[TechyGuy]

Now, everyone here probably has heard of Apple's iMac - the desktop that's a monitor too- apparantly, everyone out there is obviously jealous, so they're now making rip-offs of it. Take for example, the Gateway One, same thing as the iMac, with one exception, low-end parts(even a mobile CPU). Dell has also taken note of the iMacs' success, and has today released their iMac rip-off, the XPS One. It too, has lower-end parts, including integrated cards one a few models. It just goes to show the dark underbelly of the computing world - if a somewhat medium-size vendor(in this case, Apple and their iMac) finds a new way to innovate, the industry Big-Boys copy the idea and call it their own.
Here are the links to the two rip-offs:
-Gateway One
-Dell XPS One (by the way, the XPS One is not publicly available on the Dell site, you had to sign up for an exclusive e-mail to get the chance to get one, which I did)
Message was edited by: TechyGuy

[RastaMon]

I'm pretty sure the Core 2 Duo Macs use mobile CPUs, also. The only desktop chips Apple uses are Xeon.

All hardware considered, the iMac is the best bargain of the three.

[smax013]

RastaMon said:

I'm pretty sure the Core 2 Duo Macs use mobile CPUs, also. The only desktop chips Apple uses are Xeon.

All hardware considered, the iMac is the best bargain of the three.

I believe you are correct. To my knowledge, the iMac uses laptop type hardware (processor, mobo, etc) with the exception of hard drives...I believe they use 3.5" desktop drives.

And I agree that at first blush, the iMac appears to a better price option than the Dell to a large degree. But, in the end, as usual, there are strengths and weaknesses to go around. The Dells come with a tuner card which you cannot get with an iMac except with third party USB adaptors. The Dells also have a CRAP load more ports than the iMac (they have 6 USB ports, I believe and 2 Firewire ports). You can get a larger screen on the iMac (24 in vs only 20 in on the Dell).

I don't see a problem with the Dell or the Gateway. Would I get one? Nope. But, I am sure that it will appeal to some people and they will sell some. The iMac has hit a nice spot in the market that appeals to a lot of people...I am suprised that no one has tried to tap that market and "copy" the iMac before.

[RastaMon]

I looked for the available ports on the Dell, but couldn't find them on the site. Does it have FW 800? What about 1000 BASE-T Gigabit ethernet? Lack of either of those things would be big disadvantages compared to the iMac. That's a LOT of network and peripheral bandwidth to give up.

I did like that the Dell is available with BluRay. The TV tuner would be a nice option, too. I think integrated card readers are generally a waste of space, considering how ridiculously inexpensive external models are. Of course the only card I use is used as a flash drive, so the portable card reader is a necessity for me, making an integrated version redundant. YMMV.

[smax013]

RastaMon said:

I looked for the available ports on the Dell, but couldn't find them on the site. Does it have FW 800? What about 1000 BASE-T Gigabit ethernet? Lack of either of those things would be big disadvantages compared to the iMac. That's a LOT of network and peripheral bandwidth to give up.

I did like that the Dell is available with BluRay. The TV tuner would be a nice option, too. I think integrated card readers are generally a waste of space, considering how ridiculously inexpensive external models are. Of course the only card I use is used as a flash drive, so the portable card reader is a necessity for me, making an integrated version redundant. YMMV.

I did not find a spec sheet either, but you can see the ports on the pictures. The one picture shows the back, which has 4 USB ports and one Firewire 400 port and the ethernet port (it does not indicate if it is Gigabit ethernet or not). Another picture shows the ports on the side, which has 2 more USB ports and another Firewire 400 port. I did not see a Firewire 800 port, which does not suprise me...considering how rare it typically is to see a Firewire 400 port on a Windoze PeeCee. It also has a digital audio out on the back as well as what looks to be a nice viddeo in port (kind of like a S-Video port, but more pins).



I have to admit that overall I think it is a nice looking computer. To some degree, I like its look better than the current iMac. In the end, I am not too personally fond of "all-in-one" desktop computers...if I get an "all-in-one", I will get a laptop. And in that area, I have yet to find a Windoze PeeCee that looks a nice as a MacBook Pro.

[smax013]

smax013 said:

And I agree that at first blush, the iMac appears to a better price option than the Dell to a large degree. But, in the end, as usual, there are strengths and weaknesses to go around. The Dells come with a tuner card which you cannot get with an iMac except with third party USB adaptors. The Dells also have a CRAP load more ports than the iMac (they have 6 USB ports, I believe and 2 Firewire ports). You can get a larger screen on the iMac (24 in vs only 20 in on the Dell).

To look a little deeper at pricing...



If you take the "entry level" Dell XPS One and compare that with the "entry level" iMac, they turn out about the same price AFTER you have configured the iMac to be more in line with what comes with the Dell version (Dell appears to be taking an Apple playbook and keeping the options simple). The "entry level" Dell XPS One is $1500. If you configure the "entry level" iMac to have as close as possible set of features (i.e. configure it for 2 gb of RAM, go to the wireless keyboard and mouse options, and add iWork to "equate" to Micro$oft Works), then it will cost about $1478. The iMac will have better graphics (it has the ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128 mb of VRAM where the Dell only has integrated graphics at that level) and more powerful productivity apps (iWork is much more feature rich than Micro$oft Works), but the Dell XPS One will have the integrated tuner, more ports, a more feature rich keyboard (i.e. more multimedia and other controls and a numeric keypad), slightly faster processor (the Dell has a 2.2 GHz E4500, while hte iMac has a 2.0 GHz processor), a faster DVD burner (the Dell has 16x, while the iMac has 8x) and a card reader. Both have a 250 gb hard drive, a 20 inch screen, built-in WiFi, and built-in Bluetooth. The Dell has Vista compared to the Mac OS for the iMac (I consider that a win for the iMac...and based upon the griping about Vista by many, I would say that many Windoze PeeCee users might agree). Overall, seems some like a wash to me.



If you take the "performance level" Dell XPS One and compare that with the second to top iMac, then again it comes out fairly close. The Dell costs $2000 and the iMac (with similar type configuration...upgrade to 2gb, add iWork, and add wireless mouse/keyboard) costs about $2080. This time both have a 320 gb hard drive, WiFi, Bluetooth, and now both have the same graphics card. The differences are largely the same, except the iMac has a 24 in screen compared to the 20 in screen for the Dell...and this time the iMac has a slightly faster processor (2.4 GHz vs the Dell's 2.33 GHz), but the Dell has a longer warranty (2 yrs vs. 1 for the iMac) and the Dell now has Office 2007 Home and Student (which is more feature rich than iWork to a large degree...but then you are limited to non-commercial use for that version of Office which is NOT the case for iWork). Still largely a wash with maybe a slight edge to the iMac because of the larger screen.



If you take the "top of the line", then the Dell costs $2400, while the iMac costs $2430. The differences are largely the same as the previous version discussed, but now the Dell has the Blueray optical drive while the iMac is stuck at a standard DVD burner, but the iMac has a 2.8 GHz processor compared to the 2.33 GHz processor of the Dell. I would say again largely a wash...unless you value the larger screen, in which case the iMac gets the edge, or unless you value a HiDef optical drive, in which case the Dell would get the edge.



Overall, I think they are pretty well in line price-wise at all levels. Depending on what a person considers important, then one could have the advantage over the other.

[VladTheImpaler1990]

Well also look at cars alot of the cars are looking the same but they all have there bnefits and there bad sides, it depends on what you like, what you use to, and what you know, but sometimes its nice for a change. Same as computers the Mac and Gateway look alike but as the other guys said its the different specs, and what you like to wok with, my friend has an xp and i am running Vista and i prefer them to Mac Os, but thats just me.

[RastaMon]

I found the price disparity to be much greater with the Gateway One and the iMac.

Without knowing the ethernet speed of the Dell, I can't comment, because for my needs no gigabit or no 802.11n means the computer is outdated already. I've been spoiled by an extensive gigabit ethernet home network. 100 Mb/s connections seem slow and crippled by comparison. But the ethernet notwithstanding, I did find the prices much more comparable between the Dell and the Apple. (I found that surprising, since an equivalent Dell laptop was significantly more expensive than my MacBook, by about 50%+, IIRC, more than any other manufacturer I checked.) It would also be interesting to know the screen resolution of the Dell.

I'm not sure I agree that Office student edition is more feature rich than iWork. MS strips down their student versions pretty well. At any rate, for the overwhelming majority of users, either package has all the necessary functionality. I can get iWork for only $39 (full version, student price), though, while the student edition of Office costs $150.

[smax013]

RastaMon said:

I'm not sure I agree that Office student edition is more feature rich than iWork. MS strips down their student versions pretty well. At any rate, for the overwhelming majority of users, either package has all the necessary functionality. I can get iWork for only $39 (full version, student price), though, while the student edition of Office costs $150.

To my knowledge, the Office Home and Student edition is no different than the Office Standard edition OTHER than it does not inlcude Outlook and the EULA does allow for it to be used for commercial/businesss use (i.e. it is for home/personal or educational use only).



As to features, I will agree that PowerPoint is rather equivalent to Keynote...and some will argue that Keynote is better. I would argue that Word is more feature rich than Pages, but more that likely most of those "additional" features are things that most people don't use on a regular basis. And I would argue the Excel is likely more robust in many areas than Numbers, but that will likely change with version 2 of Numbers. Overall, I would agree that by and large that for most things people will use either for, they are fairly equal. Office has more "advanced" features, but most people don't need such features.

[rgreen4]

The Office Home and Student is also authorized for three PC's, whereas the Office Standard is only good for one. I am not sure how this works with a pre-installed version of Office, which is why I did not order it installed on my new laptop, but ordered it separately from Newegg. It was slightly more that $120, and when spread over 3 machines, is not a bad deal.

[TechyGuy]

I must agree that MS Office does have too many features, after I downloaded the 60-day trial off MS's, site yesterday (version 2007, standard edition), to see how it compares to OpenOffice. Micro$oft simply overdid Office 2007 with too many features; like you said
> smax013 wrote:
> I would argue that Word is more feature rich than Pages, but more that likely most of those "additional" features are things that most people don't use on a regular basis. Office has more "advanced" features, but most people don't need such features
[/quote]
indeed, most people will probably not use the new features in Office 2007; and from what I've seen so far, 2007 is quite confusing to navigate.

[RastaMon]

{quote}I would argue that Word is more feature rich than Pages, but more that likely most of those "additional" features are things that most people don't use on a regular basis.{quote}

I am of the opinion that all WYSIWYG word processor apps are inferior to LATEX for any substantial writing project. I can write far more productively when I don't have to worry about formatting at the same time. All too often I find myself fighting inconsistencies in Word's formatting, especially its tendency to keep "correcting" my formatting "errors." Every new version seems to get a little worse about such small, time consuming annoyances. (I've been using Word since 1992.) Maybe Office 2008 will improve things, or maybe it will be worse.

Almost any desktop word processing application works well for small projects, including Word, Pages, or a host of free options. Typically I turn to TextEdit, due to the streamlined design and nearly instantaneous launch times, but could use pretty much anything.

[mphenterprises]

Hi Techy. I have Office 2007 and I can attest to the fact that it is extremely different than 2003. However, it is just like any other major change...once you get used to the new layout, you realize that it is just as easy to manipulate as the previous version. (prime example....getting used to Vista after using XP)

[smax013]

RastaMon said:

I am of the opinion that all WYSIWYG word processor apps are inferior to LATEX for any substantial writing project. I can write far more productively when I don't have to worry about formatting at the same time. All too often I find myself fighting inconsistencies in Word's formatting, especially its tendency to keep "correcting" my formatting "errors." Every new version seems to get a little worse about such small, time consuming annoyances. (I've been using Word since 1992.) Maybe Office 2008 will improve things, or maybe it will be worse.

I agree in many ways...the various "auto" things annoy the crap out of me in Word and I usually turn them off. I dislike the "auto" word select (rather than allowing you to select just parts of a word). I dislike the auto capitalize function. And so on.



I doubt that Office 2008 will eliminate such "auto" stuff. I just turn them off, however.



While there are things that I don't like about Word (not the least of which is that it is a Micro$oft product), I still use it. Like it or not, it is basically an "industry" standard. And while it is getting easier to use other non-standard word processors, it is still easier to just use Word, especially if you have to share files with others.

[VladTheImpaler1990]

Well i have bought the 2007 office and i love it yes took a little while to get use to, but its alot easier and also the short cuts help alot, i believe that it is a great upgrade

[rgreen4]

I will agree about the industry standard. That forced me to Office 2000 from WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. As a word processor, I far preferred WordPerfect with its flexibility and user logical menus and the one feature Word has never provided - Text Art. Very useful if you were putting out a newletter for a small group.

Alas, recognizing that the future was upon us when I installed my Vista upgrade on my Media Center, I ordered Office 2007 Home and Student, and installed it. At first I absolutely hated the "ribbon" as I couldn't find anything. I am a very heavy Excel user, and for an old time number bunny, it was a shock. A few times, I would stop, save the file, fire up my XP machine with Office 2000, open the file and finish. But, now, its almost always 100% Office 2007.

Of course it would have been faster if I didn't have to keep dropping back to Office 2000 at work.

What is the comment about Office 2008? While they may do updates to 2007, may even add features we can't do without, they likely won't change the name, and a complete rewrite any major version change is definitely not in the cards. The only thing I can think of that will have the year 2008 appended is Windows Server 2008 and their Accounting software, and Office on the Mac. Looking back at major revisions '97, 2000, 2003, 2007 - no 1 year cycles. I left out Office XP, as all it did was add activation to 2000.

[smax013]

rgreen4 said:

What is the comment about Office 2008? While they may do updates to 2007, may even add features we can't do without, they likely won't change the name, and a complete rewrite any major version change is definitely not in the cards. The only thing I can think of that will have the year 2008 appended is Windows Server 2008 and their Accounting software, and Office on the Mac. Looking back at major revisions '97, 2000, 2003, 2007 - no 1 year cycles. I left out Office XP, as all it did was add activation to 2000.

Office 2008 is the upcoming Mac version. The currently available Mac version is Office 2004. Micro$oft will release Office 2008 for the Mac sometime shortly after the first of the year. It is LONG over due. It was supposed to be released sometime this year, but they kept pushing it back (kind of like they did with Vista and Office 2007, if I recall correctly). The biggest thing that it will bring is the ablility to run in Intel native mode, which will mean it will finally take advantage of the Intel chips that Apple now uses and run faster. It will obviously also add the new file format and I would guess goto the ribbon much like Office 2007 for Windoze.

[easterwabbit]

automobile manufacturers copy each other as well

so imac is the desktop monitor one ?

i have bene unable to figure out the dfferent mac systems and what they are exactly

[TechyGuy]

If you're unsure as to what the 5 different Macs are, here goes:
iMac: a desktop integrated into the monitor/monitor integrated into the desktop, reasonable performance
Mac Mini: ultra-compact desktop, very unexpandable, somewhat pokey performance wise.
Mac Pro: High-end Desktop/Workstation(uses expensive Xeon-CPUs)
Macbook: very light-weight notebook, 13.3" screen, average notebook performance
Macbook Pro: light-weight, high-end notebook, 15" or 17" display

[smax013]

TechyGuy said:

If you're unsure as to what the 5 different Macs are, here goes:

iMac: a desktop integrated into the monitor/monitor integrated into the desktop, reasonable performance
Mac Mini: ultra-compact desktop, very unexpandable, somewhat pokey performance wise.
Mac Pro: High-end Desktop/Workstation(uses expensive Xeon-CPUs)
Macbook: very light-weight notebook, 13.3" screen, average notebook performance
Macbook Pro: light-weight, high-end notebook, 15" or 17" display

Somewhat depends on how you define "unexpandable". All Macs, with the exception of the Mac Pro, have limited ability to "crack" them open to expand. All Macs, with the exception of the Mac mini, can be opened up to expand memory...at least without voiding the warranty (you can crack the mini to upgrade the memory as well, but you will void the warranty). The MacBook and Mac Pro can be opened to upgrade the hard drive...the MacBook Pro, iMac, and mini can as well, but you will void the warranty.



All Macs, however, can be expanded pretty well with USB and Firewire devices (all Macs come with Firewire ports...some even come with Firewire 800 ports). Without a doubt, however, the Mac Pro is the most "PeeCee" like in that it is a tower where you can easily add cards, drives, memory, etc.