New eMacs on the Horizon?

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by sCreeD:

    <strong>I think I need to interject a reminder that the original revisions of the iMac cost $1200! And that's with a sub-300MHz G3 and piss-poor graphics chip.



    Now you can get a eMac with a G4 for $999.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yippie!



    Now you can get a sub 1000mhz lobotomized G4 with a piss-poor graphics chipset, The GeForce 2mx was low end in 2000 when it was introduced and hasn't improved with age



    [ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: Stagflation Steve ]</p>
  • Reply 62 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>Thanks sCreeD, I was beginning to think I was the only one.



    You are totally right about the old $1,299 iMacs. Everyone loved those machines at the time, but now everyone's dissatisfied with the $999 eMac? I don't get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The market changed genius, the original iMac was so popular because the iMac was so much better than PC's at the same price point in 1998, however today the eMac is worse than PC's that aren't even sold anymore
  • Reply 63 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>



    The market changed genius, the original iMac was so popular because the iMac was so much better than PC's at the same price point in 1998, however today the eMac is worse than PC's that aren't even sold anymore</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So this discontinued $1K PC that beats the current eMac had:



    An elegant, user friendly, open source based OS with no monopolistic licensing?



    Best in class media apps iMovie, iTunes and iPhoto?



    Two six pin FireWire ports and dead simple wireless networking for $99?



    An attractive, quiet, space saving all in one design with 10 minute out of the box setup?



    The ability to run Office X, Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro all of which run rings around their PC counterparts?



    No? Didn't think so. So let's see what it did have over the eMac. A chip with a higher clock speed, a better graphics card and Windows ME. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    Load up your copy of Half-Life and knock yourself out.
  • Reply 64 of 152
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>



    So this discontinued $1K PC that beats the current eMac had:



    An elegant, user friendly, open source based OS with no monopolistic licensing?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Aqua is not open sourced. No monopolistic licencing? Does Apple provide OS-less machines for 100$ less, so people can install Linux on them?



    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>Two six pin FireWire ports and dead simple wireless networking for $99?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Many PCs come with FW these days, but many people who want a sub 1k$ computer these days don't have the need for either wireless nor FW. Usb is fine enough for their uses.



    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>An attractive, quiet, space saving all in one design with 10 minute out of the box setup?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Some people might have a 17" screen they don't want to throw away. Or want a 19" one.



    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>The ability to run Office X, Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro all of which run rings around their PC counterparts?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    On a eMac? Vs. a 2 ghz pentium or Athlon 2000+? Run circles as in look prettier or run _faster_?



    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>No? Didn't think so. So let's see what it did have over the eMac. A chip with a higher clock speed, a better graphics card and Windows ME.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh you buy a home computer that is usable for email/web and maybe _little_ media stuff, no games, no "entertainment", runs slower and has no option to upgrade the gfx card 1-2 years from now. Great choice, I guess those eMacs must be _flying_ off the shelves.



    You see, the eMac is the same, identical, copied concept that the iMac had. The iMac was great, back then. But a GeForce 2 MX? What kid would want their parents to buy that?!



    You ask what it did have over the eMac - do you realize that the WinME PC is not being sold anymore, while the eMac is Apple's current offering?



    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>Load up your copy of Half-Life and knock yourself out.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    While I will likely be playing DoomIII on a PC next year, eMac users can play Quake3 at a whopping 40 fps. I will also likely have to buy a PowerMac because I will need a big screen and a decent 3D card for modelling in 3D. I would buy the 17" tft iMac but the gfx card just doesn't cut it.



    I like Apple computers, but you seem to be really living in a different world. OSX and iApps are fine but that's no reason for people to buy a slow eMac. Out of the box experience is nice, but if your kids want to play the newest games you either buy one Mac for yourself coz it's and one PC, or you just buy the one PC and live with Office not being Aqua.
  • Reply 65 of 152
    imacfpimacfp Posts: 750member
    I remember hearing that during the Cube era the one thing that hurt Apple was that many people didn't buy a Apple monitor with the Cube. When Apple lowered the price they took a bath because they didn't get the monitor sale too. In order to make the headless thing work Apple would need to use a stock case and basic production and hope they sell enough, especially if they don't get the monitor sale. All this talk about how Apple should price boxes is really useless if you don't know how much Apple spends for parts and production. You all think you know but you don't really. I'm not saying Apple should not or can't lower prices, but with out exact facts you really can't make a decision. I think it's fair to say that.
  • Reply 66 of 152
    jrcjrc Posts: 804member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla:

    <strong>





    Where can you find a $399 PC? I just went to Dell and priced out (home pricing, could not seem to get to the educational pricing) a basically equivalent machine to the eMac (with and without monitor).



    $707 w/out monitor

    $867 w/monitor (w/ a DECENT monitor, not the standard crap Dell defaults with.)



    Granted Dell offers you a ton more options for configuration. But in an institutional environment I would guess they are likely to pick a single standard configuration anyway.





    When is everyone going to learn you don't get something for nothing. Dell has always (and always will) attempt to compare (pardon the pun) apples and oranges. They will not directly compare, feature for feature, same quality components, etc. and then price it. You'll find that the pricing is fairly comparable to what Apple offers. Look at that $867 price.



    Apple doesn't offer nearly the flexibility of configuration that Dell will. And that is a selling point for Dell. But when we start to package similarly equiped machines, we find the pricing isn't all that different.



    P.S. Plus you can get an all-in-one eMac...fewer cables...less space...less power (the Dell COMPUTER itself uses 200 watts vs. 170 watts for the eMac. That doesn't count the monitor. Issues like power DO cost money too.)



    I'm not saying that Apple is always better. I'm only saying the issue of cost is generally not nearly as simple as it is often made out to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Chris, Dell now has the $389 Dimension 2300 back up on an easily-seen page, once again.



    <a href="http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_desktop_special.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_desktop_special.htm</a>;



    This link might change day by day, though. But, since I was unable to provide you with a link earlier, I am happy to do so now.



    That is the same computer I am typing this post from right now.
  • Reply 67 of 152
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    To Ensign Pulver, sCreeD and others who are concerned about keeping the Mac clearly distinguishable from the cheap Windows PCs. You make an important point, that the Mac should be 'a cut above' the typical computer, and give people real reasons to purchase a Mac over a Windows PC. The ability to easily handle video, music, photos and more-to-come is vital to the Mac strategy. Now, with the IBM 970 on its way for future Macs, Apple is looking pretty good to me, but for one little flaw. The fact is that the largest part of the market is really not interested in any of this stuff.



    When a school district buys carloads of computers for kids to pound on in the class room, they are not likely to pay much more just to get digital hubs that can do iMovie and iTunes, at least not for the majority of the computers. They in fact are buying Windows PCs in increasing numbers. When it comes to those computers where students will be doing video or photo-graphics, they might consider a Mac. However, the inclination is very strong to stick with the same kind. If a PC can do it too, it does not have to be the best. A school district will likely prefer either an all Mac or all PC solution, rather than mixing. If Apple cannot fill all their needs, Apple ends up filling none of their needs. A brutal fact of business life, in schools as well as business everywhere. It is not a rule, so there are many exceptions, but just look at all the feedback from the graphics departments struggling to keep their Macs. Apple needs a simple low-cost box to run OS X, so they can be a serious contender in enterprise markets everywhere.



    Some have mentioned that OS X will not run well on a low-cost Mac with limited graphics. Well, Apple needs to figure out how to do that, if it is true. The low-cost Mac does not need to run high performance applications. Accounting software seldom stresses a graphics system. Some worry about tarnishing the Mac name. When people buy a Mac, it should mean it can do all the nice stuff. Great! Apple can give the low-end 'Mac Like' computer a different name. A school district would have no problem with that. Who is Apple's biggest competitor? Dell. They sell on the web. Apple could sell the low-cost device on the web too, and don't even put it in the retail chain. I wouldn't limit it to enterprise, as a lot of home users just want to do email and word processing. I think there are enough brains at Apple to figure out a way to offer such a product without hurting the Mac sales or name.
  • Reply 68 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>

    Out of the box experience is nice, but if your kids want to play the newest games you either buy one Mac for yourself coz it's and one PC, or you just buy the one PC and live with Office not being Aqua.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If you're buying your kids a computer so they can play games your buying it for the wrong reason.



    [ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: apple.otaku ]</p>
  • Reply 69 of 152
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I like applenut's BTO thing. I've been saying that for a long, long time now. I SO wish that Apple would design their stuff with a bit more customization and "make it your own" in mind. Sure, sell stock models at the Apple stores, online, CompUSA, etc. because that's the bread and butter.



    But I've always hated how Apple locks you into a feature set based on (formerly) colors and patterns or tying features together and keep you from getting this iMac with that video card and that screen size, etc.



    In other words, if I wanted a cool 17" widescreen iMac with just a Combo Drive (because realistically I know the chances of me burning a DVD are pretty slim to none), it would be nice to go to Apple's online store and configure one: 17" widescreen iMac, hard drive of my choice, Combo Drive and video card of my choice (out of ones meant for, or designed to work with, that particular model).



    Some people just want snappy performance and good graphics. Some one lots of storage space and a big screen. Some want just the capability to burn CDs, but not watch DVDs.



    Give them/us the choice.



    It's not like the stuff doesn't exist. We're not asking for "let me order a SuperDrive in the low-end iBook!" or whatever.



    Just taking what already exists on the various models and put what YOU want on them and pay for them.



    I absolutely hate the fact that to get a cool widescreen 17" iMac, you pay $1,999, especially if you have no need for a SuperDrive or whatever.



    On a related note, my little fantasy would be that somehow you could pay for a replacement 17" widescreen from Apple and send it off to a Apple Service Center and they'd take the 15" screen off and pop on a new 17" widescreen instead.







    I'd do it TODAY!
  • Reply 70 of 152
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:

    <strong>If you're buying your kids a computer so they can play games your buying it for the wrong reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Eh? What logic is there, if little Joe wants a computer to play games and daddy buys it - is daddy buying it for the wrong reason?



    I was thinking kids as in 10-16 years old. I am too young to have any (22) but I know many people buy their computers more because of what their "kids" want to do with it than for what they need themselves. And if daddy is buying a new computer, little Joe doesn't want one he can't play q3a on.
  • Reply 71 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>



    So this discontinued $1K PC that beats the current eMac had:



    An elegant, user friendly, open source based OS with no monopolistic licensing?



    Best in class media apps iMovie, iTunes and iPhoto?



    Two six pin FireWire ports and dead simple wireless networking for $99? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It wasn't $1000 it was $759 and included an HP printer, scanner and digital camera.



    A: Mac OS X isn't open source,

    B: Apple is the quintessential monopoly,



    iTunes and iPhoto are nothing special, iTunes is no better than Windows Media Player, and the functionality of iPhoto is included with every digital camera sold in the past 4 years.



    Yes, Firewire was included along with 100T Ethernet



    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>

    The ability to run Office X, Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro all of which run rings around their PC counterparts?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    DVD Studio Pro on an eMac? are you smoking crack?, you can barely run it on a DP1000



    obviously it has no trouble running Microsoft Office, nor would it have any difficulty with Adobe Premier
  • Reply 72 of 152


    "iTunes and iPhoto are nothing special, iTunes is no better than Windows Media Player, and the functionality of iPhoto is included with every digital camera sold in the past 4 years."



    Does WMP allow unlimited MP3 encoding and burning? Does it support unlimited transfer to a wide range of MP3 players via drag and drop. Does it not look like ass?



    Four year old bundled PC consumer photo software is the equivalent of iPhoto? You're kidding, right?







    "DVD Studio Pro on an eMac? are you smoking crack?, you can barely run it on a DP1000. Obviously it has no trouble running Microsoft Office, nor would it have any difficulty with Adobe Premier."



    I'd rather run DVDSP and Office X on an eMac than Premier and Office XP on any PC. Productivity is more important than raw speed. If saving a little money is important enough to you to put up with the interface of Premier and Office on Windows then go ahead. That's what makes you a PC user in the first place.



    OK, I'm done with this thread. There's never going to be a headless consumer Mac. There's never going to be a $500 Mac. Arguing about it is pointless. The $999 to $1,999 price points covered by the new eMac/iMac line at MWSF are going to rock. If your needs are not met by one of those machines, then buy a PC and good riddance.
  • Reply 73 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>I'd rather run DVDSP and Office X on an eMac than Premier and Office XP on any PC. Productivity is more important than raw speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I really think you miss the point, how productive are you going to be watching the icon bouncing in the dock? Seriously, try using DVD Studio Pro on an eMac, I dare you.



    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>buy a PC and good riddance.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    97.2% of the market can't be wrong
  • Reply 74 of 152
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>



    . . . The $999 to $1,999 price points covered by the new eMac/iMac line at MWSF are going to rock. If your needs are not met by one of those machines, then buy a PC and good riddance.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Good line. Maybe Apple can include it at the bottom of every bid they send out in response to large order RFQs from school districts.
  • Reply 75 of 152
    frykefryke Posts: 217member
    "10 billion flies can't be wrong. Eat shit." Was that the phrase you were pointing at?
  • Reply 76 of 152
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>

    OK, I'm done with this thread. There's never going to be a headless consumer Mac. There's never going to be a $500 Mac. Arguing about it is pointless. The $999 to $1,999 price points covered by the new eMac/iMac line at MWSF are going to rock. If your needs are not met by one of those machines, then buy a PC and good riddance.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    1.) uh... my performa 6360 is a headless consumer mac... actually was one hell of a consumer mac at the time.

    2.) the price points of 999-1999 are covered now by those lines and far from rock... who's to say that Apple will magically turn that around? there are issues with the eMac and iMac LCD that go beyond simple feature updates. Apple is not offering enough to switch. the iMac despite its cool looks, is just nothing too special anymore.
  • Reply 77 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>



    Eh? What logic is there, if little Joe wants a computer to play games and daddy buys it - is daddy buying it for the wrong reason?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think so but that's just my opinion. It's also my opinion that little Joe is a spoiled brat.





    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>



    I was thinking kids as in 10-16 years old. I am too young to have any (22) but I know many people buy their computers more because of what their "kids" want to do with it than for what they need themselves. And if daddy is buying a new computer, little Joe doesn't want one he can't play q3a on.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    For the price of what it's going to cost for a "gaming computer" you can get an eMac and a PS2/XBOX console.
  • Reply 78 of 152
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:

    <strong>



    For the price of what it's going to cost for a "gaming computer" you can get an eMac and a PS2/XBOX console.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    you're joking right?



    a "gaming computer" can be had for much less than an eMac these days. hell, most laptops have better gaming performance than the eMac these days.



    the eMac's price is not justified. With the original iMac Jobs made a big deal how it wasn't last year's technology for at a low price today... well, the eMac is 2 year old technology not even at a very low price.
  • Reply 79 of 152
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>



    97.2% of the market can't be wrong</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apparently you have never watched "Jaywalking" on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.



    [ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: apple.otaku ]</p>
  • Reply 80 of 152
    It's funny you mention that, I got caught on the street by Jay Leno a few years ago,



    This was during the Clinton impeachment, they asked me a bunch of questions, and after I answered all them correctly they seem to lose interest in me.



    They don't show the people who aren't idiots, it isn't funny to see a person answer simple questions correctly
Sign In or Register to comment.