Dell XPS One reviewed

PC Mag has reviewed the Dell XPS One, the machine which we originally revealed on these here pages. The unit they got their hands on was the top-end $2,399 model -- what, you think Dell would risk lumping 'em with the budget range? -- and the overall impression was very good if you limit yourself to the praise of the PC's numerous features. A built-in HDTV tuner with remote, Blu-ray, and 802.11n round out the 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, and 500GB HDD. The reviewer also thought that the design was a strong aspect of the XPS One, matching the iMac for aesthetics and minimalism. From there it's downhill: the Radeon 2400 HD graphics card is crap for gaming, and the unit as a whole isn't price competitive thanks to the 20-inch 1680x1050 screen. Will you wait for the 24-inch model?

[Comacozi @ Nov 17th 2007 12:26PM]

i dont think gamers are going to buy this anyway.

[Leopard Nimrod @ Nov 17th 2007 1:04PM]

Agreed. This is being marketed toward established adults with sufficient income.

As for the aesthetics, I disagree with the reviewer's comments. While it's nice for a PC, there are many things that is lacking to put in the realm of the iMac's simplistic and minimalist design.

[John @ Nov 17th 2007 12:28PM]

They also say "The Dell XPS One ($2,399 direct) easily outclasses its all-in-one competitor (and namesake), the Gateway One, and matches or surpasses the Apple iMac, which has long been the gold standard of all-in-one PCs".

[Ireland @ Nov 17th 2007 1:20PM]

The iMac's design is nicer, and its cheaper. Fair enough, you don't get a Blu-Ray drive, but I'm finding myself wondering what you need one on a consumer desktop anyway, given that I watch movies on my TV. Oh, and there is one more crucial area in which the iMac absolutely outclasses the "One", and that's resolution. The One "doesn't" have 1080p, it has a 1050p 20" screen, whereas the iMac has 24" 1200p screen, which would be a deal-breaker in itself for me.

[Zeus the God @ Nov 17th 2007 1:31PM]

You also have to consider quality. In my experiences, iMacs have been nothing but problems, with numerous repairs from shoddy workmanship, and horribly part quality.

The only Macs worth considering are the PowerMacs. The iMac is just a waste, as you might as well just purchase a PowerBook or other brand laptop (or custom).

[John @ Nov 17th 2007 1:54PM]

I tend not to trust any "all in one". Putting everything together may give you a nice form factor, but it leads to numerous design problems as well as making it a huge pain in the ass to go in and fix things.

[Ireland @ Nov 17th 2007 2:51PM]

@ Zeus the God, you never owned an iMac you liar.
This one is my third and I never had one hardware problem. The quality of Apple's iMac hardware is quite good, and judging by all your comments over on Blogsmith, you seem a little biased.

[JT @ Nov 17th 2007 2:52PM]

@ Zues

Power Macs? Powerbooks? Things have changed a tad since those models were retired.

[craig @ Nov 17th 2007 3:59PM]

Ireland, The iMac lacks the HDTV tuner as well. I have no idea why you are making up terms like 1050p and 1200p as if those had anything to do with HD video modes. They do not and, if they did, none of the machines you mentioned would actually do the modes you claimed they did. The iMac 20" has the same resolution as the Dell and the iMac 24" can do 1080p and no more.

[Ireland @ Nov 17th 2007 4:39PM]

"and the iMac 24" can do 1080p and no more"
Check your facts Craig, I am on the 24" iMac right now, and it's resolution is 1920 x 1200 pixels. That is 1200p, not 1080p. It's your imagination that only goes to 1080p, not the 24" iMac. As for that tuner, I use my TV for that stuff, I get work done on my iMac (when not relying to comments).

[Jacob @ Nov 17th 2007 7:18PM]

"Check your facts Craig, I am on the 24" iMac right now, and it's resolution is 1920 x 1200 pixels. That is 1200p, not 1080p. It's your imagination that only goes to 1080p, not the 24" iMac. As for that tuner, I use my TV for that stuff, I get work done on my iMac (when not relying to comments)."
I think he means that terms like 1200p and 1050p don't actually exist (outside of your mind). 1080p is a video standard, whereas there isn't any such thing as 1050p or 1200p content.
It probably doesn't matter that it doesn't have 1900 by 1200 res, though, but if there's a bigger version coming out, it will. Afterall, it said in the review that blu ray movies looked spectacular.

[John @ Nov 17th 2007 7:30PM]

It's pretty obvious you have no clue what you're talking about, Mr. "1200p". p is "progressive scan", not "pixels". Feel free to actually look up what the big words mean next time.

[vdogg89 @ Nov 18th 2007 1:09AM]

@ Ireland,
wow your an idiot.

[Ireland @ Nov 18th 2007 10:21AM]

@ vdogg89,
If you are going to call someone an idiot at least make sure you use the correct grammar, or even the correct spelling. You'll likely end up making yourself look like the idiot if you don't, and that would be embarrassing.

The word is "you're", as in "you are", you forgot the apostrophe. ;)

And yes guys, I was aware of the term progressive. As in, all 1,080 lines are painted on a frame at the same time, and if the vertical resolution of a monitor is less than 1,080, i.e. 1,050, full high definition cannot be displayed, at least not legitimately. And yes I'm also aware you would need the content to bring the 24" 1920x1200 iMac display to it's maximum, but that doesn't mean it's not capable of it, which it is. Thanks for playin' yall :P

[9bit @ Nov 19th 2007 12:22PM]

1080p refers to video content with 1080 lines of pixels that is displayed in progressive scan, i.e. not interlaced. This refers to content, not the native resolution of hardware. There is no such thing as 1050p or 1200p (or 720i, for that matter)
When talking about monitors:
Wide SXGA+ = 1680 X 1050
Wide UXGA = 1920 X 1200
Both are in the 16:10 aspect ratio, the ratio for most wide monitors, as opposed to the 16:9 ratio of wide-screen TV. Note that WUXGA is the same width as 1080p and a little bit taller.

[Chris Macdonald @ Nov 17th 2007 12:28PM]

is all the hardware and shit in the monitor or in that stood up binder-looking thing?

[Chris Macdonald @ Nov 17th 2007 12:29PM]

o nvm i gotta learn to go to the links.... cool!

[michael @ Nov 17th 2007 12:38PM]

Before any iMac user goes "But this is far more expensive than just buying an iMac!"

You should also note:
"the PC's numerous features. A built-in HDTV tuner with remote, Blu-ray, and 802.11n round out the 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, and 500GB HDD"

The XPS One comes with also additional features. Whether they should be included or not, these features define the price.

And maybe you should see on in person before making hasty judgements. Pictures don't show everything.

Just had to get that out first.

[Josh @ Nov 17th 2007 12:53PM]

Who gives if it has blue ray - it isn't even 1080x1920 - a lot of the increased resolution from blue ray is lost.

And just to even out your argument you might want to add that this model was the TOP OF THE LINE dell, apples tip top has a 2.4 and comes stock with 2gb and a 24" 1920x1080 monitor.

Check your facts before flaming on products you dont know about, this is why everyone is all up in arms about their favorite brands because of people just insinuating poor things about them.

Come on - grow up.

[Neil Christie @ Nov 17th 2007 1:08PM]

Josh, I think you're missing the point that this thing has a TV tuner (a godsend to a student with little room) and Blu Ray isn't just for movies - it's an excellent format for storing data. Sure, it isn't 1080p but it would be impossible to tell the difference between that and 720 on a display of this size.

[Matt @ Nov 17th 2007 4:53PM]

The new iMacs have 802.11n. All iMacs from $1500 have 2.4GHz or 2.8 GHz processors.

A built-in HD tuner would be nice, but an external USB HDTV tuner costs about $170 (the one from Miglia).

Blu-ray is also nice, but the format war isn't over yet, and HD-DVD is making huge leaps forward in terms of marketshare. Also, it seems a bit silly to have a 1080p source feeding to a screen smaller than 1920x1080.

So gee, Dell, I guess it's *hard* to make a compact, sleek, powerful all-in-one while keeping the price low, isn't it? I think Meizu would agree with you. It's time people started showing Apple some damned respect for the near-miracles they work in industrial design and miniaturization :)

[max andrews @ Nov 17th 2007 9:27PM]

But it's fugly. Seriously, why even include those POS 1 inch speakers? Putting them there destroys the design, and anyone who would buy this computer would hook up their own system to it anyways, likely a 5.1 if you can plunk down the dough for blu-ray. It looks better from the back than the front. Couldn't they at least make the speaker cloth black to match the display bezel? This furthers my hypothesis that all dell products are designed by a 12 year old trying to act like a grown up; you end up with something trying to pose as a classy machine but it's slathered with enough chrome and kitsch to only be appealing to 14 year old gamers.

Dell is known for being low cost, so how can they expect to gain ground against the imac by releasing something that's more expensive and not as classy? The BASE model costs $200 more than the base imac for crying out loud. This is Dell's equivalent of the zune. Good luck, Dell.

[spil @ Nov 18th 2007 7:42PM]

An iMac 20" with 2GB RAM, 500GB HDD, external Blu-ray drive, and HDTV tuner is 3 dollars less than this Dell.

[bob e @ Nov 17th 2007 12:39PM]

Very, very tempting Dell One!

:>

[Ashraf @ Nov 17th 2007 12:41PM]

I'll see what HP does in making their own all-in-one PC!

oh wait they have the HP iQ770 TouchScreen PC, this looks way better than the Gateway One or Dell XPS One

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8202946&st=iq770&lp=2&type=product&cp=1&id=1166840382480

what do you think?

[Carl Vitullo @ Nov 17th 2007 12:55PM]

that thing's pretty ugly. looks like an old computer with gloss.

[Blacknimbus @ Nov 17th 2007 12:54PM]

Strange...I've never seen a Mac review that touted it's gaming prowess. Well, ok...not that strange.

I guess it's a foregone conclusion that Macs aren't that great for games, so reviewers don't bother mentioning the obvious. And on the flip side, it's assumed that an expensive PC should give fantastic frame rates when it comes to FPS.

Which makes buying a Mac more about aesthetics and style rather than functionality and good sense...something that should be considered when comparing Apples to Computers.

[Josh L @ Nov 17th 2007 1:26PM]

"comparing Apples to computers"?

I realize you can't do much on 'em, but I think they still qualify as computers ;)

[N2N @ Nov 17th 2007 2:59PM]

1) Macs are computers

2) Believe it or not but most people don't play video games that require obscene FPS. Most people tend to have lives. If that is what you are into then stick with a WinXP box that you built yourself. All-in-ones aren't for you.

3) So outside of some games what can't you do on them? Maybe you should think before you write. Unix-based OSes offer a great deal of benefits over Windows in speed, efficiency, reliability, and available software. Throw in Mac OS X's inexpensive but impressive software and you there isn't anything "productive" that Windows can do better than a Mac.

[JT @ Nov 17th 2007 2:56PM]

http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-imac-20-inch/4505-3118_7-32564364.html

Despite its new ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics chip, the iMac still isn't very well suited to playing 3D games. .....You should be able to play less-advanced 3D games on the iMac, but we're still disappointed that Apple doesn't want to take gaming seriously.

[Josh L @ Nov 17th 2007 3:18PM]

Mac fanboys can't take a joke, I guess.

[John @ Nov 17th 2007 1:07PM]

ehem

24:2.8GHz
* 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme
* 2GB memory
* 500GB hard drive1
* 8x double-layer SuperDrive
* ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory

[Kax02 @ Nov 17th 2007 1:16PM]

Hopefully they dump the midrange 2xxx line in general and move to the HD3850 instead. Even if it is leaps ahead of the 2400 it's still pretty bad.

[Zeus the God @ Nov 17th 2007 1:47PM]

Dell owns Alienware.

Alienware is putting the 8800GTX mobile GPUs in their laptops. Since what Dell is putting in their XPS One is the ATI version of a mobile GPU, why the Hell don't they just put the 8800GTX mobile chip in. I would assume it rapes the crap out of any ATI mobile chip just the same as in full blown cards.

[Brandon @ Nov 17th 2007 1:56PM]

Just my opinion but this thing is freaking UGLY! Get rid of those speakers, round off the edges on the stand and the back and it would be a whole lot better looking. Then again, this is still a Dell though.

[Ivand @ Nov 17th 2007 11:28PM]

they also could slap some fruity logo on the front right?

[luzzio @ Nov 17th 2007 2:29PM]

I have to agree with Brandon on the speakers.

[Taylor @ Nov 17th 2007 6:56PM]

Every single damn Windows laptop or AIO has a butt-ugly speaker grill somewhere on it. It spoils the look of everything, makes it seem unfinished.

The iMac and MacBooks all try to hide the speakers (iMac under the chin, MacBooks near the screen, in the hinge-bay).

[Kozzi @ Nov 17th 2007 2:25PM]

btw, the mouse is backward :)

[crescentdavid @ Nov 17th 2007 3:20PM]

I dunno. I think it's great that the PC world is finally offering serious choices in this form factor ... but it's significant that a similarly equipped iMac (2.4GHz, 2GB,500GB HD, wireless mouse and keyboard, minus the blue-ray & tuner, with a far superior graphics card, is $1800. If the blu-ray & tuner were subtracted from the Dell total ... you'd have comparably priced machines (except the Dell doesn't offer an equivalently powerful graphics card).

I think it's important to note that businesses intending to move into a market area with a product line similar to one already defined by Apple have not done well unless they're offering a markedly superior or inexpensive product. The Dimension, while good ... needs to be better and it needs to be cheaper in order to gain market share.

[csoto @ Nov 17th 2007 3:28PM]

God that's one ugly box. My iMac Core 2 Duo 24" looks about 50 times nicer, and with the NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT with 256MB RAM, it absolutely spanks as a gaming machine. I get full 1920x1200 resolution on COD2 with the heftier shading and texture settings, and I spank the competition. With a 750GB drive, it only set me back about $2000. Plus I got a free printer and $150 off an iPod.

[Russell @ Nov 19th 2007 1:33PM]

LOL, You can't spank anything with a 7600GT pushing 1920x1200...

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Nov 17th 2007 3:44PM]

I'm buying the XT now...

[Z @ Nov 17th 2007 3:58PM]

"The reviewer also thought that the design was a strong aspect of the XPS One... From there it's downhill: the Radeon 2400 HD graphics card is crap for gaming, and the unit as a whole isn't price competitive thanks to the 20-inch 1680x1050 screen."


Hardly shocking. Dell made a decent first effort, but they have several changes to make before it's truly worthy of our dollars.

[Chird @ Nov 18th 2007 12:57AM]

That comment by Engadget was intended to encourage the Mac users and discourage the PC crowd (not surprisingly)... I went and actually read the review. They loved it. The ONLY negative thing they said was about the graphics card, which isn't a huge deal considering its main purpose is multimedia, not gaming. I have no intention of getting one, but for the All-in-one shoppers it does seem like a good alternative. For all those who are on the fence I recommend poppin over and reading the whole review, don't let the bias over here deter you. Even if you don't like what you see, you'll at least understand that it is a well built machine, not a piece of garbage as certain folk would like you to believe.

[Z @ Nov 18th 2007 3:25AM]

@ Chird

Truthfully, my comment was based on my own previous conclusions from what I've gathered, and apart from a few lackluster specs (only in a few areas, but important ones, IMO), it certainly seems to be a well built machine - high quality otherwise, and a good looking one at that - which is why I'm disappointed about not having more configuration choices. But your feedback is appreciated, nonetheless. I'll check out the article.

[Jeff @ Nov 17th 2007 4:42PM]

I like it...but I'd like it a lot more with a better graphics card, a 24" screen, and non-fugly speakers. If they make the speakers detachable for the next iteration, I'd probably buy it if I needed a new desktop.

[ezraf1 @ Nov 17th 2007 9:36PM]

Dell should be embarrassed the XPS one did horrible in Cnets tests, even the gaming fell short to the imac
"The bottom line: It's outclassed as a computer by Apple's iMac"
http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/dell-xps-one/4505-3118_7-32743745.html?tag=prod.txt.1

[freakmarket @ Nov 18th 2007 9:52AM]

I am a big Dell fan ... but all in ones should be pretty.

Dell could make a killing just by designing a iMac look alike. The iMac isn't magical ... never was ... they are literally just a laptop motherboard mounted in a LCD monitor.

I never understood why Dell didn't do that to compete with Apple a little. I bet they could get a 17" to market at $600 or so easy.

[Kevin @ Nov 18th 2007 10:40AM]

Okay......seriously pictures cannot speak for this system. The design is awesome (yes, I have seen this system in person). In person, you cannot see the speakers behind the grill. Second....this system was never built/marketed to be a gaming machine....come on...what serious gamer would even want a system that they can not easily upgrade? This is purely a multimedia machine...and I have to tell you...it does it with perfection! You will never know by watching a Blu-Ray movie on this machine that it is not 1080p. This is coming from an avid HD viewer. This thing is sexy as hell in person. And regarding the video card...this has only a 200 watt power supply...not only to keep size down but also weight. So an 8xxx series video card is almost out of the question. So I guess my ultimate point is...don't knock a system until you've used it hands on..... P.S. after all....there really is no "universally perfect computer"...is there?