So a speed bump, feature bump and price reduction is an inadequate upgrade? What would you prefer in a low end machine? Dual 2GHz G5's? High end video card? 10,000 rpm RAID 0 Ultra wide SCSI hard drives?
This is a great upgrade to the eMac. Quit whining (or at least specify what you think should be an appropriate upgrade).
How can anybody read the spec sheet below, consider that the eMac hasn't had a significant update in a long time and the say "Not a bad update.". I see this as a lackluster update that has me wonderig just where Apple is going and if they have any respect for the makret place at all. One thing for sure the market place will have no respect for this machine.
The Apple communitty should be on the verge of having dramatically faster machines available to them, but even against todays machines this is a rather underpowered desktop machine.
You're kidding aren't you? This was posted to get a rise out of people wasn't it?
Firstly, it is by no means a lackluster update. With the bump in specs coupled with the price drop the eMac has become the Apple alternative to all the el cheapo PC's which you see advertised.
Secondly, your comment about 'the Apple community'. The Apple community pretty much knows the product line-up inside out. This machine is aimed at newbies or switchers who have bought a cheap PC (which has probably been more trouble than it is worth). The majority of them will not want a G5 because it will be too expensive and too much computer for their needs. They need something for word processing, web browsing etc. This is that computer.
Sounds like you won't be happy unless you get a supercomputer for ten bucks. Ain't gonna happen.
Well I geuss this looks like a good upgrade if you ignore the fact that we have not seen solid bumps to this platoform in some time. The machine is long in the tooth I was expecting an upgrade to at least 1.5GHz G4, this is not to much to ask for considering what it will be competeing agianst. The speed of the CPU does not have a major impact on the rest of the system electrically so instaling a faster one is not a major issue. Yes there might be an incremental cost to the CPU but that is about it.
The other problem area is the video card, there are a number of issues that people need to consider before jumping into an eMac.
First; unless the computer is being impelemented for a spcific usage 32 Meg of video Ram is just to little for a GPU.
Second; the 9200 is not exactly a top of the line GPU. It may very well have been a good choice a year ago but now it is pretty much a has been. A 9600 should have been soldered to the motherboard. Now before everybody flys off their perch to pounc eon that statement do consider that the GPU market is about to go through a major upheaval. The Graphics chip companies are about to introduce next generation chips that will nearly double performance. This will very much put GPU's like the 9600 at the bottom of the heap. The PC market place will change quickly and dramatically once PCI-Express based GPU hardware hits the market.
Third; the comparison to integrated video in the INtel world is a two edge sword. First; at the price point Apple is selling at you may very well get a real GPU. Even if you don't integrated video is not the performance issue it once was. In anyevent we are talking about the 9200 implemented in a Mac. Just how good is it going to be on this platform.
The problem as I see it is that this entry level machine could result in considerable negative user experiences. The problem being that software authors have much faster machines to develope on and to target now. Much of the interesting stuff that will make up future software innovations will not run well on this machine.
Thanks
dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
So a speed bump, feature bump and price reduction is an inadequate upgrade? What would you prefer in a low end machine? Dual 2GHz G5's? High end video card? 10,000 rpm RAID 0 Ultra wide SCSI hard drives?
This is a great upgrade to the eMac. Quit whining (or at least specify what you think should be an appropriate upgrade).
ahh no 5400 RPM drives don't suck. They have a relatively small performance penalty because they're greater density, and have advantages in being quiet and using less power. Plus they're cheaper.
Overall, they don't suck
The only increase that I've noticed is maybe a 1-2MB increase in speed. Usually not necessary.
5400's do well with DV imports. Even when moderately fragmented.
Well I geuss this looks like a good upgrade if you ignore the fact that we have not seen solid bumps to this platoform in some time. The machine is long in the tooth I was expecting an upgrade to at least 1.5GHz G4, this is not to much to ask for considering what it will be competeing agianst. The speed of the CPU does not have a major impact on the rest of the system electrically so instaling a faster one is not a major issue. Yes there might be an incremental cost to the CPU but that is about it.
Where'd you get 1.5GHz? Yeah, there'd be an "incremental cost," and when you're letting certain edu institutions offer them for $575 a pop (without an optical drive) those costs are very tightly constrained. 1.5GHz is the top end clock speed of the newest Motorola chip, still made in Motorola's woebegotten 130nm fab. I imagine the difference in cost between that and the chip in the eMac is enough to make or break the eMac's price point, or Apple would ship a 1.5GHz G4.
Quote:
First; unless the computer is being impelemented for a spcific usage 32 Meg of video Ram is just to little for a GPU.
Based on what? For what purposes?
Quote:
Second; the 9200 is not exactly a top of the line GPU.
The eMac is not exactly a top of the line machine.
The OEM boxes I've seen at its price point have integrated video, which can't compete with the chip the eMac does have, so unless your basis of comparison is a cost-no-object gaming rig or a loaded SGI workstation I don't see the point here.
As for the next-generation architectural changes: Yeah, they're coming. No, we won't see any of that stuff widely available before June. Would you rather that Apple postponed any eMac update until June? July?
Apple released a solid update that should boast a 30-35% speed boost over the old model all around using the technology available to them at that price point. When the PCI Express chipsets actually become available at eMac price points from multiple vendors, Apple can ponder putting them in eMacs. Until then I don't see what the problem is.
Furthermore, next-generation architectures notwithstanding, nVIDIA appears to be hedging their bets by making their latest card AGP 8x compatible as well.
Quote:
The problem as I see it is that this entry level machine could result in considerable negative user experiences. The problem being that software authors have much faster machines to develope on and to target now. Much of the interesting stuff that will make up future software innovations will not run well on this machine.
You know, I've been a programmer for a long time. I've seen a long standing trend in programming newsgroups on USENET: Some kid with a completely hot-rodded rig will post some baffling simple question about getting Hello World to link, or asking how to clear the screen (on a Mac!) and it would be answered by a professional developer on 2-4 year old hardware. If you're any good, you don't need the latest and greatest - especially not now that Xcode does predictive compiling. Furthermore, if you're worth anything as a developer, you'll test your application on the hardware you expect it to run on. When id was porting Quake III, their target was the iMac, so they tested their code on an iMac and released it when it ran well on an iMac - not on their much more powerful development hardware.
A developer who writes code on a PMG5 that only runs well on a PMG5 is either writing some seriously hardcore code that will only ever be run by someone with a G5, or is an idiot who deserves the absolute rejection their application will get in the marketplace.
Amorph is on point. The eMac is not a high-end box. A similar Dell...The bottom-end 2400 configured with 256MB RAM, Combo Drive, and a Firewire card costs $727. And it comes with "Integrated Intel® 3D Extreme Graphics," which shares system memory, leaving your box with between 224MB and 192MB of actual memory for your system.
All of a sudden, that Radeon 9200 sounds pretty sweet, don't it?
Where'd you get 1.5GHz? Yeah, there'd be an "incremental cost," and when you're letting certain edu institutions offer them for $575 a pop (without an optical drive) those costs are very tightly constrained. 1.5GHz is the top end clock speed of the newest Motorola chip, still made in Motorola's woebegotten 130nm fab. I imagine the difference in cost between that and the chip in the eMac is enough to make or break the eMac's price point, or Apple would ship a 1.5GHz G4.
Based on what? For what purposes?
just about any purpose.
Quote:
The eMac is not exactly a top of the line machine.
True, but then agian it is not at the bottom of the price range in the marekt place.
Quote:
The OEM boxes I've seen at its price point have integrated video, which can't compete with the chip the eMac does have, so unless your basis of comparison is a cost-no-object gaming rig or a loaded SGI workstation I don't see the point here.
Well I have to disagree here. First the machines it will be competeing against may have integrated video, but that has been vastly improved recently. Some of those machine will have a GPU of some sort.
The other issue is that a GPU in the Mac may not be used as efficiently as it would be on the PC side.
Quote:
As for the next-generation architectural changes: Yeah, they're coming. No, we won't see any of that stuff widely available before June. Would you rather that Apple postponed any eMac update until June? July?
Well you are completely missing the point here. I don't expect the next generation hardware to end up in a eMac, what I do expect is that the next gen hardware will have a significant impact on current gen hardware pricing. Beyond pricing current hardware will be precieved as being woefully out dated. The 9200 will become the RAGE128 of the modern erra. That does make the 9200 a bad chip anymore than the RAGE128 was bad, it is just outdated.
Quote:
Apple released a solid update that should boast a 30-35% speed boost over the old model all around using the technology available to them at that price point. When the PCI Express chipsets actually become available at eMac price points from multiple vendors, Apple can ponder putting them in eMacs. Until then I don't see what the problem is.
Agian this isn't a question of putting in PCI-Epress chip sets. It is a question of performance that the machine will deliver against what will be needed in the future. Talking about a percentage increase over the previous machne is of no use as all of the G4 machines have gone through a period of flat performance increases.
Instead what one will need to do is to focus on how this unit compares to the 970 and 970FX based machines about to hit the market place. Is it really feasable to market a machine that will trail in performance by 3 to 4 times (maybe more) the performance of the top of the line machines? We are talking about a huge performance differrential realtive to what is seen in the PC world.
Quote:
Furthermore, next-generation architectures notwithstanding, nVIDIA appears to be hedging their bets by making their latest card AGP 8x compatible as well.
This does not change the argument at all. The next gen chips will be significnat advancements in performance. This will have a dramatic impact on the pricing of current gen chips. The impact is not far off in the future either. Without a doubt before the new eMac is on the market for long the 9200 will be precieved in the same manner as the old ATI RAGE128 - a good chip for yesterdays machinery.
Quote:
You know, I've been a programmer for a long time. I've seen a long standing trend in programming newsgroups on USENET: Some kid with a completely hot-rodded rig will post some baffling simple question about getting Hello World to link, or asking how to clear the screen (on a Mac!) and it would be answered by a professional developer on 2-4 year old hardware. If you're any good, you don't need the latest and greatest - especially not now that Xcode does predictive compiling. Furthermore, if you're worth anything as a developer, you'll test your application on the hardware you expect it to run on. When id was porting Quake III, their target was the iMac, so they tested their code on an iMac and released it when it ran well on an iMac - not on their much more powerful development hardware.
A developer who writes code on a PMG5 that only runs well on a PMG5 is either writing some seriously hardcore code that will only ever be run by someone with a G5, or is an idiot who deserves the absolute rejection their application will get in the marketplace.
Well they may have been testing on a iMac but I bet the old 601 PowerMacs where not even considered for performance optimizations. In any event when the performance differential becomes to great G4 based machines will be ignored by the developers. First there is a desire to obtain performance parity with PC hardware with respect ot games on the mac. This won't happen with any G4 and the minimal development times often allocated ports.
It is not a guestion of where the eMac sits with respect to current machines in the present it is a question of where it will sit in the near future. My point is that the performance differrential will be so hugh that the machine will quickly become useless. All one needs is a 970 based iMac replacement to render this machines place in the market as unsaleble. Do you really think that developers will really care much at all about the G4 hardware once the G5 are in the iMac or its replacement. Such limitations would be a big constraint on just what could be delivered in new software.
I'm not totally agianst G4 hardware, don't get me wrong, it just needs to offer a little more than the eMac example we see today. If for nothing elses to keep it competitive for more than a few weeks.
All of a sudden, that Radeon 9200 sounds pretty sweet, don't it?
It certainly does. However, I doubt there will be much of an advantage to having a Radeon 9200 vs. a Radeon 7500 because the 9200 has only 32 MB of VRAM. Sure, it's faster than any integrated graphics system, but the 9200 won't really show many of its advantages over the 7500 unless it has more VRAM.
Comments
Originally posted by wizard69
This truely boggles the mind!
So a speed bump, feature bump and price reduction is an inadequate upgrade? What would you prefer in a low end machine? Dual 2GHz G5's? High end video card? 10,000 rpm RAID 0 Ultra wide SCSI hard drives?
This is a great upgrade to the eMac. Quit whining (or at least specify what you think should be an appropriate upgrade).
Originally posted by wizard69
This truely boggles the mind!
How can anybody read the spec sheet below, consider that the eMac hasn't had a significant update in a long time and the say "Not a bad update.". I see this as a lackluster update that has me wonderig just where Apple is going and if they have any respect for the makret place at all. One thing for sure the market place will have no respect for this machine.
The Apple communitty should be on the verge of having dramatically faster machines available to them, but even against todays machines this is a rather underpowered desktop machine.
You're kidding aren't you? This was posted to get a rise out of people wasn't it?
Firstly, it is by no means a lackluster update. With the bump in specs coupled with the price drop the eMac has become the Apple alternative to all the el cheapo PC's which you see advertised.
Secondly, your comment about 'the Apple community'. The Apple community pretty much knows the product line-up inside out. This machine is aimed at newbies or switchers who have bought a cheap PC (which has probably been more trouble than it is worth). The majority of them will not want a G5 because it will be too expensive and too much computer for their needs. They need something for word processing, web browsing etc. This is that computer.
Sounds like you won't be happy unless you get a supercomputer for ten bucks. Ain't gonna happen.
The other problem area is the video card, there are a number of issues that people need to consider before jumping into an eMac.
First; unless the computer is being impelemented for a spcific usage 32 Meg of video Ram is just to little for a GPU.
Second; the 9200 is not exactly a top of the line GPU. It may very well have been a good choice a year ago but now it is pretty much a has been. A 9600 should have been soldered to the motherboard. Now before everybody flys off their perch to pounc eon that statement do consider that the GPU market is about to go through a major upheaval. The Graphics chip companies are about to introduce next generation chips that will nearly double performance. This will very much put GPU's like the 9600 at the bottom of the heap. The PC market place will change quickly and dramatically once PCI-Express based GPU hardware hits the market.
Third; the comparison to integrated video in the INtel world is a two edge sword. First; at the price point Apple is selling at you may very well get a real GPU. Even if you don't integrated video is not the performance issue it once was. In anyevent we are talking about the 9200 implemented in a Mac. Just how good is it going to be on this platform.
The problem as I see it is that this entry level machine could result in considerable negative user experiences. The problem being that software authors have much faster machines to develope on and to target now. Much of the interesting stuff that will make up future software innovations will not run well on this machine.
Thanks
dave
Originally posted by Yevgeny
So a speed bump, feature bump and price reduction is an inadequate upgrade? What would you prefer in a low end machine? Dual 2GHz G5's? High end video card? 10,000 rpm RAID 0 Ultra wide SCSI hard drives?
This is a great upgrade to the eMac. Quit whining (or at least specify what you think should be an appropriate upgrade).
Originally posted by Imergingenious
ahh no 5400 RPM drives don't suck. They have a relatively small performance penalty because they're greater density, and have advantages in being quiet and using less power. Plus they're cheaper.
Overall, they don't suck
The only increase that I've noticed is maybe a 1-2MB increase in speed. Usually not necessary.
5400's do well with DV imports. Even when moderately fragmented.
-walloo.
Originally posted by wizard69
Well I geuss this looks like a good upgrade if you ignore the fact that we have not seen solid bumps to this platoform in some time. The machine is long in the tooth I was expecting an upgrade to at least 1.5GHz G4, this is not to much to ask for considering what it will be competeing agianst. The speed of the CPU does not have a major impact on the rest of the system electrically so instaling a faster one is not a major issue. Yes there might be an incremental cost to the CPU but that is about it.
Where'd you get 1.5GHz? Yeah, there'd be an "incremental cost," and when you're letting certain edu institutions offer them for $575 a pop (without an optical drive) those costs are very tightly constrained. 1.5GHz is the top end clock speed of the newest Motorola chip, still made in Motorola's woebegotten 130nm fab. I imagine the difference in cost between that and the chip in the eMac is enough to make or break the eMac's price point, or Apple would ship a 1.5GHz G4.
First; unless the computer is being impelemented for a spcific usage 32 Meg of video Ram is just to little for a GPU.
Based on what? For what purposes?
Second; the 9200 is not exactly a top of the line GPU.
The eMac is not exactly a top of the line machine.
The OEM boxes I've seen at its price point have integrated video, which can't compete with the chip the eMac does have, so unless your basis of comparison is a cost-no-object gaming rig or a loaded SGI workstation I don't see the point here.
As for the next-generation architectural changes: Yeah, they're coming. No, we won't see any of that stuff widely available before June. Would you rather that Apple postponed any eMac update until June? July?
Apple released a solid update that should boast a 30-35% speed boost over the old model all around using the technology available to them at that price point. When the PCI Express chipsets actually become available at eMac price points from multiple vendors, Apple can ponder putting them in eMacs. Until then I don't see what the problem is.
Furthermore, next-generation architectures notwithstanding, nVIDIA appears to be hedging their bets by making their latest card AGP 8x compatible as well.
The problem as I see it is that this entry level machine could result in considerable negative user experiences. The problem being that software authors have much faster machines to develope on and to target now. Much of the interesting stuff that will make up future software innovations will not run well on this machine.
You know, I've been a programmer for a long time. I've seen a long standing trend in programming newsgroups on USENET: Some kid with a completely hot-rodded rig will post some baffling simple question about getting Hello World to link, or asking how to clear the screen (on a Mac!) and it would be answered by a professional developer on 2-4 year old hardware. If you're any good, you don't need the latest and greatest - especially not now that Xcode does predictive compiling. Furthermore, if you're worth anything as a developer, you'll test your application on the hardware you expect it to run on. When id was porting Quake III, their target was the iMac, so they tested their code on an iMac and released it when it ran well on an iMac - not on their much more powerful development hardware.
A developer who writes code on a PMG5 that only runs well on a PMG5 is either writing some seriously hardcore code that will only ever be run by someone with a G5, or is an idiot who deserves the absolute rejection their application will get in the marketplace.
All of a sudden, that Radeon 9200 sounds pretty sweet, don't it?
Originally posted by Amorph
Where'd you get 1.5GHz? Yeah, there'd be an "incremental cost," and when you're letting certain edu institutions offer them for $575 a pop (without an optical drive) those costs are very tightly constrained. 1.5GHz is the top end clock speed of the newest Motorola chip, still made in Motorola's woebegotten 130nm fab. I imagine the difference in cost between that and the chip in the eMac is enough to make or break the eMac's price point, or Apple would ship a 1.5GHz G4.
Based on what? For what purposes?
just about any purpose.
Quote:
The eMac is not exactly a top of the line machine.
True, but then agian it is not at the bottom of the price range in the marekt place.
Quote:
The OEM boxes I've seen at its price point have integrated video, which can't compete with the chip the eMac does have, so unless your basis of comparison is a cost-no-object gaming rig or a loaded SGI workstation I don't see the point here.
Well I have to disagree here. First the machines it will be competeing against may have integrated video, but that has been vastly improved recently. Some of those machine will have a GPU of some sort.
The other issue is that a GPU in the Mac may not be used as efficiently as it would be on the PC side.
Quote:
As for the next-generation architectural changes: Yeah, they're coming. No, we won't see any of that stuff widely available before June. Would you rather that Apple postponed any eMac update until June? July?
Well you are completely missing the point here. I don't expect the next generation hardware to end up in a eMac, what I do expect is that the next gen hardware will have a significant impact on current gen hardware pricing. Beyond pricing current hardware will be precieved as being woefully out dated. The 9200 will become the RAGE128 of the modern erra. That does make the 9200 a bad chip anymore than the RAGE128 was bad, it is just outdated.
Quote:
Apple released a solid update that should boast a 30-35% speed boost over the old model all around using the technology available to them at that price point. When the PCI Express chipsets actually become available at eMac price points from multiple vendors, Apple can ponder putting them in eMacs. Until then I don't see what the problem is.
Agian this isn't a question of putting in PCI-Epress chip sets. It is a question of performance that the machine will deliver against what will be needed in the future. Talking about a percentage increase over the previous machne is of no use as all of the G4 machines have gone through a period of flat performance increases.
Instead what one will need to do is to focus on how this unit compares to the 970 and 970FX based machines about to hit the market place. Is it really feasable to market a machine that will trail in performance by 3 to 4 times (maybe more) the performance of the top of the line machines? We are talking about a huge performance differrential realtive to what is seen in the PC world.
Quote:
Furthermore, next-generation architectures notwithstanding, nVIDIA appears to be hedging their bets by making their latest card AGP 8x compatible as well.
This does not change the argument at all. The next gen chips will be significnat advancements in performance. This will have a dramatic impact on the pricing of current gen chips. The impact is not far off in the future either. Without a doubt before the new eMac is on the market for long the 9200 will be precieved in the same manner as the old ATI RAGE128 - a good chip for yesterdays machinery.
Quote:
You know, I've been a programmer for a long time. I've seen a long standing trend in programming newsgroups on USENET: Some kid with a completely hot-rodded rig will post some baffling simple question about getting Hello World to link, or asking how to clear the screen (on a Mac!) and it would be answered by a professional developer on 2-4 year old hardware. If you're any good, you don't need the latest and greatest - especially not now that Xcode does predictive compiling. Furthermore, if you're worth anything as a developer, you'll test your application on the hardware you expect it to run on. When id was porting Quake III, their target was the iMac, so they tested their code on an iMac and released it when it ran well on an iMac - not on their much more powerful development hardware.
A developer who writes code on a PMG5 that only runs well on a PMG5 is either writing some seriously hardcore code that will only ever be run by someone with a G5, or is an idiot who deserves the absolute rejection their application will get in the marketplace.
Well they may have been testing on a iMac but I bet the old 601 PowerMacs where not even considered for performance optimizations. In any event when the performance differential becomes to great G4 based machines will be ignored by the developers. First there is a desire to obtain performance parity with PC hardware with respect ot games on the mac. This won't happen with any G4 and the minimal development times often allocated ports.
It is not a guestion of where the eMac sits with respect to current machines in the present it is a question of where it will sit in the near future. My point is that the performance differrential will be so hugh that the machine will quickly become useless. All one needs is a 970 based iMac replacement to render this machines place in the market as unsaleble. Do you really think that developers will really care much at all about the G4 hardware once the G5 are in the iMac or its replacement. Such limitations would be a big constraint on just what could be delivered in new software.
I'm not totally agianst G4 hardware, don't get me wrong, it just needs to offer a little more than the eMac example we see today. If for nothing elses to keep it competitive for more than a few weeks.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by tak1108
Just a quick question. Did anyone, person or rumor site, predict the eMac bump?
Yes.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
All of a sudden, that Radeon 9200 sounds pretty sweet, don't it?
It certainly does. However, I doubt there will be much of an advantage to having a Radeon 9200 vs. a Radeon 7500 because the 9200 has only 32 MB of VRAM. Sure, it's faster than any integrated graphics system, but the 9200 won't really show many of its advantages over the 7500 unless it has more VRAM.