MacMini vs. Dell: True Comparison

javacowboy · January 20, 2005 5:51PM

Somebody mentioned in another thread (can't find it) that they were looking to convince somebody (probably a relative) to buy a MacMini, but that potential customer had hear negative comparisons, and that the poster was looking for counter-arguments against the "you can get a cheaper equivalent computer from Dell" argument.

This column is a detailed, methodical and convincing analysis of why Dell's bargain-basement trash is substantially inferior to a MacMini, despite what the "pundits" say:

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...nges/index.php

incoming · January 21, 2005 1:03AM

Hi there,

AFAIK Dell has only Windows-PCs, which are inferior because of the operating system (still crashes a lot on most pcs).

And most users won't be experienced enough to use linux on a pc.

So, software sells hardware.

David

kotatsu · January 21, 2005 7:10AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Incoming

Hi there,

AFAIK Dell has only Windows-PCs, which are inferior because of the operating system (still crashes a lot on most pcs).

And most users won't be experienced enough to use linux on a pc.

So, software sells hardware.

David

Do you use Windows XP much? I'm not a MS fan at all, but I find XP to be very stable. In fact I can honestly say it has only crashed 3 or 4 times in the past 2 years.

Applications crash of course, but XP nearly always survives.

More annoying is when you're forced to restart by Windows Update or some other software installation.

jsimmons · January 21, 2005 7:16AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Incoming

Hi there,

AFAIK Dell has only Windows-PCs, which are inferior because of the operating system (still crashes a lot on most pcs).

And most users won't be experienced enough to use linux on a pc.

So, software sells hardware.

David

I think you let a little Apple fanboy-ism, slip in there.

I can count on one hand how many times I've managed to crash Windows 2000 or XP (and my systems run 24/7). I've also heard of people crashing OS-X with similar frequency.

OS-X is Unix-based. The only real thing that makes OS-X easier than Linux or Unix is the limited add-on hardware available for the machines it runs on.

aurora · January 21, 2005 7:19AM

The article is wrong when it states mini has a video card. it has a videochip. Mac has superior software and inferior hardware. Its been this way for centuries it seems.

incoming · January 21, 2005 1:01PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kotatsu

Do you use Windows XP much? I'm not a MS fan at all, but I find XP to be very stable. In fact I can honestly say it has only crashed 3 or 4 times in the past 2 years.

Applications crash of course, but XP nearly always survives.

More annoying is when you're forced to restart by Windows Update or some other software installation.

I use XP every day, and it crashes on average about once each day. I got one pc though, were it doesn't crash for months, but only after sp2 was installed.

Anyway, XP is never as stable as linux (each of my linux pc runs usually until power supply fails), and I find it more uncomfortable, since you don't have console access to every function of the os.

David

rustedborg · January 21, 2005 1:58PM

Switched to Mac (Pismo) from a PC back in 2000 and then switched back to a PC back in 2003. I still have my Pismo running Panther as an extra web computer, but I use the PC for almost everything now.

I'm running a XP (home) machine from Falcon Northwest with a 2.8GHz P4, 1GB of RAM, a 128MB ATI card, and a 80GB hard drive. I experience about 1-2 crashes a month since I purchased the PC in December 2003. I experience about 1-2 crashes every 3 months on my Pismo running Panther (but I don't use it as much as the PC and back when I was using it as my main computer and it had OS9 installed it would crash 3-5 times a month). The bigger headache with the PC has been viruses, spyware, and adware.

If it wasn't for the fact that I need an AFFORDABLE but FAST machine for Photoshop, I would have stayed with Macs.

I purchased my PC (specs above) back in December 2003 for just under $1,200. I spent about 2 months comparing benchmark data and prices, and I recall that back in late 2003 in order to get a Mac that could run Photoshop as fast as this PC I would have needed to pay somewhere in the area of $1,900-$2,300 for a Mac.

I love the style/user-friendly software of the Macs, but I'm a working photographer who has his own business and has a family to feed and bills to pay. Paying an extra $700-$1,100 may not seem bad to some people if it means they don't have to deal with spyware/adware/viruses and have a (potentially) more stable system ... but for me $700-$1,100 is a lot of money that could be better spent somewhere else.

If I could afford a Mac that performs as well (benchmark wise) as a PC for the same $ I'd be happy to switch back to Mac ... which is why I'm so interested in the Mac Mini ... but it still looks like the Mini would be too underpowered compared to some PCs on the market ... and I'm NOT talking about cheap-o worthless Dells.

e1618978 · January 21, 2005 2:16PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Incoming

I use XP every day, and it crashes on average about once each day. I got one pc though, were it doesn't crash for months, but only after sp2 was installed.

Anyway, XP is never as stable as linux (each of my linux pc runs usually until power supply fails), and I find it more uncomfortable, since you don't have console access to every function of the os.

David

I run both XP and Mac OS at home, and Linux at work.

MacOS is nicer to use than XP, Linux is more

stable than either MacOS or XP. Linux is like a

Toyota, MacOS is like an Audi, XP is like a Buick.

XP is usable, though. If you don't care about the

"look and feel" of MacOS, then there are only a few

big differentiators:

1. Boot recovery. One of my friends XP computer

went crazy, and he lost everything. I corrupted

an iBook at the same time, and was able to do

the 'boot with T' firewire trick and back up

everything before re-install.

2. It sucks that you can't drag and drop files onto

a PC DVD writer without buying a $70 program

to do it. I bought a DVD writer for my PC,

and I was really mad when I found that out.

3. The included software with the mac is nicer

4. The BIOS is much better. My compaq bios works,

looks, and feels like trash written by a high

school student.

5. No viruses or spyware on the mac, you have to pay

protection money on the PC.

6. I just hate Bill Gates. I paid $120 for Windows

ME - and I feel that microsoft owes me that money

back, plus about $10,000 for wasted time. The fact

that XP is much better does not take the bad taste

from my mouth.

6. The only advantage of the PC - access to obscure

software, like my microcontroller programmer

software. For this, I will keep my PC, but also

keep it isolated to prevent infection.

timmy o'tool · January 21, 2005 2:41PM

Bargin basement p.c. will always have better specs at a cheaper price. Its just a case of the way the p.c. market is differnt than the Mac market and the difference in mentality between the two. You have to remember that p.c. manufactures have to find ways to cut the price and still put a bigger number on the box because that market is cut throat. The end result is a p.c. with big numbers on the box, but cheaper components and in some cases misleading performance claims. On the mac side, they are limited by processor availiblity. Apple also thinks alot about what people actually do with their computers and builds to those specs. The end result is a computer with limited performance compared to what the money will buy you in p.c. land, but one that will actually in most cases provide a well thought out solution, not just numbers on a box. You have to think about what is important to you. If getting the most spec for the least amount of cash is what you want then the pc will be the anwser, but if your like me and realize that the well thought out solution tends to work better and in the end get more work done then check out the mac.

Oh wait, forget all that and just buy a mac mini for christ sake!

p.s. Photoshop really doesn't need the fastest spec available. My g4, which is slower that a mini, works pretty good. The fastest P4 available really doesn't save you anytime in the long run. Thats just my opinon.

kotatsu · January 21, 2005 6:11PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Incoming

I use XP every day, and it crashes on average about once each day. I got one pc though, were it doesn't crash for months, but only after sp2 was installed.

Anyway, XP is never as stable as linux (each of my linux pc runs usually until power supply fails), and I find it more uncomfortable, since you don't have console access to every function of the os.

David

Something is *seriously* wrong with your PC then. Even Windows Millenium - probably the worst OS in history - wouldn't crash that much.

flounder · January 21, 2005 6:32PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kotatsu

Something is *seriously* wrong with your PC then. Even Windows Millenium - probably the worst OS in history - wouldn't crash that much.

Who knows, crazy stuff happens. Although you're probably right and it's some sort of hardware issue (or not, I don't know what the heck I'm talking about).

My roommates crappy dell laptop has to be shut down every day. If it runs for more than 24 consecutive hours, it slows down to a big pile of dog doo.

It's really never been right since, not realizing it's basically impossible, he tried to delete IE and subsequently screwed up his system and had to wipe the comp clean and start over again.

Also, I can't help but laugh when simply having more than one application open at once causes the roaring fan to spring into action.

Needless to say, he regrets his purchase.

MacMini vs. Dell: True Comparison

Comments