Anyone seen eMac's screen up close?

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
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.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:

    <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.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    prestonpreston Posts: 219member
    Informative posts, thank you, you've just made my decision to stay the heck away from the eMac.



    thanks!



    I'll keep my Dell Trinitron at 1280x1024 & 85hz and buy a powermac



    Pres
  • Reply 4 of 24
    macsrgood4umacsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member
    Not Trinitron.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    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...
  • Reply 6 of 24
    macskickassmacskickass Posts: 108member
    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?
  • Reply 7 of 24
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Favorably. Unless you see them side by side, you wouldn't think the eMac is any larger.
  • Reply 8 of 24
    spotbugspotbug Posts: 361member
    [quote]Originally posted by agent302:

    <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>
  • Reply 9 of 24
    macskickassmacskickass Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by spotbug:

    <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>
  • Reply 10 of 24
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    [quote]Originally posted by spotbug:

    <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.
  • Reply 11 of 24
    b8rtm8nnb8rtm8nn Posts: 55member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    ibrowseibrowse Posts: 1,749member
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by b8rtm8nn:

    <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.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by iBrowse:

    <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.
  • Reply 15 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <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?
  • Reply 16 of 24
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    [quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:

    <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?
  • Reply 17 of 24
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:

    <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...
  • Reply 18 of 24
    scadboyscadboy Posts: 189member
    [quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:

    <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"
  • Reply 19 of 24
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]Most computers now come with 19 inch CRT's. Shouldn't the eMac's as well?<hr></blockquote>



    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!"



  • Reply 20 of 24
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    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.



Sign In or Register to comment.