but stability is not one my issues. It's all about security and safety over the web and it's never getting better on Windows. Having a UI that "looks" more Mac like doesn't make me want to use it.
The iMac starts at $1199 for a 20" powerful all in one. That's not expensive. If you think it is then surf over to Dell or Sony's website and take a look at their all in one's and all of a sudden the iMac looks way underpriced for what you get.

 

[^squirrel^]

BUY THE DELL............... just kidding. It's a no brainer, has to be the iMac. Unless you're gaming then you might want to consider the Dell. But the iMac should be able to suit most peoples needs and it'll run Windows. I'm also a switcher from Oct' 06 and have only used Windows a few times.

As more and more games get released for the Mac i'm finding my self not loading Win at all. I only use Win for Flight Sim X and Battlefield 2 + 2142.

 

[mahonmeister]

The budget conscious customer is not looking for performance. What generally sells nowadays in the computing world are price, aesthetics and form factor. I know this because I do a lot of movie editing and encoding along with the usual and some gaming and I just dumped my G5 and Cinema Display for the iMac. I wanted form factor and space saving and it's very quiet and I disagree that a desktop won't exude much noise since it sits on the floor. My G5's fans were always sounding off and I kept it tucked away.

I never said that the Windows Registry made working on the PC so horrible that it was unusable, you certainly took that way further. The Windows Registry is a pain and requires constant maintenance. You will be punished if it's not kept up.
Windows Vista is more stable now but stability is not one my issues. It's all about security and safety over the web and it's never getting better on Windows. Having a UI that "looks" more Mac like doesn't make me want to use it.
The iMac starts at $1199 for a 20" powerful all in one. That's not expensive. If you think it is then surf over to Dell or Sony's website and take a look at their all in one's and all of a sudden the iMac looks way underpriced for what you get.

Sorry, what I meant by 'budget conscious consumer' is anyone who wants to get good hardware for a low price. The iMac uses good hardware, but many of it's components are built for laptops, making them quite expensive relative to an equivalent desktop component. This is not ideal for anyone trying to maximize how much performance they can get for the money. If the iMac used all desktop hardware, it would be cheaper and faster because the components would be cheaper and faster. This is a fact. And this is why it is not a good choice.

While the iMac is cheaper then the all-in-ones offered by Dell and Sony, it also has to compete in the desktop tower market too, because Apple doesn't offer a midrange tower. That is why I have been comparing it to other desktops that are not all-in-one. In such a comparison, it loses in a price to performance battle. Simple. Take a look at the Vostro and see what kind of hardware you get for the price. You will see exactly what I am talking about.

Sorry for hijacking this thread angelx1, but I hope you at least consider the Dell Vostro before making a purchase. It seems like a great machine for the money.

 

[Eric Lewis]

Dell + Windoz = sucks

Mac+ MAC OS = the best?

hmmmm

 

[Tonerl]

There are Mac zealots who will refuse to hear any criticism of the Mac, there are Windows zealots, there are Linux zealots - and they are all wrong! Computer languages also attract zealots - and they are wrong, too! There is no such thing as a perfect operating system or a perfect hardware platform or a perfect computer language: that is simple reality. People choose OSs and hardware according to their circumstances and ability to get what they want: at work, you'll normally have to accept the corporate view; at home (budget permitting), you can indulge your preferences. As long as the OS/hardware combination is to your liking and enables you to do what you bought it for, your decision was right.

Because it is based on a version of Unix, with Apple's GUI magic on top, OS X is a fairly secure and stable OS. Linux is less polished but is also secure and stable - and KDE is a pretty good GUI. Windows XP with SP2 is also pretty secure and stable though you have to work harder to make it so. Windows Vista is a considerable improvement but is spoiled by DRM. I have also used a variety of mainframe OSs and none of them is perfect, either!

Any buying decision should be based on what you want to do with your purchase, how long you expect it to last, whether support is important, and what your budget is, though it is pleasant if aesthetics can be satisfied as well. The fact is that Dell and HP produce good machines at competitive prices, there is usually an upgrade path, and support (despite Dell having dropped the ball for a while) is good. Apple products are also good, are aesthetically pleasing but do not enjoy the support that they deserve and are a trifle more expensive.

Whichever you choose, I hope that you get many years of use out of it and enjoy the experience.

 

[RRK]

Wow, you need to chill, and not be so paranoid. Sesshi made some valid points and is perfectly entitled to express his/her opinion about Macs and Mac users.

While OS X is enjoyable to use, I can't understand how some users refuse to even consider a PC because of Windows. An equally priced PC will generally beat the iMac in most performance categories. For example, you can build a Dell Vostro 400 for about $1600 with better hardware then a $2300 iMac. The iMac does have a larger screen, bigger HDD, wireless, iSight, etc. but the Dell has tons of room for expansion, so you can easily add the features you want. For me, I prefer performance over all those fancy extras of the iMac.

I don't know what paranoia has to do with it but as you can see by the other responses I was not completely of base. I was only saying that he was phrasing things in a way that was a little offensive to me since I depend on my iMac to do real work. If I go on to Audi website and someone is trying to decide between an Audi and a BMW. Even if I love BMWs I'm not going to tell the entire Audi audience that "its amusing how little you get on the Audi compared to the BMW. But, I'm sure the less informed Audi fans will ignore this and really the Audi is fine as long as you aren't serious about your car."

 

[HLdan]

Windows XP with SP2 is also pretty secure and stable though you have to work harder to make it so.

I would drop that word "secure" when talking about XP. Secure and XP don't blend and they never have.

 

[bluedoggiant]

why isnt the person that started this thread replying? were doing all the thinking and he isnt giving feedback, i said imac, with vista on bootcamp, wait till leopard, period

 

[TBi]

I would drop that word "secure" when talking about XP. Secure and XP don't blend and they never have.

Actually XP is pretty secure. There has only been what, 2 viruses in 5 years that can infect XP without user intervention? Blaster and the other variant of it.

Every other virus on XP needs the user to explicitly run it. If i wrote a program for the mac which formats your hard drive, and you run it then it will format your harddrive.

Leading onto this, if i write a program which uses mail to send an email to all of your contacts and you run it then it will send all those mails. This is basically all the "iloveyou" virus on XP was. It didn't automatically run, it was executed by non-tech savvy people. This does not show XP to be less secure.

 

[HLdan]

Actually XP is pretty secure. There has only been what, 2 viruses in 5 years that can infect XP without user intervention? Blaster and the other variant of it.

Every other virus on XP needs the user to explicitly run it. If i wrote a program for the mac which formats your hard drive, and you run it then it will format your harddrive.

Leading onto this, if i write a program which uses mail to send an email to all of your contacts and you run it then it will send all those mails. This is basically all the "iloveyou" virus on XP was. It didn't automatically run, it was executed by non-tech savvy people. This does not show XP to be less secure.

Well 90% of the world is not tech savvy. They just buy a computer and turn it on and here goes nothing! The majority doesn't even activate the free 90 day anti-virus subscription and they are just the ones who will activate the virus being spread.
That being said, I didn't at all mention viruses, you did. I was talking more about spyware that you can't do anything about. I have a few friends on XP SP2 that have had their passwords stolen on the web when accessing their banks online. No issue here on a Mac. Spyware alone is a deal breaker and please don't try to cover up XP's security issues, even Microsoft made a statement that they cannot plug up XP anymore.

 

[mahonmeister]

There are Mac zealots who will refuse to hear any criticism of the Mac, there are Windows zealots, there are Linux zealots - and they are all wrong! Computer languages also attract zealots - and they are wrong, too! There is no such thing as a perfect operating system or a perfect hardware platform or a perfect computer language: that is simple reality. People choose OSs and hardware according to their circumstances and ability to get what they want: at work, you'll normally have to accept the corporate view; at home (budget permitting), you can indulge your preferences. As long as the OS/hardware combination is to your liking and enables you to do what you bought it for, your decision was right.

Because it is based on a version of Unix, with Apple's GUI magic on top, OS X is a fairly secure and stable OS. Linux is less polished but is also secure and stable - and KDE is a pretty good GUI. Windows XP with SP2 is also pretty secure and stable though you have to work harder to make it so. Windows Vista is a considerable improvement but is spoiled by DRM. I have also used a variety of mainframe OSs and none of them is perfect, either!

Any buying decision should be based on what you want to do with your purchase, how long you expect it to last, whether support is important, and what your budget is, though it is pleasant if aesthetics can be satisfied as well. The fact is that Dell and HP produce good machines at competitive prices, there is usually an upgrade path, and support (despite Dell having dropped the ball for a while) is good. Apple products are also good, are aesthetically pleasing but do not enjoy the support that they deserve and are a trifle more expensive.

Whichever you choose, I hope that you get many years of use out of it and enjoy the experience.

Thank you for your input. Unbiased comments like this are rare on Mac Rumors. I realize most folks here are Apple fans, but having this sort of 'blind faith' isn't doing any good.

@HLdan: I used to be like you. I played into the hype that 'Windoz sux' and 'Macs rock', but the reality is that both have their weak points and both have their strong points.

 

[eXan]

But at the same time reading this thread.

You guys are sooo funny. I guess any religious fanaticism is funny before somebody start burning witches.

BTW, shouldn't Apple get sued for false advertising? They told people that PowerPC is much more powerful (faster?) than x86 for years. And all of it just to steal BSD core, put 20 years obsolete NextStep on it, draw nice aqua buttons and put a label 4x times faster (note not than x86 but than G4/G4) and ship it? And OS X has almost nothing to do with Mac Classic (which was bad, cumbersome, bad, hard to impossible to program, bad)...

I do not like Microsoft and Windows but I do not like Apple and Mac OSX either. And I do not like Linux too much. But I do not hate any of the aforementioned entities. I guess it makes me pessimist or pacifist or both.

If you can avoid buying next computer at all - buy few dozen of good books instead.

Peace.

Any reason to revive this thread from the dead?