It really looks like a great buy vs. the iMac. It's got me thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I saw it briefly, and the main thing I noticed is that the refresh rate is really bad at 1280x960 (at least to me). I turned the res down to 1152x864, and all was fine, but that in many ways minimizes the eMacs resolution advantage over the iMac.
Even at 1152x864, the refresh is a good 80hz, but not a truly flicker free 85hz+. I find that I can detect anything under this number, and I wonder if I would notice it on the eMac.
Just saw the eMac today for the first time. It looks great in person. I didn't like it when I first saw the pics on Apple.com, but it shines in real life.
The screen is nice, but it seems a little inset...you'll know what I mean when you see it. It's also a lot smaller than I thought.
I just noticed today that the face of the eMac is a square...that's kinda neat...
I havnet seen what yet in person but i hope to soon. They seem like a pretty good value.
72 Hz for 1280x960 is ok. My setup is 1280x1024 at 75 Hz so thats not much of a difference but I would really prefer 85Hz. Anything below 75 is just terrible, 72 is probably close enoguh though to be barely acceptable
Eugene how does the size of the eMac compare to the old iMac?
Most 17" CRTs display 1280x1024 and many support 1280x960 as well but the former is the standard.
The iMac however only supports 1280x960 as its highest resolution.
It's kind of weird I know. The thing is for all displays in theory it should be 1280x960 since it is the propper 4:3 ratio just like 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 etc. 1280x1024 is something like 5:4 if memory serves me correct.
So in reality the eMac is using the resolution that makes more sense even though its less standard.
Actually, 1280x960 is the same proportion as 1024x768 (4:3). 1280x1024 is 5:4. I've always actually wondered why screens aren't 1280x960, rather than the other way around.
We are evaluating the eMac, and I prefer the iMac screen. It is obvious they kept the quality lower in the screen since it was built for education primarily, where cost is a big issue.
The eMac seems like a great little machine, but whenever I see pictures of it, it seems that it's 'butt' sticks out kinda far compared to the old iMac's. I don't know, I hope to go visit the Apple Store soon to see one close up.
<strong>We are evaluating the eMac, and I prefer the iMac screen. It is obvious they kept the quality lower in the screen since it was built for education primarily, where cost is a big issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The LCD iMac or CRT? If you're talking about the CRT iMacs, I find the eMac's screen quality much better.
<strong>The eMac seems like a great little machine, but whenever I see pictures of it, it seems that it's 'butt' sticks out kinda far compared to the old iMac's. I don't know, I hope to go visit the Apple Store soon to see one close up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most computers now come with 19 inch CRT's. Shouldn't the eMac's as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, I thought the smallness was a benefit. And most computers do not come with 19" monitors...Dell's default monitor on even its high-end is a non-flat 17" monitor...HP seems to be shying away from bundling monitors...Sony is still 17"...only Gateway is pushing large monitors (LCDs even) in default configs...
Comments
<strong>A couple of questions regarding the eMac.
Is it a Trinitron tube?
How sharp are the corners of the tube?
Is it bright and with good contrast?
It really looks like a great buy vs. the iMac. It's got me thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I saw it briefly, and the main thing I noticed is that the refresh rate is really bad at 1280x960 (at least to me). I turned the res down to 1152x864, and all was fine, but that in many ways minimizes the eMacs resolution advantage over the iMac.
thanks!
I'll keep my Dell Trinitron at 1280x1024 & 85hz and buy a powermac
Pres
The screen is nice, but it seems a little inset...you'll know what I mean when you see it. It's also a lot smaller than I thought.
I just noticed today that the face of the eMac is a square...that's kinda neat...
72 Hz for 1280x960 is ok. My setup is 1280x1024 at 75 Hz so thats not much of a difference but I would really prefer 85Hz. Anything below 75 is just terrible, 72 is probably close enoguh though to be barely acceptable
Eugene how does the size of the eMac compare to the old iMac?
<strong>1280x960</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does the eMac have this strange resolution? Shouldn't it be 1280x1024? Is the screen an odd size?
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: spotbug ]</p>
<strong>
Why does the eMac have this strange resolution? Shouldn't it be 1280x1024? Is the screen an odd size?
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: spotbug ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most 17" CRTs display 1280x1024 and many support 1280x960 as well but the former is the standard.
The iMac however only supports 1280x960 as its highest resolution.
It's kind of weird I know. The thing is for all displays in theory it should be 1280x960 since it is the propper 4:3 ratio just like 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 etc. 1280x1024 is something like 5:4 if memory serves me correct.
So in reality the eMac is using the resolution that makes more sense even though its less standard.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>
<strong>
Why does the eMac have this strange resolution? Shouldn't it be 1280x1024? Is the screen an odd size?
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: spotbug ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, 1280x960 is the same proportion as 1024x768 (4:3). 1280x1024 is 5:4. I've always actually wondered why screens aren't 1280x960, rather than the other way around.
<strong>We are evaluating the eMac, and I prefer the iMac screen. It is obvious they kept the quality lower in the screen since it was built for education primarily, where cost is a big issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The LCD iMac or CRT? If you're talking about the CRT iMacs, I find the eMac's screen quality much better.
<strong>The eMac seems like a great little machine, but whenever I see pictures of it, it seems that it's 'butt' sticks out kinda far compared to the old iMac's. I don't know, I hope to go visit the Apple Store soon to see one close up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah, it really doesn't stick out much.
<strong>
The screen is nice, but it seems a little inset...you'll know what I mean when you see it. It's also a lot smaller than I thought.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most computers now come with 19 inch CRT's. Shouldn't the eMac's as well?
<strong>
Most computers now come with 19 inch CRT's. Shouldn't the eMac's as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
19" CRTs are a bit of a pain. :eek: The eMac weighs enough already, does it not? Would you really want a 70 pound machine?
<strong>
Most computers now come with 19 inch CRT's. Shouldn't the eMac's as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, I thought the smallness was a benefit. And most computers do not come with 19" monitors...Dell's default monitor on even its high-end is a non-flat 17" monitor...HP seems to be shying away from bundling monitors...Sony is still 17"...only Gateway is pushing large monitors (LCDs even) in default configs...
<strong>
Most computers now come with 19 inch CRT's. Shouldn't the eMac's as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Crikey, if they put in a 24" display you'd ask for 26"
Hehe.
1999: "We want a 17" iMac!"
2000: "We want a G4 iMac!"
2001: "We want an LCD iMac!"
2002: "Here's an LCD G4 iMac and 17" eMac"
"We want a 19" eMac!"
EXACTLY, radar! You beat me to it.
Apple could release a 22" Cinema Display-based G6 iMac tomorrow at 2GHz, and someone here would still find something wrong with it and bitch.