Well, I'm trying to catch myself. I'm just a bit stressed out since it's getting near the end of the school year and I have a lot of schoolwork to do. Projects, presentations, papers, that sort of thing. This is hardly the place to be taking out any pent-up frustration.
If someone's gonna post these comparisons, shouldn't they get the specs correct FIRST ???
1) the iMac 233 is a G3, not a G4.
3) the iMacG3's 15" screen sports 1024x768 resolution.
12) the 233 G3's run OSX just fine.
1) Yeah, a stupid, easy typo on my part. Trust me, I know the old jellybean iMacs (tray-loaders AND slot-loaders) all were G3-based. Sigh...
2) Toward the end of my ownership of it, I actually ran my tangerine iMac DV at 1024x768. But by default - and in all the stores I ever saw them in (and considering what MOST people ran them at) - it was the 800x600 that seemed to reign supreme on the jellybeans. It's what I started on and it's what EVERYONE - and I mean everyone - I know/knew who owned a jellybean iMac ran theirs on.
3) I'll half agree with you and half not. My old iMac DV (which I now have back) does indeed do an okay job with Panther...IF I'm just listening to iTunes, e-mailing and surfing. iPhoto and iMovie are no fun at all and OS X itself definitely lacks pop and sparkle. I don't get any of the Quartz Extreme-based stuff (user switching spins and whatnot). It's completely usable, but I wouldn't agree - and I seriously doubt Apple would, really - that the G3 is "optimized for - and happiest with - Mac OS X". There's quite a difference going from a 400MHz G3 to any sort of G4, at least in my own personal experience.
So...one legit typo/boo-boo on my part (1), one personal preference issue (3) and one universally-agreed-upon fact (12). You didn't nail me as hard as you were hoping. Just a slight bruise...
I am just amazed at the progress of the Apple line up. 2 years and 3 months ago an 800 MHz G4 with a superdrive would cost you 1800 bucks, now a similarly equipped machine costs 900.
This statement just seems silly. Do you know where the PC was two years ago? You can't even find that stuff today. You can't make that sort of comparison. Guess what. Prices on computers have come down dramatically. $1500 represented the budget category not many years ago. Apple now thinks $999 is the sweet spot. It is actually much lower. All your post shows is that Apple is still out of step with the rest of the world.
My original post was not a comparison post. It was a comment about the quality of the update. I stand by what I said. It is a crummy update. It is about as small an update as they could get away with. USB 2 should have been on it some time ago and the other specs are behind industry standard at that price. That is not a comparative statement as much as it was an observation about standards. Apple doesn't care about standards because there is no competition. Therefore, they are the standard. That only works, however, if you are already inside the Mac universe.
For those of you who believe that specs don't matter to the budget buyer, you could not be more wrong. Specs are the only things they care about. Since they don't know a lot about the technology, they look at the items on the tag. Tag items, I call them. These are specs like HD size and speed, graphics memory, ram type and amount, processor speed, and the like. They go up the aisle and compare tag items and prices. That tag represents all they know about their computer. They are use to seeing certain specs at a certain price. The eMac's tag item specs are sorely lacking. Therefore, the new eMac is no more likely to draw their attention than the old one. The update is disappointingly small just like updates in the Moto only days and nothing anyone has said has changed my mind about that. The fact that there are better processors available and they chose to saddle the eMacs with what they did for the next, possibly 10 months might mean that they are still trying to protect another product line. That does not mean these are not capable machines for a certain segment of the market. They are just not great updates.
This statement just seems silly. Do you know where the PC was two years ago? You can't even find that stuff today. You can't make that sort of comparison...
NO, YOU CANT MAKE THAT COMPARISSON BECAUSE I WOULD NEVER CONSIDER A PC. It's Apple's to Apple's baby, not Apple's to PC's.
You are off base, Apple has a machine that is a viable option for anyone considering a 800 dollar computer. No arguments about it, the G4 at that speed and with that software package is very enticing.
For those of you who believe that specs don't matter to the budget buyer, you could not be more wrong. Specs are the only things they care about. Since they don't know a lot about the technology, they look at the items on the tag. Tag items, I call them.
So in other words, the actual technology is irrelevant, and Apple should engage in the sort of deliberately deceptive marketecture that I exposed in reply to eVo above?
I wasn't trying to knock you over the head, I just thought I'd put in my two cents, since I was browsing on a 266 iMac G3 running 10.3.3 at 1024x768 when I typed that
I don't know that it sucks, 'cause the other mac I have is only a 466 iBook ...
I swore I'd not by a G4, just because. ... that'd I'd wait for a G5 to upgrade. As I'm not a Powermac kinda of user, I'm waiting for my G5 iMac and pBook (hopefully before the end of the year).
In anycase, I think that's the biggest response I've ever caused with a single post here
So in other words, the actual technology is irrelevant, and Apple should engage in the sort of deliberately deceptive marketecture that I exposed in reply to eVo above?
Amorph,
Unlike some of the others around here, you are a genuinely smart guy so you have to be missing the point on purpose. Your comparison of integrated graphics is a straw man. It is not the norm for PC at the $800 to $1000 range and you know it.
The first time I when to buy a Mac, I didn't because of these very issues. I accepted the salesman's explanation of the processor without question even though it was total BS, I found out later. It was the other factors he couldn't adequately explain. I asked him why the HD was only 6 GB when every other computer was offering 7200 RPM 17 to 20 GB. I asked him why the Mac was using an 8MB Rage 128 card when even the baseline PC was 16 and 32MB. His explanation was that nobody really needed more than those specs and that everything else was just for hard core gamers and media pros. That was insulting then and it is insulting now. Who are you to tell me that I need less than the industry standard for the next four years? You have got to be out of your mind! Even if it turns out to be true, that is no way to sell a product. A few years later, nothing has changed accept for Apple's market share. It is roughly half of what it was. You want deceptive? What's deceptive is suggesting that these lower spec components are some how better for you than industry standard components. Talk about RDF! You want to feel good about this "update", fine. Hope for future updates? No way! This update prepares me for a 1.33 GHz G4 iMac. Whoopteedoo!! Wake up and smell the insult folks. You waited 10 months for this? Happy 20th anniversary.
Unlike some of the others around here, you are a genuinely smart guy so you have to be missing the point on purpose. Your comparison of integrated graphics is a straw man. It is not the norm for PC at the $800 to $1000 range and you know it.
Actually, I went looking, and it's at least not uncommon.
As is the "64MB" trick that Gateway pulled.
I don't trust tech specs, because they don't tell the whole story. Would you rather have a 7200RPM 40GB drive or a 5400RPM 80GB drive? How about a quiet 40GB drive vs a loud 80GB drive? Well, that depends, doesn't it? But you don't seem to account for anything but capacity.
You also ignore every advantage the eMac offers, and playing up the advantages that this ostensible PC offers. You're also trusting the spec lists, which are 100% pure marketing.
It's pretty simple: Yes, there are going to be tradeoffs, always. The nature of PCs is such that you can always find a better deal if you're willing to focus on a small number of features, but if you look for an all-around PC it gets tougher (but it's not impossible, either). The issue is not whether the eMac always beats every conceivable PC in every possible way, but whether it competes generally. I honestly think this update does.
And here I was, thinking I was a "genuinely smart guy" too. Thanks, Voyer... \
And amorph, once again, says it right. Capacity and sheer numbers seem to be the sole focus by some, but as mr. morph points out, I'd be more inclined to take a quieter, faster 40GB drive over a noisy, slower 80GB. And usually, in spec lists, all you'll see is capacity. It isn't until you dig around for white sheets or PDFs intended for service personnel that you'll find some of the other things listed.
You can't go by sheer numbers...in computers, car buying, major appliances, etc. Everything's a situation (learned that from "NYPD Blue"), everyone has a different set or requirements and not everyone needs the top-shelf juice. One man's tight little eMac is another's room-filling supercomputer.
No need to wake up and smell any coffee.
I think this is a great little computer. And I don't think you could find something - for that price - on the PC side that truly has the I/O, graphics, software bundle, eye-pleasing design, ease-of-setup, etc. that in any way approaches the eMac. I really don't. Hell, the iLife 04 apps alone set it apart from any of the sub-$1000 crap probably offered by Dell or Gateway.
And KingofSomewhereHot: I totally noticed your smileys. Did you notice mine too? No problem!
The eMac......in my opinion its one of the best all round machines apple has ever produced.
I have worked with Macs since 89 and suffered with a IIcx and a 40mb HD for quite a while. I work as a graphic designer and the mac has become a part of my everyday life. Currently I work with a SP 1.8G5 when I'm at the studio. Its a great machine, not the fastest available but it does everything I need it to without me cursing at it too often.
At home I own a 700 eMac, I really can't fault the thing. It gets the sames things thrown at it as the G5 does at work but because time is less precious at home the difference in performance doesn't really matter.
For the everyday mac user the eMac, especially the new one, it the perfect solution. I wouldn't dream of spending nearing £2000+ for G5 and screen for home, the performance boost really isn't worth the extra £1300. Looking at the benchmarks at xbench, the new eMac ain't gonna be that far behind my G5 at work in real world terms. 130 (emac) marks compared to 140 (1.8G5) makes a mockery of waiting for a 1.6 G5 imac if it comes.
As for people moaning about the screen, well I don't know what they are talking about. I run my eMac at 1280x960 and I never ever think about the refresh rate unless i read about it forums like this. It good flat screen with great colour depth and great contrast. I will not touch LCD screens for graphics work, ok for layout work but when it comes to photoshop, forget it. You only have to shuffle your arse on your chair and your eye position has shifted along with the colours on screen. The other 5 guys in my studio olso have eMacs and I've never heard one maon about the screen.
The fan, again so what. My clock on the wall ticks quite loudly but only when I listen out for it. My PC (for games only) sounds like a hoover to keep the bloody thing cool. Again I'd never even thought about the fan noise until somebody mentioned it.
Also people moaning about 32mb for graphics, again so what. If you what more than that then your buying the wrong machine. Your obviously wanting to either play games (buy a pc or an xbox) or wanting to do 3D design in which case why are you looking at a budget AIO machine. There is no other reason to have more graphics memory. Again I didn't really worried about what graphics card my mac came with.
The only crap thing about the eMac and all other macs is the mouse. I spent years believing that apple knew best and that one button was king. Forget it get a two button with a wheel and move on in life.
For who the eMac is aimed, at it perfect. Does everything you throw at it, looks good and is dirt cheap compared to any similar apple product. I will continue to buy them as long as they make them or until Apple get their act together and bring out a 'headless' eMac/iMac.
If this machine really sucked, I'd have ripped a giant hole in it by now. The edu only models will find a market in K-12, from that perspective they are a success, and they avoid the pricing dance comfortably.
However, to include a CRT at 800-1000 US dollars really sucks hard. Even at the same price this would almost be a better machine without the display attached.
Plenty of Wintel offerings can bundle a 15-17" TFT display at the 800-1000 range. If this machine had a 17" LCD on it, AIO and all, I might do a cartwheel instead of a dance and declare myself a mac desktop convert!
I know the iMac is the LCD machine, for now, but perhaps what's needed is a eMac LCD. Something simple, perhaps with shades of gumdrop in it, glomming the guts on the back affords a ton of room: it's less pure, but it lets you source larger power supply/fan, and easier/cheaper cooling schemes/tolerances.
When you compare the emac to a pc at the same price, consider the little things:
* does the PC have thermal control fans ( doubt it, even high end pc's just run full tit )?
* does the PC autoswtich its network port between normal and patch mode ( for directly connecting two machines )?
* does the PC have software control of the monitor geometry?
* does the PC have a rock solid stand ( never seen a solid pc monitor stand )?
* does the PC come with a set of good quality speakers?
* does the PC monitor do 'brite' mode for movies?
* does the PC do target disk mode?
* does the PC boot from other media easily ( not going into BIOS to do it - some PC's have a boot menu option )?
* does the PC have a built in line filter for AC power?
* does the PC have built in tv out/mirror out/dual screen?
First I have to say I don't know about the variety of PC's that come out of a store in a plastic wrap. Neither me, my friends or my school use them. Me and friends build our own, for my school, the build work is done in a shop to the school's specs. So that is my viewpoint.
I'd say you can get most of these features in the 800$ PC.
"Target disk" is of course Mac only, and I consider that maybe the coolest feature in your list. A point to the Mac, although I suspect few "regular" users need or know about this feature.
Software control of screen geometry? Why? (incidentally, if this means there are no hardware controls, that can be trouble with other OS's)
Booting from a CD without going to the BIOS? I guess that depends on the BIOS default. If the CD isn't set to be first in the boot order, you need to set it once, and never again.
Built in line filter? I don't really know what kind of filtering power supplies are capable of, but the external device is $10. This is feature comparison, not a beauty contest, so the internal/external distinction doesn't matter. Many people, businesses and schools do not need per-computer surge protection since they have surge protection and emergency power at a larger scale, or possibly an UPS per machine.
Finally, IIRC, eMac does *not* have dual screen support without hacking. New PC's pretty much always have dual screen if they have 2+ outputs. With the eMac, you pay extra for connectors; the PC will have standard VGA, DVI and SVHS. Here the PC box wins big.
Folks, this is not about whether the eMac is a good machine. It is about whether this constitutes a good update. It is not. It is a meiserly update and that does not bode well for the iMac in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong. Everything you all are saying about the usefulness of the new eMac could be said about the old one. This update does not enable you to do anything that you couldn't do on the old one. It is hardly worth noticing. Perhaps that is why Apple did not even bother to put in on the front page in a significant way. You can say it is a good product all you like. But so far, I have seen no one argue that it is a great or exciting update.
Folks, this is not about whether the eMac is a good machine. It is about whether this constitutes a good update. It is not. It is a meiserly update and that does not bode well for the iMac in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong. Everything you all are saying about the usefulness of the new eMac could be said about the old one. This update does not enable you to do anything that you couldn't do on the old one. It is hardly worth noticing. Perhaps that is why Apple did not even bother to put in on the front page in a significant way. You can say it is a good product all you like. But so far, I have seen no one argue that it is a great or exciting update.
Amorph, thank you for your civility.
pscates, you're smart too.
you're just complaining to complain. USB 2.0? 25% speed update? 8x superdrive? no cost bump? seems worthwhile to me. i guess you wanted a g5? blurb.
What progmac said. Those thing, IMO, make for a pretty signifcant, worthwhile update!
It seems that the eMac is just the ugly stepchild and lacks the sex appeal of the G5 or PowerBooks or whatever. But again, if I had to go TODAY and buy a computer for myself, family member or outfit a small office/studio, I wouldn't look at anything else other than the new eMac. In fact, we might be getting two of them here at work, to replace two 400MHz Sawtooth G4s and rather piece-of-shit "bubble-screen" CRTs.
I can't wait!
I don't know what kind of update some of you were expecting?
G5? Come on. 19" screen? Why? Dual processors? Put down the pipe.
We would've KILLED for a high-end G4 tower with these specs just a 12-18 months ago (8x SuperDrive, AirPort Extreme, USB 2.0, etc.). Now we can get all that stuff for $799?!?!
i think the eMac is a very nice upgrade and a perfect machine for most casual users (which is most people)...my mom and her SO are looking to change from a pc tower to an apple computer...i took them to compusa and showed them all the models, the pluses, the minuses of each etc etc...this was before the update...
i told them all they really needed was the eMac and that with the swivel it moves quite nicely...my mother only wanted to spend about a grand, so i thought the eMac was the way to go
but my mother has always loved my iMac FP and she wants the 17" FP
her SO has always had a tower and wants the upgrade potential (though he has never upgraded a machine before)
they both want at least 17" screen as they are both 65 years old and feel like they need big images to view...
so they went from wanting to spend a grand to planning on either almost 1700 for an iMac or 2,300 for a PM with apple fp monitor...i told them to wait abit as machines are in flux right now, and have now asked them to please look again at the eMac...we shall see how this goes as an eMac is perfect for them...but, it seems, that what would really be perfect for them is a mini tower...but apple doesn't make that...they don't NEED a mini tower, but the SO is programed to believe he does...and that is basically the same as needing it...i really wish the mini tower would arrive, i truely, right or wrong, believe that it would be a great boost to "switchers"...sure the eMac is perfect for the grandparent set, the school age set (non-portable variety), the first time computer user set, the extra computer for the house set, etc...but so many of the 95 percenters think that the only thing worthwhile in the world is towers and laptops...sure a mini tower would steal from full sized PM sells..so what...PM become truely for the "power" users, mini towers for the desktop crowd, iMac FP for the AIO crowd and us fashion whores, eMac for schools...make PM and mini PM with a sweet apple display bundle price and you up the monitor sells also...
still this is a sweet update to the eMac and gives a fully useable computer from apple for under a grand that will last most people 5 years or more....what more could you ask for if you are kids or old folk??
g
edit to ask a question: what is the maximum monitor size an iBook will run nicely?? i think that could be a nice option for the old folks also...get an iBook and connect to a monitor with keyboard and mouse....use iBook as tower at home, take iBook with you on vacation (old folks take lots of freakin vacations, the bastards...it's spring break every freakin week for them, except with less sex and puking)...anyways, i know that an iBook wouldn't be useable for them for everyday use, but would it nicely drive the apple 17" monitor? the 20"??
they could get a new iBook next week, add bluetooth, a wireless keyboard and mouse and either the 17" or 20" monitor...would cost less than a tower and monitor and be more mobile...
Your Mom's SO sounds like people I've worked with:
"Gotta have a tower"
"Why?"
"Expandability, I'm a pro user!"
"Really, huh?"
"Yeah, the only way to go, Paul"
"You've had it for three years, assbag...what are you expanding?"
"Huh?"
"You're an idiot"
"You might be right...I should've bought an iMac..."
If you can get him past his thinking on that, I'd bet they love the eMac. My goodness, why shell out all that extra cash for a flat screen. Trust me, the novelty wears off VERY quickly, then you're left with a $1799-2299 art project.
Get an eMac, pocket the rest (or spend some of it on RAM, iPod, swivel stand, Creature II speakers, .Mac account, Keynote, etc.).
Comments
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
If someone's gonna post these comparisons, shouldn't they get the specs correct FIRST ???
1) the iMac 233 is a G3, not a G4.
3) the iMacG3's 15" screen sports 1024x768 resolution.
12) the 233 G3's run OSX just fine.
1) Yeah, a stupid, easy typo on my part. Trust me, I know the old jellybean iMacs (tray-loaders AND slot-loaders) all were G3-based. Sigh...
2) Toward the end of my ownership of it, I actually ran my tangerine iMac DV at 1024x768. But by default - and in all the stores I ever saw them in (and considering what MOST people ran them at) - it was the 800x600 that seemed to reign supreme on the jellybeans. It's what I started on and it's what EVERYONE - and I mean everyone - I know/knew who owned a jellybean iMac ran theirs on.
3) I'll half agree with you and half not. My old iMac DV (which I now have back) does indeed do an okay job with Panther...IF I'm just listening to iTunes, e-mailing and surfing. iPhoto and iMovie are no fun at all and OS X itself definitely lacks pop and sparkle. I don't get any of the Quartz Extreme-based stuff (user switching spins and whatnot). It's completely usable, but I wouldn't agree - and I seriously doubt Apple would, really - that the G3 is "optimized for - and happiest with - Mac OS X". There's quite a difference going from a 400MHz G3 to any sort of G4, at least in my own personal experience.
So...one legit typo/boo-boo on my part (1), one personal preference issue (3) and one universally-agreed-upon fact (12). You didn't nail me as hard as you were hoping. Just a slight bruise...
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I am just amazed at the progress of the Apple line up. 2 years and 3 months ago an 800 MHz G4 with a superdrive would cost you 1800 bucks, now a similarly equipped machine costs 900.
This statement just seems silly. Do you know where the PC was two years ago? You can't even find that stuff today. You can't make that sort of comparison. Guess what. Prices on computers have come down dramatically. $1500 represented the budget category not many years ago. Apple now thinks $999 is the sweet spot. It is actually much lower. All your post shows is that Apple is still out of step with the rest of the world.
My original post was not a comparison post. It was a comment about the quality of the update. I stand by what I said. It is a crummy update. It is about as small an update as they could get away with. USB 2 should have been on it some time ago and the other specs are behind industry standard at that price. That is not a comparative statement as much as it was an observation about standards. Apple doesn't care about standards because there is no competition. Therefore, they are the standard. That only works, however, if you are already inside the Mac universe.
For those of you who believe that specs don't matter to the budget buyer, you could not be more wrong. Specs are the only things they care about. Since they don't know a lot about the technology, they look at the items on the tag. Tag items, I call them. These are specs like HD size and speed, graphics memory, ram type and amount, processor speed, and the like. They go up the aisle and compare tag items and prices. That tag represents all they know about their computer. They are use to seeing certain specs at a certain price. The eMac's tag item specs are sorely lacking. Therefore, the new eMac is no more likely to draw their attention than the old one. The update is disappointingly small just like updates in the Moto only days and nothing anyone has said has changed my mind about that. The fact that there are better processors available and they chose to saddle the eMacs with what they did for the next, possibly 10 months might mean that they are still trying to protect another product line. That does not mean these are not capable machines for a certain segment of the market. They are just not great updates.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
This statement just seems silly. Do you know where the PC was two years ago? You can't even find that stuff today. You can't make that sort of comparison...
NO, YOU CANT MAKE THAT COMPARISSON BECAUSE I WOULD NEVER CONSIDER A PC. It's Apple's to Apple's baby, not Apple's to PC's.
You are off base, Apple has a machine that is a viable option for anyone considering a 800 dollar computer. No arguments about it, the G4 at that speed and with that software package is very enticing.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
For those of you who believe that specs don't matter to the budget buyer, you could not be more wrong. Specs are the only things they care about. Since they don't know a lot about the technology, they look at the items on the tag. Tag items, I call them.
So in other words, the actual technology is irrelevant, and Apple should engage in the sort of deliberately deceptive marketecture that I exposed in reply to eVo above?
Please note the smilie in my previous post
I wasn't trying to knock you over the head, I just thought I'd put in my two cents, since I was browsing on a 266 iMac G3 running 10.3.3 at 1024x768 when I typed that
I don't know that it sucks, 'cause the other mac I have is only a 466 iBook ...
I swore I'd not by a G4, just because. ... that'd I'd wait for a G5 to upgrade. As I'm not a Powermac kinda of user, I'm waiting for my G5 iMac and pBook (hopefully before the end of the year).
In anycase, I think that's the biggest response I've ever caused with a single post here
Originally posted by Amorph
So in other words, the actual technology is irrelevant, and Apple should engage in the sort of deliberately deceptive marketecture that I exposed in reply to eVo above?
Amorph,
Unlike some of the others around here, you are a genuinely smart guy so you have to be missing the point on purpose. Your comparison of integrated graphics is a straw man. It is not the norm for PC at the $800 to $1000 range and you know it.
The first time I when to buy a Mac, I didn't because of these very issues. I accepted the salesman's explanation of the processor without question even though it was total BS, I found out later. It was the other factors he couldn't adequately explain. I asked him why the HD was only 6 GB when every other computer was offering 7200 RPM 17 to 20 GB. I asked him why the Mac was using an 8MB Rage 128 card when even the baseline PC was 16 and 32MB. His explanation was that nobody really needed more than those specs and that everything else was just for hard core gamers and media pros. That was insulting then and it is insulting now. Who are you to tell me that I need less than the industry standard for the next four years? You have got to be out of your mind! Even if it turns out to be true, that is no way to sell a product. A few years later, nothing has changed accept for Apple's market share. It is roughly half of what it was. You want deceptive? What's deceptive is suggesting that these lower spec components are some how better for you than industry standard components. Talk about RDF! You want to feel good about this "update", fine. Hope for future updates? No way! This update prepares me for a 1.33 GHz G4 iMac. Whoopteedoo!! Wake up and smell the insult folks. You waited 10 months for this? Happy 20th anniversary.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Amorph,
Unlike some of the others around here, you are a genuinely smart guy so you have to be missing the point on purpose. Your comparison of integrated graphics is a straw man. It is not the norm for PC at the $800 to $1000 range and you know it.
Actually, I went looking, and it's at least not uncommon.
As is the "64MB" trick that Gateway pulled.
I don't trust tech specs, because they don't tell the whole story. Would you rather have a 7200RPM 40GB drive or a 5400RPM 80GB drive? How about a quiet 40GB drive vs a loud 80GB drive? Well, that depends, doesn't it? But you don't seem to account for anything but capacity.
You also ignore every advantage the eMac offers, and playing up the advantages that this ostensible PC offers. You're also trusting the spec lists, which are 100% pure marketing.
It's pretty simple: Yes, there are going to be tradeoffs, always. The nature of PCs is such that you can always find a better deal if you're willing to focus on a small number of features, but if you look for an all-around PC it gets tougher (but it's not impossible, either). The issue is not whether the eMac always beats every conceivable PC in every possible way, but whether it competes generally. I honestly think this update does.
And amorph, once again, says it right. Capacity and sheer numbers seem to be the sole focus by some, but as mr. morph points out, I'd be more inclined to take a quieter, faster 40GB drive over a noisy, slower 80GB. And usually, in spec lists, all you'll see is capacity. It isn't until you dig around for white sheets or PDFs intended for service personnel that you'll find some of the other things listed.
You can't go by sheer numbers...in computers, car buying, major appliances, etc. Everything's a situation (learned that from "NYPD Blue"), everyone has a different set or requirements and not everyone needs the top-shelf juice. One man's tight little eMac is another's room-filling supercomputer.
No need to wake up and smell any coffee.
I think this is a great little computer. And I don't think you could find something - for that price - on the PC side that truly has the I/O, graphics, software bundle, eye-pleasing design, ease-of-setup, etc. that in any way approaches the eMac. I really don't. Hell, the iLife 04 apps alone set it apart from any of the sub-$1000 crap probably offered by Dell or Gateway.
And KingofSomewhereHot: I totally noticed your smileys. Did you notice mine too? No problem!
I have worked with Macs since 89 and suffered with a IIcx and a 40mb HD for quite a while. I work as a graphic designer and the mac has become a part of my everyday life. Currently I work with a SP 1.8G5 when I'm at the studio. Its a great machine, not the fastest available but it does everything I need it to without me cursing at it too often.
At home I own a 700 eMac, I really can't fault the thing. It gets the sames things thrown at it as the G5 does at work but because time is less precious at home the difference in performance doesn't really matter.
For the everyday mac user the eMac, especially the new one, it the perfect solution. I wouldn't dream of spending nearing £2000+ for G5 and screen for home, the performance boost really isn't worth the extra £1300. Looking at the benchmarks at xbench, the new eMac ain't gonna be that far behind my G5 at work in real world terms. 130 (emac) marks compared to 140 (1.8G5) makes a mockery of waiting for a 1.6 G5 imac if it comes.
As for people moaning about the screen, well I don't know what they are talking about. I run my eMac at 1280x960 and I never ever think about the refresh rate unless i read about it forums like this. It good flat screen with great colour depth and great contrast. I will not touch LCD screens for graphics work, ok for layout work but when it comes to photoshop, forget it. You only have to shuffle your arse on your chair and your eye position has shifted along with the colours on screen. The other 5 guys in my studio olso have eMacs and I've never heard one maon about the screen.
The fan, again so what. My clock on the wall ticks quite loudly but only when I listen out for it. My PC (for games only) sounds like a hoover to keep the bloody thing cool. Again I'd never even thought about the fan noise until somebody mentioned it.
Also people moaning about 32mb for graphics, again so what. If you what more than that then your buying the wrong machine. Your obviously wanting to either play games (buy a pc or an xbox) or wanting to do 3D design in which case why are you looking at a budget AIO machine. There is no other reason to have more graphics memory. Again I didn't really worried about what graphics card my mac came with.
The only crap thing about the eMac and all other macs is the mouse. I spent years believing that apple knew best and that one button was king. Forget it get a two button with a wheel and move on in life.
For who the eMac is aimed, at it perfect. Does everything you throw at it, looks good and is dirt cheap compared to any similar apple product. I will continue to buy them as long as they make them or until Apple get their act together and bring out a 'headless' eMac/iMac.
However, to include a CRT at 800-1000 US dollars really sucks hard. Even at the same price this would almost be a better machine without the display attached.
Plenty of Wintel offerings can bundle a 15-17" TFT display at the 800-1000 range. If this machine had a 17" LCD on it, AIO and all, I might do a cartwheel instead of a dance and declare myself a mac desktop convert!
I know the iMac is the LCD machine, for now, but perhaps what's needed is a eMac LCD. Something simple, perhaps with shades of gumdrop in it, glomming the guts on the back affords a ton of room: it's less pure, but it lets you source larger power supply/fan, and easier/cheaper cooling schemes/tolerances.
The CRT should be dead by now.
Originally posted by mmmpie
When you compare the emac to a pc at the same price, consider the little things:
* does the PC have thermal control fans ( doubt it, even high end pc's just run full tit )?
* does the PC autoswtich its network port between normal and patch mode ( for directly connecting two machines )?
* does the PC have software control of the monitor geometry?
* does the PC have a rock solid stand ( never seen a solid pc monitor stand )?
* does the PC come with a set of good quality speakers?
* does the PC monitor do 'brite' mode for movies?
* does the PC do target disk mode?
* does the PC boot from other media easily ( not going into BIOS to do it - some PC's have a boot menu option )?
* does the PC have a built in line filter for AC power?
* does the PC have built in tv out/mirror out/dual screen?
First I have to say I don't know about the variety of PC's that come out of a store in a plastic wrap. Neither me, my friends or my school use them. Me and friends build our own, for my school, the build work is done in a shop to the school's specs. So that is my viewpoint.
I'd say you can get most of these features in the 800$ PC.
"Target disk" is of course Mac only, and I consider that maybe the coolest feature in your list. A point to the Mac, although I suspect few "regular" users need or know about this feature.
Software control of screen geometry? Why? (incidentally, if this means there are no hardware controls, that can be trouble with other OS's)
Booting from a CD without going to the BIOS? I guess that depends on the BIOS default. If the CD isn't set to be first in the boot order, you need to set it once, and never again.
Built in line filter? I don't really know what kind of filtering power supplies are capable of, but the external device is $10. This is feature comparison, not a beauty contest, so the internal/external distinction doesn't matter. Many people, businesses and schools do not need per-computer surge protection since they have surge protection and emergency power at a larger scale, or possibly an UPS per machine.
Finally, IIRC, eMac does *not* have dual screen support without hacking. New PC's pretty much always have dual screen if they have 2+ outputs. With the eMac, you pay extra for connectors; the PC will have standard VGA, DVI and SVHS. Here the PC box wins big.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Bitching about dual screen support on an eMac is like bitching about not having leather seats in an El Camino.
So, who's bitching about it?
Amorph, thank you for your civility.
pscates, you're smart too.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Folks, this is not about whether the eMac is a good machine. It is about whether this constitutes a good update. It is not. It is a meiserly update and that does not bode well for the iMac in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong. Everything you all are saying about the usefulness of the new eMac could be said about the old one. This update does not enable you to do anything that you couldn't do on the old one. It is hardly worth noticing. Perhaps that is why Apple did not even bother to put in on the front page in a significant way. You can say it is a good product all you like. But so far, I have seen no one argue that it is a great or exciting update.
Amorph, thank you for your civility.
pscates, you're smart too.
you're just complaining to complain. USB 2.0? 25% speed update? 8x superdrive? no cost bump? seems worthwhile to me. i guess you wanted a g5? blurb.
It seems that the eMac is just the ugly stepchild and lacks the sex appeal of the G5 or PowerBooks or whatever. But again, if I had to go TODAY and buy a computer for myself, family member or outfit a small office/studio, I wouldn't look at anything else other than the new eMac. In fact, we might be getting two of them here at work, to replace two 400MHz Sawtooth G4s and rather piece-of-shit "bubble-screen" CRTs.
I can't wait!
I don't know what kind of update some of you were expecting?
G5? Come on. 19" screen? Why? Dual processors? Put down the pipe.
We would've KILLED for a high-end G4 tower with these specs just a 12-18 months ago (8x SuperDrive, AirPort Extreme, USB 2.0, etc.). Now we can get all that stuff for $799?!?!
i think the eMac is a very nice upgrade and a perfect machine for most casual users (which is most people)...my mom and her SO are looking to change from a pc tower to an apple computer...i took them to compusa and showed them all the models, the pluses, the minuses of each etc etc...this was before the update...
i told them all they really needed was the eMac and that with the swivel it moves quite nicely...my mother only wanted to spend about a grand, so i thought the eMac was the way to go
but my mother has always loved my iMac FP and she wants the 17" FP
her SO has always had a tower and wants the upgrade potential (though he has never upgraded a machine before)
they both want at least 17" screen as they are both 65 years old and feel like they need big images to view...
so they went from wanting to spend a grand to planning on either almost 1700 for an iMac or 2,300 for a PM with apple fp monitor...i told them to wait abit as machines are in flux right now, and have now asked them to please look again at the eMac...we shall see how this goes as an eMac is perfect for them...but, it seems, that what would really be perfect for them is a mini tower...but apple doesn't make that...they don't NEED a mini tower, but the SO is programed to believe he does...and that is basically the same as needing it...i really wish the mini tower would arrive, i truely, right or wrong, believe that it would be a great boost to "switchers"...sure the eMac is perfect for the grandparent set, the school age set (non-portable variety), the first time computer user set, the extra computer for the house set, etc...but so many of the 95 percenters think that the only thing worthwhile in the world is towers and laptops...sure a mini tower would steal from full sized PM sells..so what...PM become truely for the "power" users, mini towers for the desktop crowd, iMac FP for the AIO crowd and us fashion whores, eMac for schools...make PM and mini PM with a sweet apple display bundle price and you up the monitor sells also...
still this is a sweet update to the eMac and gives a fully useable computer from apple for under a grand that will last most people 5 years or more....what more could you ask for if you are kids or old folk??
g
edit to ask a question: what is the maximum monitor size an iBook will run nicely?? i think that could be a nice option for the old folks also...get an iBook and connect to a monitor with keyboard and mouse....use iBook as tower at home, take iBook with you on vacation (old folks take lots of freakin vacations, the bastards...it's spring break every freakin week for them, except with less sex and puking)...anyways, i know that an iBook wouldn't be useable for them for everyday use, but would it nicely drive the apple 17" monitor? the 20"??
they could get a new iBook next week, add bluetooth, a wireless keyboard and mouse and either the 17" or 20" monitor...would cost less than a tower and monitor and be more mobile...
thanks
"Gotta have a tower"
"Why?"
"Expandability, I'm a pro user!"
"Really, huh?"
"Yeah, the only way to go, Paul"
"You've had it for three years, assbag...what are you expanding?"
"Huh?"
"You're an idiot"
"You might be right...I should've bought an iMac..."
If you can get him past his thinking on that, I'd bet they love the eMac. My goodness, why shell out all that extra cash for a flat screen. Trust me, the novelty wears off VERY quickly, then you're left with a $1799-2299 art project.
Get an eMac, pocket the rest (or spend some of it on RAM, iPod, swivel stand, Creature II speakers, .Mac account, Keynote, etc.).