Couple of questions...do these eMac have a fan and if so, are they quiet? I'm hoping the power supply is not buzzy either.
Lastly, would my iSub work with this machine?
1 - eMacs do have a fan. Some say they are loud, others say they are not. It depends on what you're used to, I suppose.
2 - No buzzing power supplies to my knowledge.
3 - The iSub will work fine on the eMac.
I still want a FP iMac because they look so damn nice. But for the money, the eMac really is the better machine. Unless you really need a 17" or 20" LCD screen at a cost of $800-$1200 more.
The 15" LCD with a 1024x768 maximum resolution is not even close to the eMac. I can't figure out why Apple isn't using the wide-screen 15.2" screen the PowerBooks use with the 1280x960 resolution. Then even though it would cost $500 more for a iMac/Combo vs. the eMac/Combo, the screen resolution would not be the issue. Only CRT vs. LCD.
The CRT is still a huge negative, Satchmo, I agree with Escher, that this would be a better machine without the CRT achored to it. It would be smaller and lighter, and at least $100 dollars cheaper between savings on the component itself and the much reduced shipping/storage size/weight.
Who wouldn't buy a nice 'cube' or two for 599-699 ?
So close to a stunner, and still so very far...
Schools might like the hard-to-steal, easy-to-deploy aspects of the AIO, but consumers need something better.
Anything less than an LCD is below standard. Any 799 machine can include a 15" LCD -- which is the equal of a 17" CRT, but easier on the eyes, remember that the eMac only does 1152x870 and 1280x960 resolutions at a marginal 75hz refresh, 85hz is really the minimum for flicker free performance, and that makes the eMac's real world resolution a NON-trinitron moire-riddled 1024x768. I'd much rather have the native 1024x768 of a 15" LCD panel, than any of the eMac's resolutions. At the very least Apple should have used a trinitron tube. CRT=Poor show.
Apple may have an edu desktop, but they still don't have anything truly appealing for consumer desktop buyers.
OK folks, I'm prepared for the flames. Clearly, I'm missing something. This is a typical Apple update, which is to say, nothing to write home about. It is the smallest processor update they could manage. The graphics card still has an embarrassing, below industry standard 32MB. (At this point they have to be taking memory out of these cards.) For $800, you get the same size HD that is in MP3 players. For $1000, you still don't reach the low-end standard of 120GB. There is no standard wireless card or BT adaptor. In short, you would have to be very creative to come up with less of an update.
As for the 8X DVD burner, smoke and mirrors. That is nothing more than a means of distracting people from the fact that there is nothing to see here. It is likely cheaper for them to use these since they obviously purchased them in bulk for all of the desktop line, than to use two different parts, one slow and one fast. Besides, I am not at all convinced that DVD burning is even important at this range.
This does not give me hope for other updates. This tells me that the next iMac update might be incremental as well. Why is the eMac still graphics memory, HD, and yes, processor crippled? Where is the 1.33 GHz that is in the current PB? Where is the old 1.42 GHz? If PMs are about to go to 3GHz G5s, (and I believe they are), then why is the eMac fitted with a two year old 1.25?
I think some of you are just so glad to see something, that you would be happy about any sign of life from Cupertino. I have higher expectations and I will reserve my excitement for something more substantive.
[The new eMac] would be smaller and lighter, and at least $100 dollars cheaper between savings on the component itself and the much reduced shipping/storage size/weight.
I wouldn't even expect a lower price for the CRT-less eMac. I would be happy as long as I didn't have to pay more for ditching the CRT (like with a PowerMac G4!).
I wholeheartedly agree wrt (low) quality of the eMac's CRT. At least it's a flat CRT instead of the highly convex CRT on my Bondi iMac (which has been retired to storage). A flat CRT like this might be OK for a lab. But the eMac's low refresh rate at higher resolutions is a major negative. Dropping the internal CRT would be the cleanest, and IMO most desirable, solution to this problem.
OK folks, I'm prepared for the flames. Clearly, I'm missing something. This is a typical Apple update, which is to say, nothing to write home about. It is the smallest processor update they could manage. The graphics card still has an embarrassing, below industry standard 32MB. (At this point they have to be taking memory out of these cards.) For $800, you get the same size HD that is in MP3 players. For $1000, you still don't reach the low-end standard of 120GB. There is no standard wireless card or BT adaptor. In short, you would have to be very creative to come up with less of an update.
As for the 8X DVD burner, smoke and mirrors. That is nothing more than a means of distracting people from the fact that there is nothing to see here. It is likely cheaper for them to use these since they obviously purchased them in bulk for all of the desktop line, than to use two different parts, one slow and one fast. Besides, I am not at all convinced that DVD burning is even important at this range.
This does not give me hope for other updates. This tells me that the next iMac update might be incremental as well. Why is the eMac still graphics memory, HD, and yes, processor crippled? Where is the 1.33 GHz that is in the current PB? Where is the old 1.42 GHz? If PMs are about to go to 3GHz G5s, (and I believe they are), then why is the eMac fitted with a two year old 1.25?
I think some of you are just so glad to see something, that you would be happy about any sign of life from Cupertino. I have higher expectations and I will reserve my excitement for something more substantive.
I totally agree with you, but I didn't want to post anything negative because it seems everyone here is happy with the upgrade. 32MB video card (that is non-upgradeable, cmon' Apple, can't you make something modular like the Cube?) is really a shame. 40GB HD is barely cutting it. 256MB Ram is pathetic. Like Mac Voyer said, 1.25GHz G4 is really the least they could have done.
I can get a comparable Gateway 310XL for $799.99, which comes with a 2.8GHz P4 (400MHz FSB), 120GB HD, 512MB RAM, 64MB video card, PCI expansion, and 2 more USB 2.0 ports. About the only thing the eMac ($799.99 model) has on this is Firewire 400 which I doubt many buying this type of computer needs especially if they have USB 2.0.
Apple's clearly not attacking the low-end very aggressively, and given their recent track record, I'd expect these eMacs to go another 8-10 months before they're touched again, at which point they'll be a complete embarrassment, like the iMacs are now. Given their declining marketshare, I hoped they'd change their business model.
I guess Apple's really banking on the Mac OS X premium for convincing people to buy these, but I don't know if that works in the grand scheme of things. I suppose it works for getting Mac users to buy new Macs, but what about PC users or people who've never had a computer?
OK folks, I'm prepared for the flames. Clearly, I'm missing something. This is a typical Apple update, which is to say, nothing to write home about. It is the smallest processor update they could manage. The graphics card still has an embarrassing, below industry standard 32MB. (At this point they have to be taking memory out of these cards.) For $800, you get the same size HD that is in MP3 players. For $1000, you still don't reach the low-end standard of 120GB. There is no standard wireless card or BT adaptor. In short, you would have to be very creative to come up with less of an update.
As for the 8X DVD burner, smoke and mirrors. That is nothing more than a means of distracting people from the fact that there is nothing to see here. It is likely cheaper for them to use these since they obviously purchased them in bulk for all of the desktop line, than to use two different parts, one slow and one fast. Besides, I am not at all convinced that DVD burning is even important at this range.
This does not give me hope for other updates. This tells me that the next iMac update might be incremental as well. Why is the eMac still graphics memory, HD, and yes, processor crippled? Where is the 1.33 GHz that is in the current PB? Where is the old 1.42 GHz? If PMs are about to go to 3GHz G5s, (and I believe they are), then why is the eMac fitted with a two year old 1.25?
I think some of you are just so glad to see something, that you would be happy about any sign of life from Cupertino. I have higher expectations and I will reserve my excitement for something more substantive.
So many of the things you call out or ding the eMac for are things TOTALLY suited for who will be buying it. I mean, honestly...who gives a damn what "the other side" is offering? We do that too much here, sometimes (constantly hand-wringing over what others do or have, even if - in real life - it has no real meaning or bearing on the typical Mac user). Does your typical consumer/eMac target customer need 120GB? I'm a "pro" user (no jokes, please) and I've got TONS of Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign stuff on my PowerBook (and did on my G4 iMac as well) and barely manage to crack the 25-30GB barrier (and that's with a 10GB iTunes library also). Is a "consumer" home user going to notice - much less give a flying shit - if the eMac has 32MB or 64MB graphics? It's numbers. Numbers that look a certain way on paper, for probably 88% of the users out there.
I certainly never felt hamstrung by "only" 32MB graphics on my iMac G4. Most consumers probably won't be spending anywhere near - if at all - the amount of time I do in the Adobe stuff. I wouldn't expect them to.
As for the wireless/BT stuff, only a few of Apple's offerings come with that stuff stock (the higher end PowerBooks, really), so why should their $799 consumer offering come with it? Maybe it should, but I don't see this as a huge issue or affront to my Mac-using sensibilities.
I don't know. I still think this is a great, capable machine...at a great, affordable price. Most people - Mac users on that consumer/beginner/home user level - simply don't share our passion for tech specs, numbers, etc. and probably don't think much about it...until someone like you brings it up and blows their eMac-buying plans out of the water.
Most people just don't share our passion and knowledge about all this arcane, under-the-hood geek shit. And I think that's a perfectly okay thing.
If I wasn't completely sold on laptops - or was in a position to have to buy a Mac for a relative, a small office or a DTP outfit - I'd go with the eMac, hands down and no questions asked. The best bang for the buck - by far - in Apple's line-up. And more than adequate for 90% of the people out there and the things they'll be doing with it (surfing, e-mail, iLife, writing, Quicken, etc.).
For that other 10% or whatever, get a G5.
If the eMac came with all the things you'd like (1.42GHz G4, 120GB hard drive, Bluetooth and AirPort built-in, 64MB graphics, etc.), a) how much would it cost then? Certainly not $799 I'd imagine, and b) how much would those capabilities and features go TOTALLY unused?
I just see it differently, I guess. I think it holds a place and serves a market very well (I've used them and I dig them immensely). Hell, I probably overbought on my PowerBook, so...
So many of the things you call out or ding the eMac for are things TOTALLY suited for who will be buying it. I mean, honestly...who gives a damn what "the other side" is offering? We do that too much here, sometimes (constantly hand-wringing over what others do or have, even if - in real life - it has no real meaning or bearing on the typical Mac user). Does your typical consumer/eMac target customer need 120GB? I'm a "pro" user (no jokes, please) and I've got TONS of Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign stuff on my PowerBook (and did on my G4 iMac as well) and barely manage to crack the 25-30GB barrier (and that's with a 10GB iTunes library also). Is a "consumer" home user going to notice - much less give a flying shit - if the eMac has 32MB or 64MB graphics? It's numbers. Numbers that look a certain way on paper, for probably 88% of the users out there.
I certainly never felt hamstrung by "only" 32MB graphics on my iMac G4. Most consumers probably won't be spending anywhere near - if at all - the amount of time I do in the Adobe stuff. I wouldn't expect them to.
As for the wireless/BT stuff, only a few of Apple's offerings come with that stuff stock (the higher end PowerBooks, really), so why should their $799 consumer offering come with it? Maybe it should, but I don't see this as a huge issue or affront to my Mac-using sensibilities.
I don't know. I still think this is a great, capable machine...at a great, affordable price. Most people - Mac users on that consumer/beginner/home user level - simply don't share our passion for tech specs, numbers, etc. and probably don't think much about it...until someone like you brings it up and blows their eMac-buying plans out of the water.
Most people just don't share our passion and knowledge about all this arcane, under-the-hood geek shit. And I think that's a perfectly okay thing.
If I wasn't completely sold on laptops - or was in a position to have to buy a Mac for a relative, a small office or a DTP outfit - I'd go with the eMac, hands down and no questions asked. The best bang for the buck - by far - in Apple's line-up. And more than adequate for 90% of the people out there and the things they'll be doing with it (surfing, e-mail, iLife, writing, Quicken, etc.).
For that other 10% or whatever, get a G5.
If the eMac came with all the things you'd like (1.42GHz G4, 120GB hard drive, Bluetooth and AirPort built-in, 64MB graphics, etc.), a) how much would it cost then? Certainly not $799 I'd imagine, and b) how much would those capabilities and features go TOTALLY unused?
I just see it differently, I guess. I think it holds a place and serves a market very well (I've used them and I dig them immensely). Hell, I probably overbought on my PowerBook, so...
Great post, and really nothing more I can add to it. I'm speechless for once
I like the eMac update. I think the only thing missing is 64 MB graphics, which is basically the low-end standard for desktops.
-iBooks and the low end eMac should get 32 MB graphics
-12" PowerBook, high end eMac, low end G5, and 15" iMac should have 64 MB graphics
-15" and 17" PowerBooks, 17" and 20" iMacs, and high end PowerMacs should have 128 MB graphics, with a 256 MB option on the PowerMacs.
Maybe the eMacs will stay with 32 MB, while the iMac will distance itself (make it worth the huge premium over the eMac) by going with 64-128 MB graphics and a G5 in the next few weeks.
128 MB graphics aren't as awesomely awesome as they were a couple years ago. I can't find a Radeon 8500 variant with less than 64 MB of RAM unless I look at Apple's offerings. In fact, even finding a Radeon 9200 with 64 MB of VRAM is difficult - almost all Radeon 8500/9100/9200 cards now have 128 MB, and they are low-end by today's standards.
Other than the amusingly small amount of VRAM, this is a solid update.
Jesus, I use a completely capable 800 MHz G4 on a 100 MHz FSB, with "only" 32 MB's of VRAM and 512 MB's of RAM...and I get along just fine. I have a 60 GB internal and a 160 GB external drive, but that's because I do video work and have tons of music.
This new eMac is 450 MHz faster than my computer, with the same base RAM as what mine had, with a BETTER FSB, larger screen, and has the option for a superdrive at 999 or 899 for education!
My computer was 1800 dollars (US) when I bought it at its introduction about 2 years and a half ago. The same machine is now available for half the price, and nearly 40% faster in speed.
I can get a comparable Gateway 310XL for $799.99, which comes with a 2.8GHz P4 (400MHz FSB), 120GB HD, 512MB RAM, 64MB video card, PCI expansion, and 2 more USB 2.0 ports. About the only thing the eMac ($799.99 model) has on this is Firewire 400 which I doubt many buying this type of computer needs especially if they have USB 2.0.
Did you just say "comparable Gateway?" There's a reason they're imploding, you know.
As you pointed out no FW. That's a PCI card. Wireless would require a PCI card, which means sucky antenna placement and professional installation (for most people). Bluetooth? Another PCI card, and another antenna in a useless location. So by the time you're caught up to the eMac, you have as many slots free as it does and you're out a fair amount of money (more than you'd be if you added those BTO options to an eMac, for certain).
The 2.8GHz CPU and 120GB drive are limited time only specials. Normally it's 2.6GHz and 80GB. The 310XL is the top of its line, too, so it looks like 120GB isn't actually the absolute minimum for a low end PC. It's a limited-time-only way for Gateway to get someone to please buy their machine! Please?!
It gets better: The Gateway has Intel onboard graphics, which the eMac's accelerator will destroy, and it has no graphics RAM. The "up to 64MB" (note the "up to" qualifier in the detailed specs) is how much it can reserve out of main RAM. So, actually, it looks like the eMac stomps the 310XL in the graphics department.
And you know what's funny? People who don't know from tech specs will notice this, because it'll come out in actual performance, which is what's meaningful to most people. People who really do go spelunking will find it out. But people who know just enough to be misled by "technical specs" are going to end up getting screwed, and giving bad advice to people who might just buy the better machine if left to their own devices. In fact, I'd venture that this is exactly what Gateway is counting on.
Moving right along... you'll have to buy the antivirus software, since you only get a 90-day demo. You get XP Home, which is junk. You get next to no bundled software (MS Works?! ), as opposed to the eMac, which comes with a huge bundle of software. Is software worth nothing?
Quote:
Apple's clearly not attacking the low-end very aggressively
I beg to differ. Once you cut through the hype, and look at the typical product specs, the eMac looks pretty damn good. Weaker in a couple of areas, but stronger in many.
Well, be fair, Messiahtosh. You have a 15" iMac, which is $1300 right now with specs not much better than your current one. The $1800 iMac is pretty nice, so if you spent that same money now you'd get a bigger screen, better graphics, and a number of other refinements.
What's funny is that the $999 eMac is quite similar to the $1799 iMac. But last I checked, even with the fairly high LCD prices, a 17" LCD didn't cost $800.
Well, be fair, Messiahtosh. You have a 15" iMac, which is $1300 right now with specs not much better than your current one. The $1800 iMac is pretty nice, so if you spent that same money now you'd get a bigger screen, better graphics, and a number of other refinements.
What's funny is that the $999 eMac is quite similar to the $1799 iMac. But last I checked, even with the fairly high LCD prices, a 17" LCD didn't cost $800.
My point was that my 2 year old technology can be bested for less than half the price I paid for it.
Current technology (17" iMac) can be equaled by another product that costs about half the price (Superdrive eMac).
You are right, and they will be updated shortly. Why do you post such things? 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.
The fan is a big slow one. It is quite loud, but is thermally controlled and has a low pitched sound ( not whiney ). The net result is that I can leave my eMac on 24hrs in my bedroom, and not notice it when Im sleeping. Once you get it do something it gets loud again.
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?
Its easy to take Intels marketing money to subsidise your business, but it costs real bucks to put those features into a system ( because nobody else does it you gotta build it yourself ). Putting them into high end machines is no big deal, but try to find a 799 machine that does it. The only aspect about my emac 800 ( bought it two weeks ago ) that I dont like is the PC133 memory. Trying to find sdram dimms is tough, they are all so expensive.
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) It's just a typo.
3) It runs 800x600 fairly well, but 1024x768 looks like utter crap on the old iMacs. Have you tried using it? There's an awful moire pattern. And it only does 1024 at 75 Hz... 800x600 is at 90 Hz.
12) No, it doesn't. Maybe if all you use is Mail, but even a web browser will tax the poor old thing. Better to leave it with OS 8.6 or 9.
EDIT: Changed it to be less hostile because I didn't want to be rude.
Comments
But I'm stretchin' for negatives at this point.
Originally posted by satchmo
Couple of questions...do these eMac have a fan and if so, are they quiet? I'm hoping the power supply is not buzzy either.
Lastly, would my iSub work with this machine?
1 - eMacs do have a fan. Some say they are loud, others say they are not. It depends on what you're used to, I suppose.
2 - No buzzing power supplies to my knowledge.
3 - The iSub will work fine on the eMac.
I still want a FP iMac because they look so damn nice. But for the money, the eMac really is the better machine. Unless you really need a 17" or 20" LCD screen at a cost of $800-$1200 more.
The 15" LCD with a 1024x768 maximum resolution is not even close to the eMac. I can't figure out why Apple isn't using the wide-screen 15.2" screen the PowerBooks use with the 1280x960 resolution. Then even though it would cost $500 more for a iMac/Combo vs. the eMac/Combo, the screen resolution would not be the issue. Only CRT vs. LCD.
Who wouldn't buy a nice 'cube' or two for 599-699 ?
So close to a stunner, and still so very far...
Schools might like the hard-to-steal, easy-to-deploy aspects of the AIO, but consumers need something better.
Anything less than an LCD is below standard. Any 799 machine can include a 15" LCD -- which is the equal of a 17" CRT, but easier on the eyes, remember that the eMac only does 1152x870 and 1280x960 resolutions at a marginal 75hz refresh, 85hz is really the minimum for flicker free performance, and that makes the eMac's real world resolution a NON-trinitron moire-riddled 1024x768. I'd much rather have the native 1024x768 of a 15" LCD panel, than any of the eMac's resolutions. At the very least Apple should have used a trinitron tube. CRT=Poor show.
Apple may have an edu desktop, but they still don't have anything truly appealing for consumer desktop buyers.
As for the 8X DVD burner, smoke and mirrors. That is nothing more than a means of distracting people from the fact that there is nothing to see here. It is likely cheaper for them to use these since they obviously purchased them in bulk for all of the desktop line, than to use two different parts, one slow and one fast. Besides, I am not at all convinced that DVD burning is even important at this range.
This does not give me hope for other updates. This tells me that the next iMac update might be incremental as well. Why is the eMac still graphics memory, HD, and yes, processor crippled? Where is the 1.33 GHz that is in the current PB? Where is the old 1.42 GHz? If PMs are about to go to 3GHz G5s, (and I believe they are), then why is the eMac fitted with a two year old 1.25?
I think some of you are just so glad to see something, that you would be happy about any sign of life from Cupertino. I have higher expectations and I will reserve my excitement for something more substantive.
Originally posted by Matsu
[The new eMac] would be smaller and lighter, and at least $100 dollars cheaper between savings on the component itself and the much reduced shipping/storage size/weight.
I wouldn't even expect a lower price for the CRT-less eMac. I would be happy as long as I didn't have to pay more for ditching the CRT (like with a PowerMac G4!).
I wholeheartedly agree wrt (low) quality of the eMac's CRT. At least it's a flat CRT instead of the highly convex CRT on my Bondi iMac (which has been retired to storage). A flat CRT like this might be OK for a lab. But the eMac's low refresh rate at higher resolutions is a major negative. Dropping the internal CRT would be the cleanest, and IMO most desirable, solution to this problem.
Escher
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
OK folks, I'm prepared for the flames. Clearly, I'm missing something. This is a typical Apple update, which is to say, nothing to write home about. It is the smallest processor update they could manage. The graphics card still has an embarrassing, below industry standard 32MB. (At this point they have to be taking memory out of these cards.) For $800, you get the same size HD that is in MP3 players. For $1000, you still don't reach the low-end standard of 120GB. There is no standard wireless card or BT adaptor. In short, you would have to be very creative to come up with less of an update.
As for the 8X DVD burner, smoke and mirrors. That is nothing more than a means of distracting people from the fact that there is nothing to see here. It is likely cheaper for them to use these since they obviously purchased them in bulk for all of the desktop line, than to use two different parts, one slow and one fast. Besides, I am not at all convinced that DVD burning is even important at this range.
This does not give me hope for other updates. This tells me that the next iMac update might be incremental as well. Why is the eMac still graphics memory, HD, and yes, processor crippled? Where is the 1.33 GHz that is in the current PB? Where is the old 1.42 GHz? If PMs are about to go to 3GHz G5s, (and I believe they are), then why is the eMac fitted with a two year old 1.25?
I think some of you are just so glad to see something, that you would be happy about any sign of life from Cupertino. I have higher expectations and I will reserve my excitement for something more substantive.
I totally agree with you, but I didn't want to post anything negative because it seems everyone here is happy with the upgrade. 32MB video card (that is non-upgradeable, cmon' Apple, can't you make something modular like the Cube?) is really a shame. 40GB HD is barely cutting it. 256MB Ram is pathetic. Like Mac Voyer said, 1.25GHz G4 is really the least they could have done.
I can get a comparable Gateway 310XL for $799.99, which comes with a 2.8GHz P4 (400MHz FSB), 120GB HD, 512MB RAM, 64MB video card, PCI expansion, and 2 more USB 2.0 ports. About the only thing the eMac ($799.99 model) has on this is Firewire 400 which I doubt many buying this type of computer needs especially if they have USB 2.0.
Apple's clearly not attacking the low-end very aggressively, and given their recent track record, I'd expect these eMacs to go another 8-10 months before they're touched again, at which point they'll be a complete embarrassment, like the iMacs are now. Given their declining marketshare, I hoped they'd change their business model.
I guess Apple's really banking on the Mac OS X premium for convincing people to buy these, but I don't know if that works in the grand scheme of things. I suppose it works for getting Mac users to buy new Macs, but what about PC users or people who've never had a computer?
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
OK folks, I'm prepared for the flames. Clearly, I'm missing something. This is a typical Apple update, which is to say, nothing to write home about. It is the smallest processor update they could manage. The graphics card still has an embarrassing, below industry standard 32MB. (At this point they have to be taking memory out of these cards.) For $800, you get the same size HD that is in MP3 players. For $1000, you still don't reach the low-end standard of 120GB. There is no standard wireless card or BT adaptor. In short, you would have to be very creative to come up with less of an update.
As for the 8X DVD burner, smoke and mirrors. That is nothing more than a means of distracting people from the fact that there is nothing to see here. It is likely cheaper for them to use these since they obviously purchased them in bulk for all of the desktop line, than to use two different parts, one slow and one fast. Besides, I am not at all convinced that DVD burning is even important at this range.
This does not give me hope for other updates. This tells me that the next iMac update might be incremental as well. Why is the eMac still graphics memory, HD, and yes, processor crippled? Where is the 1.33 GHz that is in the current PB? Where is the old 1.42 GHz? If PMs are about to go to 3GHz G5s, (and I believe they are), then why is the eMac fitted with a two year old 1.25?
I think some of you are just so glad to see something, that you would be happy about any sign of life from Cupertino. I have higher expectations and I will reserve my excitement for something more substantive.
So many of the things you call out or ding the eMac for are things TOTALLY suited for who will be buying it. I mean, honestly...who gives a damn what "the other side" is offering? We do that too much here, sometimes (constantly hand-wringing over what others do or have, even if - in real life - it has no real meaning or bearing on the typical Mac user). Does your typical consumer/eMac target customer need 120GB? I'm a "pro" user (no jokes, please) and I've got TONS of Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign stuff on my PowerBook (and did on my G4 iMac as well) and barely manage to crack the 25-30GB barrier (and that's with a 10GB iTunes library also). Is a "consumer" home user going to notice - much less give a flying shit - if the eMac has 32MB or 64MB graphics? It's numbers. Numbers that look a certain way on paper, for probably 88% of the users out there.
I certainly never felt hamstrung by "only" 32MB graphics on my iMac G4. Most consumers probably won't be spending anywhere near - if at all - the amount of time I do in the Adobe stuff. I wouldn't expect them to.
As for the wireless/BT stuff, only a few of Apple's offerings come with that stuff stock (the higher end PowerBooks, really), so why should their $799 consumer offering come with it? Maybe it should, but I don't see this as a huge issue or affront to my Mac-using sensibilities.
I don't know. I still think this is a great, capable machine...at a great, affordable price. Most people - Mac users on that consumer/beginner/home user level - simply don't share our passion for tech specs, numbers, etc. and probably don't think much about it...until someone like you brings it up and blows their eMac-buying plans out of the water.
Most people just don't share our passion and knowledge about all this arcane, under-the-hood geek shit. And I think that's a perfectly okay thing.
If I wasn't completely sold on laptops - or was in a position to have to buy a Mac for a relative, a small office or a DTP outfit - I'd go with the eMac, hands down and no questions asked. The best bang for the buck - by far - in Apple's line-up. And more than adequate for 90% of the people out there and the things they'll be doing with it (surfing, e-mail, iLife, writing, Quicken, etc.).
For that other 10% or whatever, get a G5.
If the eMac came with all the things you'd like (1.42GHz G4, 120GB hard drive, Bluetooth and AirPort built-in, 64MB graphics, etc.), a) how much would it cost then? Certainly not $799 I'd imagine, and b) how much would those capabilities and features go TOTALLY unused?
I just see it differently, I guess. I think it holds a place and serves a market very well (I've used them and I dig them immensely). Hell, I probably overbought on my PowerBook, so...
Originally posted by pscates
So many of the things you call out or ding the eMac for are things TOTALLY suited for who will be buying it. I mean, honestly...who gives a damn what "the other side" is offering? We do that too much here, sometimes (constantly hand-wringing over what others do or have, even if - in real life - it has no real meaning or bearing on the typical Mac user). Does your typical consumer/eMac target customer need 120GB? I'm a "pro" user (no jokes, please) and I've got TONS of Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign stuff on my PowerBook (and did on my G4 iMac as well) and barely manage to crack the 25-30GB barrier (and that's with a 10GB iTunes library also). Is a "consumer" home user going to notice - much less give a flying shit - if the eMac has 32MB or 64MB graphics? It's numbers. Numbers that look a certain way on paper, for probably 88% of the users out there.
I certainly never felt hamstrung by "only" 32MB graphics on my iMac G4. Most consumers probably won't be spending anywhere near - if at all - the amount of time I do in the Adobe stuff. I wouldn't expect them to.
As for the wireless/BT stuff, only a few of Apple's offerings come with that stuff stock (the higher end PowerBooks, really), so why should their $799 consumer offering come with it? Maybe it should, but I don't see this as a huge issue or affront to my Mac-using sensibilities.
I don't know. I still think this is a great, capable machine...at a great, affordable price. Most people - Mac users on that consumer/beginner/home user level - simply don't share our passion for tech specs, numbers, etc. and probably don't think much about it...until someone like you brings it up and blows their eMac-buying plans out of the water.
Most people just don't share our passion and knowledge about all this arcane, under-the-hood geek shit. And I think that's a perfectly okay thing.
If I wasn't completely sold on laptops - or was in a position to have to buy a Mac for a relative, a small office or a DTP outfit - I'd go with the eMac, hands down and no questions asked. The best bang for the buck - by far - in Apple's line-up. And more than adequate for 90% of the people out there and the things they'll be doing with it (surfing, e-mail, iLife, writing, Quicken, etc.).
For that other 10% or whatever, get a G5.
If the eMac came with all the things you'd like (1.42GHz G4, 120GB hard drive, Bluetooth and AirPort built-in, 64MB graphics, etc.), a) how much would it cost then? Certainly not $799 I'd imagine, and b) how much would those capabilities and features go TOTALLY unused?
I just see it differently, I guess. I think it holds a place and serves a market very well (I've used them and I dig them immensely). Hell, I probably overbought on my PowerBook, so...
Great post, and really nothing more I can add to it. I'm speechless for once
-iBooks and the low end eMac should get 32 MB graphics
-12" PowerBook, high end eMac, low end G5, and 15" iMac should have 64 MB graphics
-15" and 17" PowerBooks, 17" and 20" iMacs, and high end PowerMacs should have 128 MB graphics, with a 256 MB option on the PowerMacs.
Maybe the eMacs will stay with 32 MB, while the iMac will distance itself (make it worth the huge premium over the eMac) by going with 64-128 MB graphics and a G5 in the next few weeks.
128 MB graphics aren't as awesomely awesome as they were a couple years ago. I can't find a Radeon 8500 variant with less than 64 MB of RAM unless I look at Apple's offerings. In fact, even finding a Radeon 9200 with 64 MB of VRAM is difficult - almost all Radeon 8500/9100/9200 cards now have 128 MB, and they are low-end by today's standards.
Other than the amusingly small amount of VRAM, this is a solid update.
This new eMac is 450 MHz faster than my computer, with the same base RAM as what mine had, with a BETTER FSB, larger screen, and has the option for a superdrive at 999 or 899 for education!
My computer was 1800 dollars (US) when I bought it at its introduction about 2 years and a half ago. The same machine is now available for half the price, and nearly 40% faster in speed.
I call that progress. Amazing job Apple!
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I call that progress. Amazing job Apple!
You're just saying that because you are married to SJ, and want a raise in your allowance. Sit down.
Originally posted by eVo
I can get a comparable Gateway 310XL for $799.99, which comes with a 2.8GHz P4 (400MHz FSB), 120GB HD, 512MB RAM, 64MB video card, PCI expansion, and 2 more USB 2.0 ports. About the only thing the eMac ($799.99 model) has on this is Firewire 400 which I doubt many buying this type of computer needs especially if they have USB 2.0.
Did you just say "comparable Gateway?"
As you pointed out no FW. That's a PCI card. Wireless would require a PCI card, which means sucky antenna placement and professional installation (for most people). Bluetooth? Another PCI card, and another antenna in a useless location. So by the time you're caught up to the eMac, you have as many slots free as it does and you're out a fair amount of money (more than you'd be if you added those BTO options to an eMac, for certain).
The 2.8GHz CPU and 120GB drive are limited time only specials. Normally it's 2.6GHz and 80GB. The 310XL is the top of its line, too, so it looks like 120GB isn't actually the absolute minimum for a low end PC. It's a limited-time-only way for Gateway to get someone to please buy their machine! Please?!
It gets better: The Gateway has Intel onboard graphics, which the eMac's accelerator will destroy, and it has no graphics RAM. The "up to 64MB" (note the "up to" qualifier in the detailed specs) is how much it can reserve out of main RAM. So, actually, it looks like the eMac stomps the 310XL in the graphics department.
And you know what's funny? People who don't know from tech specs will notice this, because it'll come out in actual performance, which is what's meaningful to most people. People who really do go spelunking will find it out. But people who know just enough to be misled by "technical specs" are going to end up getting screwed, and giving bad advice to people who might just buy the better machine if left to their own devices. In fact, I'd venture that this is exactly what Gateway is counting on.
Moving right along... you'll have to buy the antivirus software, since you only get a 90-day demo. You get XP Home, which is junk. You get next to no bundled software (MS Works?!
Apple's clearly not attacking the low-end very aggressively
I beg to differ. Once you cut through the hype, and look at the typical product specs, the eMac looks pretty damn good. Weaker in a couple of areas, but stronger in many.
What's funny is that the $999 eMac is quite similar to the $1799 iMac. But last I checked, even with the fairly high LCD prices, a 17" LCD didn't cost $800.
Originally posted by Luca
Well, be fair, Messiahtosh. You have a 15" iMac, which is $1300 right now with specs not much better than your current one. The $1800 iMac is pretty nice, so if you spent that same money now you'd get a bigger screen, better graphics, and a number of other refinements.
What's funny is that the $999 eMac is quite similar to the $1799 iMac. But last I checked, even with the fairly high LCD prices, a 17" LCD didn't cost $800.
My point was that my 2 year old technology can be bested for less than half the price I paid for it.
Originally posted by Luca
Current technology (17" iMac) can be equaled by another product that costs about half the price (Superdrive eMac).
You are right, and they will be updated shortly. Why do you post such things? 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.
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?
Its easy to take Intels marketing money to subsidise your business, but it costs real bucks to put those features into a system ( because nobody else does it you gotta build it yourself ). Putting them into high end machines is no big deal, but try to find a 799 machine that does it. The only aspect about my emac 800 ( bought it two weeks ago ) that I dont like is the PC133 memory. Trying to find sdram dimms is tough, they are all so expensive.
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.
Originally posted by pscates
Man, I totally would! THAT would be a worthwhile, noticeable jump...in every way!
1) 233MHz G4 > 1.25GHz G4 (I mean, that alone!)
2) 4-6MB graphics > 32MB
3) 15" screen @ 800x600 > 17" flat screen @ 5 good choices
4) CD-ROM > Combo or SuperDrive
5) No FireWire > FireWire
6) No AirPort > AirPort Extreme
7) USB 1.1 > USB 2.0
8) 6GB hard drive > 40 or 80GB
9) Hockey puck > Optical Pro mouse
10) Small keyboard > larger, full-size/key layout
11) Small, chintzy speakers > fuller-sounding eMac speakers (which sound surprisingly good for built-ins!)
You can get that little stand too, for cool tilt/swivel capability, and to raise it to a more comfortable eye-level.
Most important of all: Panther/OS X capable and friendly. I say "do it".
I certainly would...that's a great machine at a great price!!!
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) It's just a typo.
3) It runs 800x600 fairly well, but 1024x768 looks like utter crap on the old iMacs. Have you tried using it? There's an awful moire pattern. And it only does 1024 at 75 Hz... 800x600 is at 90 Hz.
12) No, it doesn't. Maybe if all you use is Mail, but even a web browser will tax the poor old thing. Better to leave it with OS 8.6 or 9.
EDIT: Changed it to be less hostile because I didn't want to be rude.
Originally posted by Luca
EDIT: Changed it to be less hostile because I didn't want to be rude.
Hmm, seem to be acting that way a lot these days.