A Tech's Comparison - Dell 3GHZ & my iMac 700
Before you all start jumping...
I recently worked extensively on a brand spanking new Dell Dimension 8300 configured as follows:
3 Ghz P4
512 Mb Ram
120 GB HD
DVD Drive
CDRW Drive
Linksys Usb Wireless Adapter
DSL internet
Windows XP Home
NVidia Quad Card - 4 monitors
Other goodies
The hard drive went/was going bad, and I had to swap the data and reinstall the OS. Dell would have no part in any of it, except to send a tech to swap the drive and start the os reloading.
I spent some serious time on this machine because the customer could not be down during the day. He used the still functioning old drive while working. I had to stretch the work over a few evenings.
I have worked extensively with WIN95 all the way up to 2000 and some minor XP stuff. I typically advise my customers to stay with what works now unless they are forced to change. I of course recommend apple at that point.
This was my first real chance to dig into XP and a new Dell system.
The case: It was not intuitive at all. It felt like a door that needed some serious oiling. A petite woman would have some trouble opening this thing. You have to lay the machine on it's side for it to open all the way. There is a button of sorts on the top and the bottom to allow the case to open like a big (read BIG) clamshell. You need a big area to open this thing up. It is so bulky that you have to be careful when closing it as make sure it aligns right. The first time I shut it I broke off a trim part on the back. I would actually prefer the old slide off side cover to this contraption. Once open the guts are pretty standard. Fit and finish were OK but nothing to write home about. The drives are on rails and go in and out with relative ease. They also include 2 sets of each type drive rail.
XP: It started very quickly. Most apps also started quickly. (This is where I start comparing the speed and ease of use.) Overall the machine performed well. If I had to put it to numbers I would say that the machine seemed 20-25% faster than my iMac 700. XP was a little confusing to me, even though I have been using windows since 3.0. Things are just not where you would expect them to be. This is doubly true if you try to forget what you know a bout windows and try it from a common sense standpoint. It seems that MS would like you not to configure your system.
XP does not even hold a candle to OS X. Don't even try. Having dealt with MS for years, I figured it out.
Having failed to ghost the drive and other radical remedies, I just reinstalled the OS on the new drive. Funny thing is, Dell had no restore CD, as we know restore CD. They had a CD with the os, and I assume, the drivers for the machine. It would be very confusing for a novice. I am not sure why this is. Anyway... The OS install took about 1.5 hours, not including all of the other installs and data transfer. All said it took well over 4 hours. No kidding.
XP seems very choppy. The os and apps would often stop responding with no indication what was happening and then suddenly start to work again. And, No, I am not just being nit-picky. There would be a long uncomfortable pause, often for 5 or more seconds. You would often find yourself saying "What's wrong, what did I do?" The appearance was nice but there were many remnants of the old NT and 98 style items, often mixed in with the new appearance stuff. It seemed weird, that's all. I also noticed that the OS did not always remember the location and size of windows, and would often throw a dialog box up on a screen different than where the command originated. This may have to do with the video driver. The OS seemed fairly stable overall. I had no crashes.
XP seemed to have a little trouble with USB and wireless networking. Of course networking is basically the same as in win-95/98/ME. Of course, it is still not very intuitive.
The help system is still very confusing. Novice users will steer clear of that thing. It sound as if it was written by computer nerds. I understood a lot of it. What does that mean?
Well, there you go. I see no reason why anyone would go from an Apple computer to a Dell. My iMac is still very competitive with this machine that I tested. I know some will argue this point. My iMac seems to be far smoother and far more interactive. If these were my only two choices in the world I would have to pick the iMac for ease of use and configuration. The iMac seems to me to be more stable. The GUI is far more consistent on the iMac.
I compared these two because I use my iMac daily for just about everything. It was configured similarly minus HD size, Processor Speed, and number of monitors. The use for the Dell was similar to that of my own computer. Finally, I am open minded and wanted to see if there was a clear advantage to getting a Dell. My iMac is configured as follows:
700 MHZ G4
512 MB Ram
40 GB int + 40GB EXT FW
Combo Drive
Cable internet
Mac OS 10.2.8
Nvidia 32 MB Video - 2 monitors - spanned
I can't wait to try panther, they say it should boost performance up to 30%. I will have no real need to upgrade this machine other than personal desire.
Edit: I did not test out any real heavy apps like PS or Illustrator just on everyday stuff like IE, chat, office, and the like.
I recently worked extensively on a brand spanking new Dell Dimension 8300 configured as follows:
3 Ghz P4
512 Mb Ram
120 GB HD
DVD Drive
CDRW Drive
Linksys Usb Wireless Adapter
DSL internet
Windows XP Home
NVidia Quad Card - 4 monitors
Other goodies
The hard drive went/was going bad, and I had to swap the data and reinstall the OS. Dell would have no part in any of it, except to send a tech to swap the drive and start the os reloading.
I spent some serious time on this machine because the customer could not be down during the day. He used the still functioning old drive while working. I had to stretch the work over a few evenings.
I have worked extensively with WIN95 all the way up to 2000 and some minor XP stuff. I typically advise my customers to stay with what works now unless they are forced to change. I of course recommend apple at that point.
This was my first real chance to dig into XP and a new Dell system.
The case: It was not intuitive at all. It felt like a door that needed some serious oiling. A petite woman would have some trouble opening this thing. You have to lay the machine on it's side for it to open all the way. There is a button of sorts on the top and the bottom to allow the case to open like a big (read BIG) clamshell. You need a big area to open this thing up. It is so bulky that you have to be careful when closing it as make sure it aligns right. The first time I shut it I broke off a trim part on the back. I would actually prefer the old slide off side cover to this contraption. Once open the guts are pretty standard. Fit and finish were OK but nothing to write home about. The drives are on rails and go in and out with relative ease. They also include 2 sets of each type drive rail.
XP: It started very quickly. Most apps also started quickly. (This is where I start comparing the speed and ease of use.) Overall the machine performed well. If I had to put it to numbers I would say that the machine seemed 20-25% faster than my iMac 700. XP was a little confusing to me, even though I have been using windows since 3.0. Things are just not where you would expect them to be. This is doubly true if you try to forget what you know a bout windows and try it from a common sense standpoint. It seems that MS would like you not to configure your system.
XP does not even hold a candle to OS X. Don't even try. Having dealt with MS for years, I figured it out.
Having failed to ghost the drive and other radical remedies, I just reinstalled the OS on the new drive. Funny thing is, Dell had no restore CD, as we know restore CD. They had a CD with the os, and I assume, the drivers for the machine. It would be very confusing for a novice. I am not sure why this is. Anyway... The OS install took about 1.5 hours, not including all of the other installs and data transfer. All said it took well over 4 hours. No kidding.
XP seems very choppy. The os and apps would often stop responding with no indication what was happening and then suddenly start to work again. And, No, I am not just being nit-picky. There would be a long uncomfortable pause, often for 5 or more seconds. You would often find yourself saying "What's wrong, what did I do?" The appearance was nice but there were many remnants of the old NT and 98 style items, often mixed in with the new appearance stuff. It seemed weird, that's all. I also noticed that the OS did not always remember the location and size of windows, and would often throw a dialog box up on a screen different than where the command originated. This may have to do with the video driver. The OS seemed fairly stable overall. I had no crashes.
XP seemed to have a little trouble with USB and wireless networking. Of course networking is basically the same as in win-95/98/ME. Of course, it is still not very intuitive.
The help system is still very confusing. Novice users will steer clear of that thing. It sound as if it was written by computer nerds. I understood a lot of it. What does that mean?
Well, there you go. I see no reason why anyone would go from an Apple computer to a Dell. My iMac is still very competitive with this machine that I tested. I know some will argue this point. My iMac seems to be far smoother and far more interactive. If these were my only two choices in the world I would have to pick the iMac for ease of use and configuration. The iMac seems to me to be more stable. The GUI is far more consistent on the iMac.
I compared these two because I use my iMac daily for just about everything. It was configured similarly minus HD size, Processor Speed, and number of monitors. The use for the Dell was similar to that of my own computer. Finally, I am open minded and wanted to see if there was a clear advantage to getting a Dell. My iMac is configured as follows:
700 MHZ G4
512 MB Ram
40 GB int + 40GB EXT FW
Combo Drive
Cable internet
Mac OS 10.2.8
Nvidia 32 MB Video - 2 monitors - spanned
I can't wait to try panther, they say it should boost performance up to 30%. I will have no real need to upgrade this machine other than personal desire.
Edit: I did not test out any real heavy apps like PS or Illustrator just on everyday stuff like IE, chat, office, and the like.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
I see no reason why anyone would go from an Apple computer to a Dell.
Reasons;
1) If you are required to follow a corporate standard and/or are developing software for that standard (thats me).
2) If you are using Proprietary/custom corporate software.
3) There are a number of commercial applications that are not available for Mac. While there may be a Mac alternative, again it comes back to the corporate standards.
4) You can buy a used, loaded P4 with monitor for about $200 on ebay. Your emac is going to run me at least $450 used.
5) Games (Though I havent played a game since tetris came out in the early 90's)
6) You have a bunch of pirate/thief friends and want to share in the software loot (definately not me).
7) Apple user image as being a fag versus PC users being thought of as "good at troubleshooting"... Obviously you would have to be to be a PC user.
8) Fear that Apple is going under -- I see this as stupid since the Mac already does what you want, so if the company went out of business tomorrow you already got what you paid for... There will always be 3rd party repair shops available...
edit: sorry, I estimated the price for a used emac, but you have an imac.. those are even more used... $650+
I was comparing based on my personal use.
You get exactly what you pay for. You comment proves that. Higher resale value indicates high demand and high quality.
My 2 pennies.
Originally posted by NaplesX
well, allright thaose are reasons, although becomeing more obscure each day, but they are reasons.
I was comparing based on my personal use.
You get exactly what you pay for. You comment proves that. Higher resale value indicates high demand and high quality.
My 2 pennies.
definately. If theres no absolute need for a PC, choosing the Mac is a no-brainer.
The only thing that really makes me think about going back to a PC is music. iTunes has killed off just about all the other audio players, as it is simply too hard to compete with free. There is no meaningful support for fringe audio codecs like Monkey's Audio, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, MPC, and others. There is also no secure rippers for Mac OS X, like Exact Audio Copy for Windows. (CDParanoia is available for Unix but I have yet to see it available for Darwin.)
Still, Mac OS X has so many upsides that it is hard to give up. I love Safari, iCal, and GraphicConverter. I love having access to the Unix command line environment and many cool programs via Fink. And Mac OS X makes using my digital camera is so easy it is almost silly.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Nvidia 32 MB Video - 2 monitors - spanned
BTW, I wasn't aware that the nVidia card in the eMac could supported spanning. I do know the the ATI card in the current Rev. B eMacs can support spanning via an OpenFirmware hack.
If you really mean spanning, and not mirroring, then how did you do it?
Thanks.
Originally posted by Agent69
BTW, I wasn't aware that the nVidia card in the eMac could supported spanning. I do know the the ATI card in the current Rev. B eMacs can support spanning via an OpenFirmware hack.
If you really mean spanning, and not mirroring, then how did you do it?
Thanks.
Same type hack:
http://www.rutemoeller.com/mp/ibook/ibook_e.html
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
7) Apple user image as being a fag versus PC users being thought of as "good at troubleshooting"... Obviously you would have to be to be a PC user.
hahahaha
Originally posted by NaplesX
Same type hack:
http://www.rutemoeller.com/mp/ibook/ibook_e.html
According to this page, the eMacs with nVidia cards do not support the hack.
http://www.rutemoeller.com/mp/ibook/supportlist_e.html
Originally posted by Agent69
BTW, I wasn't aware that the nVidia card in the eMac could supported spanning. I do know the the ATI card in the current Rev. B eMacs can support spanning via an OpenFirmware hack.
If you really mean spanning, and not mirroring, then how did you do it?
Thanks.
truth be told, I just did the patch to a friends machine (one that supports it) and it worked flawlessly. I was so excited that I applied the patch to mine and all went smoothly. I just did not have the adapter so I ordered one and assumed it would work. I recieved my info from another friend via email and did not know the limitations of the patch. I was assuming it would just work. I am going to proceed with it to see.
Originally posted by SF_VR6
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
7) Apple user image as being a fag versus PC users being thought of as "good at troubleshooting"... Obviously you would have to be to be a PC user.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hahahaha
I didn't mean to sound derogatory there. I mean that thats what all my friends and colleages say when I tell them I want a Mac.
as for people mocking you for using a Mac, it tends to go well for me. my job is IT work. when someone says anything about my using a Mac, i ask them what they do for a living. that tends to slow them down.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
If you couldn't tell the speed difference you either weren't paying attention or something. As much as I dislike XP, it isn't bad speedwise, and besides being a ram hog (like OS X) it is just fine. Oh yeah well there is the horrible file system structure but that has been like that with windows since at least 95 haha.
If you read the post carefully you will see that I said it was 20-25% faster. I tried to be as fair as I knew how.
The reason I wrote that post was that I was led to believe by all of the dell heads that it was a lightning fast and that the new macs can hardly keep up.
I was so underwhelmed by the performance of this dell I felt it necessary to post my findings. I have used a dual 1ghz similarly configured that blows that dell out of the water overall.
Take it for what you will.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you read the post carefully you will see that I said it was 20-25% faster. I tried to be as fair as I knew how.
Yeah sorry didn't restate what you said properly. I guess it would only seem that fast for simple tasks, but anything more advanced I think it would do very well. I know photoshop on my 600MHz P3 with only 128mb ram ran a lot faster then i ever would have thought it could. 3Ghz would have to be fast on simple PS tasks.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
R
7) Apple user image as being a fag versus PC users being thought of as "good at troubleshooting"... Obviously you would have to be to be a PC user.
Wow, I'm a fag, I did not know that. I guess I'm going to have to tell my wife, she won't be happy. I know a few guys that might be happy though...maybe.
Does anyone know of 5 straight guys that could help out this queer mac guy?
Originally posted by DMBand0026
Personally, I think that a 3Ghz machine being only 20-25% faster than a 700mhz machine is extremely impressive. We're talking something that is supposed to be 40-45% faster being just half that. That speaks volumes for the Mac.
It is not. The GUI may only feel 20-25% faster on a 3 Ghz machine as compared to a 700 Mhz iMac but it is much faster acctually doing anything. Like in photoshop or other apps like that. And we are not talking about 20-30% but rather 2-5 times faster! There is no comparison. The G4 with a 2 MB cache is equal to a a p4 machine double the speed (ie a 1 Ghz G4 is equal to a 2 Ghz P4). Without the backside cache it is only equal to a machine that is roughly 50% the speed (ie a 1 Ghz G4 w/o cache is equal to a 1.5 Ghz P4).
Originally posted by anand
It is not. The GUI may only feel 20-25% faster on a 3 Ghz machine as compared to a 700 Mhz iMac but it is much faster acctually doing anything. Like in photoshop or other apps like that. And we are not talking about 20-30% but rather 2-5 times faster! There is no comparison. The G4 with a 2 MB cache is equal to a a p4 machine double the speed (ie a 1 Ghz G4 is equal to a 2 Ghz P4). Without the backside cache it is only equal to a machine that is roughly 50% the speed (ie a 1 Ghz G4 w/o cache is equal to a 1.5 Ghz P4).
Now here we go...
The user interface gives the overall feel to the computer experience. The dell that I did an FFR to, on a new system only felt approx. 25% faster to me than my iMac 700. As a matter of fact some things felt faster on one machine or the other. My figure was overall on daily tasks that a good majority of people use their computer for, including myself. I also included ease of setup since I have had extensive experience doing so. If you read I did not test on cpu intense software, because the customer did not use any. I would hope that a Dell running at 3GHZ would get faster results in such apps.
Let me point this out; every time I have upgraded my os (with the provided automatic updates, and a purchased major revision upgrade) I have seen a speed boost, however minor. So my machine has essentially gotten faster over the approx 1.5 yrs I have had it. Panther has been said to also do the same in a big way.
In my mind, I have to wonder, "If an OS can run at essentially the same performance level at lower cpu speeds, Isn't that better overall?"
I have complained for years that the OS and software in general has become huge and bloated. Just install an older/slimmer OS on a new machine and be absolutely blown away by the speed. Windows has been guilty of bloat for years. This has been well documented.
It seems to me that apple has for the most part kept this under control and has recently started trimming the OS to be lean and mean.
Let's say the perceived speed is more in the range of 30-35% faster on the dell. My machine is 1.5 years old now and is easily running arguably the most sophisticated OS on the planet. I would have that this speakss volumes to apple's performance. I have always voiced the opinion that an Apple CPU is roughly equal to an INTEL CPU roughly 2-3 times faster. My observations have proven this to me.
I think Panther combined with the new G5 will set the standard for both OS and hardware alike for years to come.
All of this is not coming from a guy that has never used a PC. In fact, I got my training on a PC way back in the DOS 3.0 days and remember the TRS80? In those days I was fooled into thinking the apple was just a toy. I actuall did not seriously look at a mac until 3-4 years ago and did not switch till I got this mac. I have had my hands on just about every consumer pc made. I have used at one time or the other just about every major software title. That is not to mention the countless smaller apps. In my short history with the macI have put it through it's paces. I have compared the many features, if not just to make sure I got my money's worth and make sure I made the right decision. The only segment of the PC world I have not ventured into is UNIX. That was up till OS X. I have no real agenda here except to help others by promoting product(s) that have made my life easier and saved me time and money.
Yes you could say I am biased. But bias based on real world experience. Not on blind wishful thinking. Is apple perfect in every way? No, but it's getting closer every day. Maybe I am wrong.
---END RANT--- Sorry.