The $1299 14 inch iBook is a good deal, although having any chip below 1 Ghz will turn off less savvy buyers. It looks pretty pathetic next to PC specs. And when, oh when, are they going to get away from WHITE? I personally am sick to death of it and would prefer a darker color. Still, all in all, this is a huge improvement for the ibook.
As for the eMac, Apple will never gain market share in dektops without an inexpensive tower. I've said it before, I said it again-Steve Jobs just doesnt get it. Now that Apple has the G5 they could easily sell a G4 tower for less than a grand............................................. ......
The eMac is supposed to sit between the iBook and the iMac in terms of performance. In fact, for a while there was little difference between an eMac and an iMac other than the monitor ... which was why the eMac was so great.
No, that's not exactly true. The eMac is supposed to be an education desktop. The only reason why it came into existence was because of the expense and fragility of the iMac G4. By its very nature, in fact, the iBook should really have parity with the iMac. And now it again does.
The iBook is still far less powerful than the eMac. Sure, it has DDR RAM, but that's basically the only advantage. The Radeon 9200 is a mobile chip, meaning it's probably about on par with the eMac's desktop Radeon 7500 (just as a mobile Radeon 7500 is about equivalent to a desktop Radeon). Also, the eMac has 1 GHz processors across the board, whereas the iBook has it only on the highest end model. And the eMac has a much faster hard drive. If you take mobility into account, then you might have a point about the iBook being on par with the iMac, but it's pretty difficult to compare a portable iBook to a desktop iMac because you have to put a certain value on portability to make up for the slower performance. I'm not saying the iBook is slow, far from it - but any laptop will suffer in performance vs. desktops if it has a 4200 RPM hard drive and power-saving mobility components.
There isn't a huge gap in performance between the eMac and the iMac, but it's enough to differentiate the two on some basis other than just the type of screen. When the eMac first came out it was kind of weird and expensive - $1099 for a 700/CDRW I think, making it just a little bit less expensive than an iMac. At the time, everyone was saying to just buy an iMac because the eMac was only slightly less expensive. Now the eMac is $500 cheaper than the iMac on the low end and $700 cheaper on the high end. That makes it hard for a consumer to justify getting an iMac.
The eMac would be a really great little machine if it didn't have such an awful display (washed out colors, constant flicker at the max resolution, uneven convergence, etc.) It would also be nice if there was a decent video card in there as well (Radeon 7500? Isn't that like 3 years ago?). The Radeon 9200 would be a nice card to pop in there as THAT is the current low end.
I haven't used an eMac but a review I read said it has a very impressive, bright display. Perhaps the reviewer was incorrect.
The eMac is Apple's bargain entry level computer. It's not meant to have all the latest features to compete with the higher end. It never will. It will also never be available at the prices of bargain basement PCs. Apple has too much R&D to pay for and has never tried to, or been able to compete on price.
For the average computer user, it's a very nice Mac. It has a nice all in one design, fast G4, Combo drive, Firewire and all the software one needs for the digital lifestyle at a new very attractive price of US$799.
I just wish Apple would stock all of their computers with more memory. 256MB should be the absolute minimum and it should all be on one module.
Question. Several posters have said the eMac should have included USB 2.0. Should Apple just dump Firewire (save money) on it's 'consumer machines' in favor of USB 2.0?
I own an eMac. I'm not that critical of the display but I have to say it's pretty good. Although I'm a guy who can't notice any flicker when it's at 1280x960 at 72 Hz. A lot of people need 85 Hz or higher otherwise they see flicker, but I don't see it unless I'm specifically looking for it, and even then it's rare. The colors don't seem washed out at all!
The review that said the eMac's screen was bright and had good color was comparing it to a flat panel iMac. It's true - CRTs are brighter, with truer color than LCDs. However, LCDs are far sharper and they are easier on the eyes, so the reviewer was merely pointing out the difference between a CRT and an LCD.
Firewire should not be sacrificed for USB 2.0. That would be really stupid. How would you connect an iPod? How would you do target disk mode? It's dumb, Firewire has been on every Mac for three years so there's absolutely NO reason to not include it. Besides it's better than USB 2.0 anyway.
Question. Several posters have said the eMac should have included USB 2.0. Should Apple just dump Firewire (save money) on it's 'consumer machines' in favor of USB 2.0?
Apple should use BOTH. Firewire 400 (while it "technically" has less transfer capacity than USB 2.0) is actually faster than USB 2.0 much of the time.
It's too technical for me to explain without sounding like an idiot, but if you do some reading about USB 2.0 you will find that it doesn't always transfer data at 480Mbps. Sometimes, depending on the computer and the peripheral that's connected, USB 2.0 can be just as slow as good old USB 1.0. On the other hand, FireWire 400 does an excellent job of maintaining 400Mbps.
Besides, I have a several external HDs, optical drives, and scanners that use Firewire ... so I don't want to lose those.
Sometimes USB 2.0 is just as slow as USB 1.0 because the naming scheme was changed. Now, when Apple says USB 2.0 they actually mean you're getting the high speed ports with a peak transfer rate of 480 Mbits/second. But recently, "USB 1.1" had its name changed to "USB 2.0" even though it still transfers at 12 Mbits/sec. Meanwhile, "USB 2.0" had its name changed to "USB 2.0 High Speed." So now, every single PC has USB 2.0 but not all have USB 2.0 High Speed. What a crock.
I have a Mac addict magazine and in an article it says that the eMac is better then the iMac!
It says the 1Ghz eMac gets 1 more fps(frame per second) then the iMac. Now really thats not that much more then the iMac.... however when u compare their prices its a HUGE diffrence!
Anyway for $799 the eMac is a GREAT deal!
EDIT: o ya the eMac was the 1Ghz model and the iMac was the 1Ghz model also... (b4 iMac update)
Sometimes USB 2.0 is just as slow as USB 1.0 because the naming scheme was changed. Now, when Apple says USB 2.0 they actually mean you're getting the high speed ports with a peak transfer rate of 480 Mbits/second. But recently, "USB 1.1" had its name changed to "USB 2.0" even though it still transfers at 12 Mbits/sec. Meanwhile, "USB 2.0" had its name changed to "USB 2.0 High Speed." So now, every single PC has USB 2.0 but not all have USB 2.0 High Speed. What a crock.
No, what you said is crock as well. First, that's what USB organization proposed. It was widely mocked on Slahdot and everywhere else. Second, what they really proposed was "high speed" vs "full speed", which was mocked too.
Most importantly, I am not aware of PC manufacturers (Apple included) or any other manufactueres labelling USB 1.1 as USB 2.0. If there are, it will be an anomaly rather than the norm. Since most computer manufacturers now use USB 2.0 already so this issue is moot.
Okay, my mistake. I heard about this USB 2.0 naming confusion but I didn't know that it didn't actually go through. As far as PC companies labeling the ports on their computers as USB 2.0 even if they were the 12 Mbps ports (because of the change in the naming convention which didn't go through), that was more like speculation - it would have theoretically allowed PC makers to label their machines as having USB 2.0 ports even if they were low speed. However, when I think about it they could get into some serious legal trouble for false advertisement if they did that, so I doubt a PC maker would actually label their ports deceptively. A USB 2.0 port even costs the same as a USB 1 port right?
If you insert a USB 2.0 device into a USB 1.1 port, XP pops up a little balloon window that states (warns) that even though your device is USB 2.0, you will transfer data at 1.1 since that is the limitation of the USB port on your system. However, this is just with older PCs that use 1.1, I think it's safe to say that all PC these days have USB 2.0 and yes, they are all indeed 'High Speed' (and powered). I should also add that I constantly copy my 25GB MP3 collection to backup disks and my other computers via USB 2, and can not tell the difference (at all) in speed in comparison to FireWire. It's the same thing, also as stable as I've never run into an error using USB 2.0 either. Not sure why so many people knock it. It's fast, stable and widely used. Even if the architecture is technically inferior to FireWire, the outcome is the same (fast and stable).
Back to the eMac, I've wanted to pick one of these up for a while, but again, that display would drive me up a wall. I must be very sensitive to flicker as I notice it every single time. Also, I was recently in DataVision (NYC) and saw a couple of eMacs setup there (the newest ones). When you looked at the PC CRTs setup in the background, they were much more crisp, very bright, showed deep, vibrant colors, rich contrast with positively zero flicker. These monitors were bundled with low-end Sony and HP PCs so they were not expensive. When I compared the eMac display next to it, you can't help but notice the slight washy haze over it, the less vibrant colors, that annoying flicker and the uneven borders (even after trying to straighten them out). So fine, Apple 'needs' to use cheap displays I guess to keep the cost down, but why not supply the appropriate drivers to enhance the image quality and more importantly, to enable a higher (and proper) refresh rate to get rid of the flicker?
I think people knock USB 2 here because it's too often promoted as a replacement for Firewire, or promoted as "faster" than Firewire. Firewire has its uses, and so does USB 2. For an MP3 player, USB 2 is fine. Firewire is also fine, but USB 2 will do the trick as well. For video editing, Firewire is much better than USB 2. I'm not saying USB 2 is bad, but it's not quite as good as Firewire, and it should live alongside it instead of displacing Firewire.
Personally, I've only looked at USB 2.0 as an upgrade to USB 1.1 - nothing else which was a huge standard. As far as I am concerned, the more 'high speed' standards out there the better. I like that I don't have to worry about whether my devices is USB 2 or FireWire since they are the same speed and reliability, so I really don't care which one I use.
USB 2.0 may have a slight edge simply because it's the standard high speed ports (usually equipped with MANY ports) on all PCs today (and the convenience of being backward compatible with the same port size/pins), where I would say only have of the PCs out there have FireWire. But, both my PC desktop and Notebook have USB 2 and FireWire both (Dell, IBM) and my (3rd) PowerBook which is on it's way will of course have both as well.
I think people knock USB 2 here because it's too often promoted as a replacement for Firewire, or promoted as "faster" than Firewire. Firewire has its uses, and so does USB 2. For an MP3 player, USB 2 is fine. Firewire is also fine, but USB 2 will do the trick as well. For video editing, Firewire is much better than USB 2. I'm not saying USB 2 is bad, but it's not quite as good as Firewire, and it should live alongside it instead of displacing Firewire.
Absolutley right, I did my "Graduate project on transmissionodHDTV over Ethernet" I could have modified it to a FireWire based network, FireWire (IEEE 1394a) provides conisitent bandwidth which is very important for transfering data stream having high bit rates.
Hey - I just bought one of these new eMacs. At $799. the price is great. It came with Panther pre-installed. All I had to do was plug it in, fill in my .mac info and its up and running. Will need some more memory. (128 MB is not enough). I'll have to poke around for some good deals.
The screen is fine. The keyboard is fine. The mouse is fine. The eMac is fine. I like the all-in-one form factor. No clutter on the desktop. Its much faster than the 400 MHz iMac that I'm upgrading from. The fast user swithcing feature is awesome. Makes things alot easier for sharing the eMac with my kids.
For the eMac cluster you could use Firewire ports. They are only 4 times faster then the ethernet, but you get two of them, so you could build some interesting topologies ( plus you could use the enet as well ).
Hmmm, an enet star, plus two firewire rings.
I think the eMac has really hit its price point. If you go into compusa there is nothing cheaper than the eMac, and its got everything ( ie: you dont _need_ any out of the box upgrades to make it useful ).
Comments
As for the eMac, Apple will never gain market share in dektops without an inexpensive tower. I've said it before, I said it again-Steve Jobs just doesnt get it. Now that Apple has the G5 they could easily sell a G4 tower for less than a grand............................................. ......
Originally posted by rustedborg
The eMac is supposed to sit between the iBook and the iMac in terms of performance. In fact, for a while there was little difference between an eMac and an iMac other than the monitor ... which was why the eMac was so great.
No, that's not exactly true. The eMac is supposed to be an education desktop. The only reason why it came into existence was because of the expense and fragility of the iMac G4. By its very nature, in fact, the iBook should really have parity with the iMac. And now it again does.
There isn't a huge gap in performance between the eMac and the iMac, but it's enough to differentiate the two on some basis other than just the type of screen. When the eMac first came out it was kind of weird and expensive - $1099 for a 700/CDRW I think, making it just a little bit less expensive than an iMac. At the time, everyone was saying to just buy an iMac because the eMac was only slightly less expensive. Now the eMac is $500 cheaper than the iMac on the low end and $700 cheaper on the high end. That makes it hard for a consumer to justify getting an iMac.
The eMac is Apple's bargain entry level computer. It's not meant to have all the latest features to compete with the higher end. It never will. It will also never be available at the prices of bargain basement PCs. Apple has too much R&D to pay for and has never tried to, or been able to compete on price.
For the average computer user, it's a very nice Mac. It has a nice all in one design, fast G4, Combo drive, Firewire and all the software one needs for the digital lifestyle at a new very attractive price of US$799.
I just wish Apple would stock all of their computers with more memory. 256MB should be the absolute minimum and it should all be on one module.
The review that said the eMac's screen was bright and had good color was comparing it to a flat panel iMac. It's true - CRTs are brighter, with truer color than LCDs. However, LCDs are far sharper and they are easier on the eyes, so the reviewer was merely pointing out the difference between a CRT and an LCD.
Firewire should not be sacrificed for USB 2.0. That would be really stupid. How would you connect an iPod? How would you do target disk mode? It's dumb, Firewire has been on every Mac for three years so there's absolutely NO reason to not include it. Besides it's better than USB 2.0 anyway.
Originally posted by Locomotive
Question. Several posters have said the eMac should have included USB 2.0. Should Apple just dump Firewire (save money) on it's 'consumer machines' in favor of USB 2.0?
Apple should use BOTH. Firewire 400 (while it "technically" has less transfer capacity than USB 2.0) is actually faster than USB 2.0 much of the time.
It's too technical for me to explain without sounding like an idiot, but if you do some reading about USB 2.0 you will find that it doesn't always transfer data at 480Mbps. Sometimes, depending on the computer and the peripheral that's connected, USB 2.0 can be just as slow as good old USB 1.0. On the other hand, FireWire 400 does an excellent job of maintaining 400Mbps.
Besides, I have a several external HDs, optical drives, and scanners that use Firewire ... so I don't want to lose those.
It says the 1Ghz eMac gets 1 more fps(frame per second) then the iMac. Now really thats not that much more then the iMac.... however when u compare their prices its a HUGE diffrence!
Anyway for $799 the eMac is a GREAT deal!
EDIT: o ya the eMac was the 1Ghz model and the iMac was the 1Ghz model also... (b4 iMac update)
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Sometimes USB 2.0 is just as slow as USB 1.0 because the naming scheme was changed. Now, when Apple says USB 2.0 they actually mean you're getting the high speed ports with a peak transfer rate of 480 Mbits/second. But recently, "USB 1.1" had its name changed to "USB 2.0" even though it still transfers at 12 Mbits/sec. Meanwhile, "USB 2.0" had its name changed to "USB 2.0 High Speed." So now, every single PC has USB 2.0 but not all have USB 2.0 High Speed. What a crock.
No, what you said is crock as well. First, that's what USB organization proposed. It was widely mocked on Slahdot and everywhere else. Second, what they really proposed was "high speed" vs "full speed", which was mocked too.
Most importantly, I am not aware of PC manufacturers (Apple included) or any other manufactueres labelling USB 1.1 as USB 2.0. If there are, it will be an anomaly rather than the norm. Since most computer manufacturers now use USB 2.0 already so this issue is moot.
Back to the eMac, I've wanted to pick one of these up for a while, but again, that display would drive me up a wall. I must be very sensitive to flicker as I notice it every single time. Also, I was recently in DataVision (NYC) and saw a couple of eMacs setup there (the newest ones). When you looked at the PC CRTs setup in the background, they were much more crisp, very bright, showed deep, vibrant colors, rich contrast with positively zero flicker. These monitors were bundled with low-end Sony and HP PCs so they were not expensive. When I compared the eMac display next to it, you can't help but notice the slight washy haze over it, the less vibrant colors, that annoying flicker and the uneven borders (even after trying to straighten them out). So fine, Apple 'needs' to use cheap displays I guess to keep the cost down, but why not supply the appropriate drivers to enhance the image quality and more importantly, to enable a higher (and proper) refresh rate to get rid of the flicker?
USB 2.0 may have a slight edge simply because it's the standard high speed ports (usually equipped with MANY ports) on all PCs today (and the convenience of being backward compatible with the same port size/pins), where I would say only have of the PCs out there have FireWire. But, both my PC desktop and Notebook have USB 2 and FireWire both (Dell, IBM) and my (3rd) PowerBook which is on it's way will of course have both as well.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I think people knock USB 2 here because it's too often promoted as a replacement for Firewire, or promoted as "faster" than Firewire. Firewire has its uses, and so does USB 2. For an MP3 player, USB 2 is fine. Firewire is also fine, but USB 2 will do the trick as well. For video editing, Firewire is much better than USB 2. I'm not saying USB 2 is bad, but it's not quite as good as Firewire, and it should live alongside it instead of displacing Firewire.
Absolutley right, I did my "Graduate project on transmissionodHDTV over Ethernet" I could have modified it to a FireWire based network, FireWire (IEEE 1394a) provides conisitent bandwidth which is very important for transfering data stream having high bit rates.
The screen is fine. The keyboard is fine. The mouse is fine. The eMac is fine. I like the all-in-one form factor. No clutter on the desktop. Its much faster than the 400 MHz iMac that I'm upgrading from. The fast user swithcing feature is awesome. Makes things alot easier for sharing the eMac with my kids.
Hmmm, an enet star, plus two firewire rings.
I think the eMac has really hit its price point. If you go into compusa there is nothing cheaper than the eMac, and its got everything ( ie: you dont _need_ any out of the box upgrades to make it useful ).