Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Revises eMac

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the flatscreen-would-rule dept.

Desktops (Apple) 223

RadRafe writes "Today Apple revised the eMac. It now sports a 1.25 GHz G4 processor, DDR RAM, and Radeon 9200 graphics. The Combo Drive model has twice as much RAM as before, and the SuperDrive model now costs just a grand. This is the first consumer Mac update in five months."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8855889)

Anyone know this machine with the 1.25 GHz G4 processor fares against the new Intel 3.2Ghz processor with 1Gb RAM?

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (2, Informative)

PretzelBat (770907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856075)

This website has a test that relates to your question: Apple vs. Mac Benchmark (Barefeats.com) [barefeats.com]

Although it doesn't show a direct comparison of the systems you mentioned, you'll notice that the P4 3.0 GHz just barely loses to a G4 1.42 (MP!) system in most of the tests and beats a G5 at 1.8 MHz in about half the tests.

This speaks well of Apple for processor cycle efficiency, but I would wager that a Pentium 3.2 would outperform a G4 1.25 by quite a lot.

Note that cross-system/OS comparisons must always be taken with a large dose of salt!

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856275)

Even if those benchmarks were true: An Apple 2.0GHz G5 machine at $3000 does not give me three times the performance of a Dell 3.0GHz P4 machine at $800.

Having said that, I still don't believe them - the inconsistency of the results seems very artificial. The G5 didn't even win all of the benchmarks.

It's also amusing how the G5's all seem to come last in the videogame framerate tests...

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856318)

Note that cross-system/OS comparisons must always be taken with a large dose of salt!
And are irrelevent to anybody who'd consider buying an eMac. These are people who just want to run basic Mac stuff and don't care about performance -- if they did, they'd look at something fancier.

The Mac-versus-PC performance debate has always been kind of pointless. People buy Macs because they like them, or because they think they're more usable, not because they care about the architectural superiority of the PowerPC chip. People buy PCs because they're cheaper, or because they need low-level compatibility, not because they have a misguided love of Intel technology.

The issue is particularly irrelevent for people who aren't performance conscious. A 1Ghz PC may have a lot less computing power than a 1Ghz Mac, but it still has a lot more than most people need.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856510)

Thanks for the link - it seems like their method of displaying the results is quite confusing ... sometime efficiency is displayed by longer lines, sometimes by shorter lines - easy to get caught out.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (3, Informative)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856108)

Anyone know this machine with the 1.25 GHz G4 processor fares against the new Intel 3.2Ghz processor with 1Gb RAM?

The 1.25Ghz G4 fares extremely well - It costs a lot less!

While the P4 3.2 costs between $300 and $400 just fo rthe chip, this $800 unit includes the 1.25 G4, Combo drive, 40GB hd, 256K Ram, CRT built in custom housing, video, networking, USB 2, Firewire800, Airport Extreme upgrade path, Bluetooth upgrade path, OS X Jaguar, iLife (Garageband, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes) and the cache of owning an Apple.

You can check out this [aceshardware.com] review of the 1.25 Ghz G4 when it first came out and this [hwextreme.com] review of the P4 3.2Ghz vs. an Athlon

Correction (2, Informative)

wheresdrew (735202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856175)

The eMac has Firewire 400, not 800.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0, Troll)

yomegaman (516565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856243)

If you're going to throw around words like "cachet" you could at least spell them correctly. Not much cachet in being illiterate, no matter what type of computer you use...

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856402)

eat a dick.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0, Flamebait)

yomegaman (516565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856446)

You're just making it worse for yourself, amichalo. With each post you look more and more foolish. It's obvious that deep down you know you overspent for an underpowered computer, and no amount of unsupported assertions about how OSX is "so much better" than anything else or bad "M$ Windoze" jokes is going to make that feeling go away.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (1)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856514)

You're just making it worse for yourself, amichalo. With each post you look more and more foolish. It's obvious that deep down you know you overspent for an underpowered computer, and no amount of unsupported assertions about how OSX is "so much better" than anything else or bad "M$ Windoze" jokes is going to make that feeling go away

For what it is worth, I did not post the "eat a dick" comment. I can see how it looks like it would be me, being that it was anonymous and I am not posting anonymously. At any rate, I had nothing to do with that and don't know who did. Perhaps someone else is on Slashdot besides you and me.

As for your observations about my self esteme, you are simply trying to start a flame.

Find one post I have ever made with a slang reference to MS or Windows.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0, Troll)

yomegaman (516565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856716)

Sigh, it's worse than I thought. Clearly the festering pain of having been ripped off by Apple over and over is causing you to explode with rage, only to have no memory of the episodes later. Such multiple-personality disorders are common among cult members.

(Don't take any of this seriously, I'm just feelin' goofy tonight)

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856888)

hey moron, reply to this logged in too, so i can watch your karma get pushed into the shitheap.

haha you fucking faggot

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0, Flamebait)

yomegaman (516565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857017)

Have all the karma you want, dumbass, it's worthless anyway. We non-cult-members can see that clearly as clearly as we can see that Macs are ripoffs, too bad you can't figure out either one...

I even put my bonus point on this one, if that doesn't make you come in your diaper I don't know what will!

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856492)

Thank you, very helpful.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856143)

yes. It doesn't.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz -- FLAMEBAIT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856293)

I'm curious to know why the PARENT is flamebait.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz -- FLAMEBAIT? (0, Offtopic)

IrRegEx (757935) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856345)

I know this is off topic, but I don't know where else to ask... What is Karma whoring?

And in case I'm doing it right now, please keep your dogma away from my karma.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz -- FLAMEBAIT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856395)

Karma whoring typically involves

* Reposting material from the articles linked to. This works famously because Slashdot readers often don't actually read the article before responding to it or moderating. Thus, karma whores look like they are providing useful information when they are just regurgitating common material.

* Reposting common links, especially those that get around the "free registration required" to read articles on the NewYorkTimes? web site.

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz -- FLAMEBAIT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856405)

Karma Whoring is the act of posting something that you know will get modded up high, thus increasing your Karma (see below). The difference between Karma Whoring and just making a good post is that you do something like re-post the content of a slashdotted site from an article or something likewise mindless that doesn't really add to the discussion but gets you mod points.

Karma is a concept the moderation system uses to rank posts. Positive mod points increase Karma and vice versa. For people with good Karma, your posts automatically start off at a higher rating (2) than neutral karma users (1) or negative ones (0).

Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz -- FLAMEBAIT? (0, Offtopic)

zerv (766793) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856621)

Positive mod points increase Karma and vice versa. For people with good Karma, your posts automatically start off at a higher rating (2) than neutral karma users (1) or negative ones (0).

i believe you're a little off there

Excellent gets +2 (you have the option to not include the extra +1 with each post you make)
Neutral /Positive / Good gets +1
Bad / Terrible -1 (anonymous posting disabled)

The extra +1 for users with Excellent karma is actually just a threshold preference for registered users and the set display mode for someone who has not logged in. if you are a registered user it is by default to add an extra +1 for registered users with excellent karma, which you can change (most don't)

1.25 Ghz G4 faster than Intel's 3.2 Ghz (2, Insightful)

nuckin futs (574289) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856750)

specially when you're trying to run OS X on Intel's processor.
A lot of people I know bought a Mac because of OS X, it didn't matter if it was "slower" than a comparable Intel processor in certain functions. Show me an Intel processor than can run OS X (not just Darwin) then we can start talking about speed comparisons.

Hello... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8855906)

...hello..?...consumer market...Hellooooo....?

Worth buying? (4, Interesting)

psyconaut (228947) | more than 10 years ago | (#8855944)

At a grand with a Superdrive, seems like a nice little system for me to use when at home rather than setting up my Powerbook G4 when I get home...any comments on how usable it is? I'd definitely bump the RAM up from 256mbytes ;-)

-psy

Re:Worth buying? (4, Informative)

Visigothe (3176) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856027)

The eMac is a good machine. the proc is fast enough to do most things [web, mail, WP, digital camera editing, mp3 ripping, etc.]. A few things to be aware of. The eMac is much larger than you think it is. Unlike the original iMac, the eMac doesn't have a handle, and the 17" monitor makes it rather awkward to pick up and move around.

And yes, you'll want to up the RAM to as much as you can afford [OSX likes to use RAM as cache].

Enjoy!

Re:Worth buying? (1)

psyconaut (228947) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856100)

I definitely wouldn't move it much...that's what my Powerbook is for ;-)

Thanks for the comments....I think I'll go buy one!

-psy

Re:Worth buying? (4, Informative)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856409)


Get the stand for the eMac, if you do buy one; I think they're about $60, and it really makes re-positioning the eMac a lot easier. W/o, the eMac is just so much of a 70# boat anchor.

Re:Worth buying? (1)

psyconaut (228947) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856424)

I just saw them on Apple's web store....reminds me of the tilt and swivel stand I had for my Mac SE! ;-)

Thanks for the tip.

-psy

Re:Worth buying? (1, Interesting)

merdark (550117) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856185)

It has a CRT. I will never ever buy another CRT again. LCD is just that much better. Too bad this is not just a box, I really can't stand computers with attached monitors (laptops excepted of course).

Re:Worth buying? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857073)

So just hide it in a cabinet, and attach a VGA-plug LCD screen...

Re:Worth buying? (4, Interesting)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857162)

At risk of getting my chops busted, here is my input:

It is a flat CRT, not a regular CRT. I'm staring at mine now, and to the left of it is a standard CRT I got from Gateway. It's running dual display (not mirroring). Compared to my old Gateway CRT, the eMac FLAT CRT is incredible.

My graphic design professor said flat CRTs are better for design work than LCD or regular CRTs. Having worked with all three, I can attest to that.

As far as the "too bad it isn't just a box," I guess that is personal opinion. I don't need the extra PCI slots, since everything I interface with is USB / firewire. The monitor is great, and the only thing I'd ever want to upgrade is the internal HDD (difficult) and RAM (easy). But I look at it this way: My eMac is roughly the same dimensions as just the older Apple CRTs for PowerMacs, and I don't have to find a place to store the box. But, hey, to each his own.

Re:Worth buying? (4, Interesting)

merdark (550117) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857479)

It's really just the CRT. I can't stand CRTs anymore. I don't really do much graphic design so that's not too much of an issue for me. I find LCDs to be much much easier on my eyes, and also much sharper (pixels really looks square). Not to mention subpixel antialiasing for fonts is AWSOME. I spend my entire day looking at text, so for me an LCD is top priority.

Oh, not to mention an LCD takes up much less space on my desk and produces far less heat. Both properties are also very very important to me.

But as you said, to each his own. Perhaps a CRT suits your needs better if you are a hardcore designer. CRTs do have better colour contrast than LCDs, but the average person would not be able to notice I doubt. :)

Re:Worth buying? (4, Insightful)

crackshoe (751995) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857193)

At the moment, i would go with a CRT over an LCD. why? I don't particularly value my desktop space ( i currently have 2 19" displays and a 21". i have the room), and LCD's are tiny per cost. I've used the apple 17" display, and its gorgeous, but overpriced. I do haev a few smaller (15") LCD's i use in a 'server closer' or for portable systems, but i wouldn't want to use one everyday. But as far as attatched displays go, I agree with the exception of the iMac. We bought one for my mum, and its a great box (unless you want to get all fiddly in it). The eMac is really designed for educational entry level enterprise use. after i graduated, my highschool upgraded to eMacs, with individuals logging in and having a floating profile. they were, i believe, designed to be cost efficent (as far as apple goes - theres also a CD-ROm only version thats only available for educational accounts) all in 1 systems. while i think it is currently the cheapest available apple boxen, i would think that the affordable iBOok would be a better draw for those on the edge of switching - but for mass deployed education, you want a relatively sturdy all-in-one box. LCD's get damaged really easily (hey, ir member the joys of making permanent squiggles in the school owned laptops).

Re:Worth buying? (1)

merdark (550117) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857487)

I know. :) It's just that people here seemed to be suggesting the eMac for a personal use. I guess if you don't mind CRTs then it could be good.

I hope my next machine (the one that will make me a switcher so to speak) will be a powerbook.

Re:Worth buying? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856195)

At a grand with a Superdrive, seems like a nice little system for me to use when at home rather than setting up my Powerbook G4 when I get home
You can afford to spend $1K just to save yourself from plugging in your laptop? You've weathered the downturn better than most of us!
I'd definitely bump the RAM up from 256mbytes ;-)
Systems are always sold without quite enough RAM. Anything to get the price past whatever sweet spot they're trying for.

Re:Worth buying? (1)

FeTrut (254033) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856355)

You'd think it would end up hurting them(the company) in the long run, skimping on the RAM. The difference between using OS X(or any modern OS for that matter) with 256 megs of RAM and 512 megs is enormous. The computer just seems much faster and smoother, thus giving the consumer a much more enjoyable, much less painful experience. I've used an eMac with 256 megs of ram before, and believe me, it needs whatever performance boost it can get.

Re:Worth buying? (1)

psyconaut (228947) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856378)

Actually, I really need a new laptop as my 2-year old G4 is falling to pieces (mind you, it's been around the world a couple of times and I use it every day). But I can't justify buying a new 15" G4-Al right now. ;-)

As for the downturn, I was lucky enough not to have to work through most of it....I think I might have had to do a Joe-job if I did! Things seem to be picking up here in Toronto, and I work in the financial sector these days doing some rather specialist stuff, so I'm lucky.

-psy

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8855953)

This'll be a lot easier to sell at work. (CompUSA)

We really need eMacs... (5, Funny)

Reorax (629666) | more than 10 years ago | (#8855990)

...because asking people about Emacs isn't confusing enough already.

The first ever "bargain" Mac (5, Insightful)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856032)

For under $800 this Mac is a bargain for potential "switchers". It is a Jaguar system for those who don't want to invest in a $2,000+ G5 setup to give the Mac a try.

When I wanted to try out OS X, I did so with a $1800 Powerbook Ti G4 at 400Mhz, 256k RAM, 20GB HD, and a CD/DVD reader. I found that system well equiped to flex the power of then OS 10.1. Panther and Jaguar are both responsive on my 400Mhz PB and I can only imagine that on the $800 eMac, especially if the 256k is upgraded, it would be a great low cost Mac.

This eMac system is well equiped for experimenting with iMovie, iPhoto, iTunesMusicStore, and GarageBand - all which come with it. For just $200 more you get a DVD burning SuperDrive and twice the drive space.

But like I say, for $800, this is a great system for those who don't want to make the investment in a G5 inorder to give OS X a try.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (3, Informative)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856115)

>It is a Jaguar system

Panther, actually.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (1, Insightful)

PretzelBat (770907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856124)

Remember that "bargain" in this context is very relative: a similarly configured PC could be found for somewhere in the vicinity of half as much: just today I saw a complete system at Costco for less than $500 with:

-P4 2.8
-256 MB
-40 GB HD
-CD-RW
-17 in. Flat Screen CRT
-Windows XP Home :(

You could argue that the better OS is worth the extra $300, but in terms of hardware, a bargain Mac is still not much of a bargain.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856189)

Don't need to argue the OS. I'm too busy arguing the idea of actually buying a computer from Costco's gray market.

The cpus they sell are liquidated from batches that didn't pass QA inspections. I understand Costco has a kick ass return policy but what a hassle when the eMac is top quality (for the $$).

The same cpu you speak of is available at mainstream retailers for $700+. I'd say Panther over XP Home is definitely worth $99.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (3, Informative)

PretzelBat (770907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856415)

My parents have bought two computers from Costco, and had nary a problem with them. (Well, except for the usually MS virus/worm/insecurity nastiness, which I had to deal with for them.)

Although personal experience doesn't negate your point, this: " I understand Costco has a kick ass return policy" is very true.

I believe it is ONE YEAR (!!!) with NO restock fee! If it was me, I'd want it to break after 9 months (and if the proc is going to fail, it's likely to happen in the first year).

For a cheap computer like this one, I'd be willing to save the $200 dollars by buying at Costco.

*Your milage may vary*

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (0, Flamebait)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856208)

My comment was this is a bargain Mac.

Did the Windows box come with:
- combo drive (DVD R, CD RW)
- wireless and bluetooth support
- Photo, movie, dvd, and music editing software (iLife)
- Jaguar
- the cache of owning a mac?

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (2, Interesting)

PretzelBat (770907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856359)

Since you ask:

Did the Windows box come with:
- combo drive (DVD R, CD RW)

No, it had one DVD (not R) and one CD-RW, but it was my understanding that the eMac with a superdrive was $1000, not $800.

- wireless and bluetooth support
XP natively supports wireless (although I don't know why you'd need it for a desktop, in general), and SP2 will natively support bluetooth. The eMac in question does not come with the hardware for these features at the price we were discussing.

- Photo, movie, dvd, and music editing software (iLife)
Of course it doesn't come with iLife. It comes with crappy MS equivilents (if anything). However, there is a great deal of software (both free and $$) that approximates this functionality in Windows.

- Jaguar
I think I already mentioned... nah.

- the cache of owning a mac?
The WHAT?

My point--which quite simply was the fact that Mac hardware still costs almost double standard PC hardware--is still completely valid. And, as I also said, you could argue that the superior OS improves the value, but the hardware is NO bargain in any realistic sense.

Listen, I am no MS lover. I was merely pointing out that even a "bargain" Mac is no bargain in terms of what you actually get for your money, unless you really need OS X.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (1)

iLeader (680112) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856438)

- combo drive (DVD R, CD RW) Edu price of superdrive/80gb is $899 - wireless and bluetooth support stop tripping over wires (also stops the duct tape from messing up the walls and floors) - Jaguar Not Jaguar, Panther! Different processors, can't really be compared to eachother It's nice, though I would still prefer all the features as a headless mac, the 17 inch crt without a handle makes it a bit slippery to carry around

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (3, Insightful)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856439)

The statement was that it was a bargain Mac, not a bargain piece of hardware.

I fully disagree that one can simply exclude the cachet of Mac/OS X ownership and the benefits of such by saying "well it comes with XP so that is the same".

That is exactly what is NOT the same. Otherwise, why would people buy Macs, because the cases look cool?

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (1, Flamebait)

PretzelBat (770907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856490)

Otherwise, why would people buy Macs, because the cases look cool?

Um... given the typical Mac owner...

Nah, that's too easy.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856418)

Wow, what brand is that?

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856461)

Costco PCs are crappy, with zero "real" support and poor quality.

If you don't get support, you might as well build your own. I put together similar Athlon-based system for about $225. Add $75 for a "Flat Screen" CRT.

That's a whole lot cheaper than your Costco crap-box! If you're going to go with crap, you might as well get it for cheap!

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (1)

PretzelBat (770907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856545)

For a bottom of the bin, cheap-o, just need something for email and web browsing and word processing non-techie, its not such a bad way to go.

Although I can build a box, and you can build a box, it does not necessarily follow that Joe-on-the-street can build his own computer.

Also FYI, The post was in the context of "bargain" computers (and "bargain Macs," which seems to mean something else entirely!). In terms of that discussion, Costco offers a better warranty than Apple.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (2, Insightful)

Moofie (22272) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857292)

Hmm. I wonder whether the build quality of the computer you got at FUCKING COSTCO is anywhere near the same as Apple's.

Pay for quality. Or don't.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (2, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857587)

Ipod mini jack failures.
PB logic boad failures.
PB LCD spoting/failures.

I sure as hell hope the quality at Costco is better than apples RECENT build quality.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (2, Interesting)

Moofie (22272) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857682)

I'd like to see statistical, rather than anecdotal, comparisons of Apple's quality versus other name-brand PC vendors.

Which the Costco brand wouldn't be.

Just because you happen to have heard of problems with Apple hardware doesn't mean that it's worse than other vendors'. My (personal, anecdotal, and non-scientific) experience with Apple hardware is superb. All the data I've seen seem to support that contention.

What kind of track record does your Costco vendor have? What, you've never heard of them? Hmm...imagine.

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856368)

Are you a commissioned Apple salesdroid or what? How much are they paying you to astroturf Slashdot? If buying a Mac turns you into a zealot who won't shut up then no thanks...

Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (2, Funny)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856949)

especially if the 256k is upgraded

See? 640k would be MORE than enough for you... And everybody makes fun of Billy-G for that comment...

iPod killer (5, Funny)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856180)

What a rip off Apple, no one is ever gonna buy the 40 GB iPod now - not when for just $300 more they can get a 40 GB music player with a combo drive, airport extreme & bluetooth support, and a 17" CRT for viewing cover art and playlists.

Plus it comes with Garageband and iTMS BUILT IN!!!

Re:iPod killer (2, Funny)

GlassMaster (746620) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856239)

Yes, but for once the battery life on the iPod would be an advantage. Not to mention that carrying around an eMac at the gym wouldn't have the same "coolness factor" as an iPod, despite it's larger color display, wireless support, GarageBand, etc.

PARENT IS A JOKE! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856282)

Moderators are morons, the parent is a joke, not a flame

Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856188)

Even with their update, the entry level Macs are still not even remotely competetive with today's cutting edge Intel machines. Apple fanatics, I don't understand why you continue to waste your money on such machines. Take a look at the configurations of the following machines:

Apple eMac [apple.com]
1.25GHz PowerPC G4, 256MB DDR SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA/100, SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
17-inch (16-inch viewable) flat CRT
ATI Radeon 9200 32MB
Mac OSX
= $999

Dell Dimension 2400 [dell.com]
2.4GHz Celeron, 256MB DDR SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA/100, DVR+RW optical drive
17-inch (16-inch visible) CRT
Intel 3D Extreme Graphics
Windows XP
= $679

I specced the Dell to be similar to the high-end eMac. Suprise, suprise - it's $320 cheaper. The Intel equivalent is even $120 cheaper than the low-end $799 eMac! What's up with that?

But if we go ahead and spend the extra $300 on an Intel based machine, we get some really flashy upgrades that start to compete with Apple's high-end G5 offerings. For example, we can easily get a 3GHz hyperthreading Pentium 4 (which is 2 processors in one - an effective clockspeed of 6GHz assuming 100% efficiency running parallel tasks). For example:

Dell Dimension 4600 [dell.com]
3GHz Pentium 4 with hyperthreading, 512MB DDR SDRAM
120GB Ultra ATA/100, DVD+RW optical drive
17-inch (16-inch visible) CRT
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB graphics card
Windows XP
= $998

Ta-da. Conclusion: Apple is still really bad value for money. For the same price as an entry-level Apple system, you could get a significantly powerful workstation capable of handling anything you throw at it - including games. If you're willing to go a step further and build your own machine from components (gasps from the Apple audience), you can get an even higher specced machine for about the same money.

An ultra-high end computer is $1000 if you're willing to shop around. Nobody should settle for anything less, or for overexpensive, underpowered solutions like eMacs. You don't even have to run Windows if you don't want to. Gnome [gnome.org] and KDE [kde.org] await you on Linux [linux.org] and FreeBSD [freebsd.org] (on which Mac OSX was originally based).

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (1, Interesting)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856236)

Please enjoy your windows boxes. We'll see you on the flip side when you finally give OS X a try.

I am by no means rich, but in the grand scheme of things, a few hundred bucks to buy a system that WORKS SO MUCH BETTER THAN WINDOWS XP is worth it to me.

The hardware specs aren't what makes the difference man, it's the SOFTWARE. OS X is the best of UNIX under a fantastic GUI.

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856349)

WORKS SO MUCH BETTER THAN WINDOWS XP is worth it to me.

Have you even used Windows XP? I prefer Windows 2000 myself - it's a little more business casual in appearances and features, but it works very well.

Windows XP works just as smoothly. Hardware is supported, drivers are updated. The system just works. If you continue to base your opinions on a copy of Windows 3.1 you once used ten years ago - OS 9 was arguably even worse (and didn't even have memory protection).

If you think Windows has some "security problems" - you've bought into the anti-Microsoft FUD. In the modern world, anyone is asking for it if they don't have a hardware firewall and if they execute email attachments they receive from complete strangers. It doesn't matter what OS you run.

it's the SOFTWARE. OS X is the best of UNIX under a fantastic GUI

If you want Unix, install Linux or FreeBSD. Install SuSE, install Debian, Lycoris or even Lindows for that matter. There are choices in the Windows world.

There's no need to pay Apple for a decent Unix experience.

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (5, Insightful)

logicat2001 (706979) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857287)

Windows XP? I prefer Windows 2000 myself
If you continue to base your opinions on a copy of Windows 3.1 you once used ten years ago - OS 9 was arguably even worse

I didn't post above, but I currently use both XP and 2000 daily. Make your own decisions but I also use OS X daily and it's far and away the most pleasant working environment I've encountered to date. That doesn't mean it's perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but that's not the point now, is it.

As for "OS 9," um, who's talking about OS 9?

If you want Unix, install Linux... FreeBSD... SuSE... Debian... Lycoris... Lindows... There are choices in the Windows world.

Well, by the time I've finished clicking through the (Continue) buttons in an OS X install I've managed to install both the entire GUI environment and the entire Unix OS. I can also install other Unix systems on Mac hardware, but frankly I've got everything I need right here.

I don't need to install anything else except Logic Pro 6 [emagic.de] , Ableton Live [ableton.com] , MetaSynth [uisoftware.com] , ArtMatic Pro [artmatic.com] , MetaTrack [uisoftware.com] , Voyager [uisoftware.com] , VTrack [uisoftware.com] , Absynth [nativeinstruments.de] , OmniGraffle [omnigroup.com] , OmniOutliner [omnigroup.com] , OmniDiskSweeper [omnigroup.com] , Studiometry [oranged.net] , FileMakerPro [filemakerpro.com] , Adobe Creative Suite [adobe.com] , LaunchBar [obdev.at] , MySQL [mysql.com] , Perl 5.8.3 [perl.com] , Fink, Plone [plone.org] , Keynote [apple.com] , BBEdit [barebones.com] , FastTrack Schedule Pro [aecsoft.com] , Sonasphere [sonasphere.com] , Toast 6 [roxio.com] , ZBrush [pixologic.com] , and a few more but I'll get to those tomorrow.

I run all these (plus my email, internet, contacts management, calendaring, etc) in the same operating environment; not an emulation shell, not after dual-booting, but in the very same operating system and simultaneously.

To top it all off OS X comes with a full set of developer tools, documentation and optimization utilities, plus [apple.com] Cocoa [apple.com] +Obj-C [faqs.org] is a match made in heaven.

There's no need to pay Apple for a decent Unix experience.

Well, I believe there is. I enjoy the ability to support quality whether it's a film, a restaurant, a music venue, a book, clothing, my neighborhood, an artist, etc. every single day.

The hardware is just a hunk of material until you've discovered/designed an interface with which to use it. Solely on a base consumer level, I'm very happy to pay Apple for what is, in daily practice, a superior computer operating system. From the level of both a technology consultant and a media creator, the solution is very simple.

OS X is a very impressive "Holy Grail" for all my current activities. Strap me in because I'm ready to get to work.

Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (3, Interesting)

Nice2Cats (557310) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857110)

The hardware specs aren't what makes the difference man, it's the SOFTWARE. OS X is the best of UNIX under a fantastic GUI.

I tend to think that people who write in CAPS are trolls, but since I can't mod you down, I guess I'll have to answer:

Yes, OS X (10.3 at least) is a very, very good operating system -- I own an iBook G4 -- but only if you agree with the design philosophy. OS X was designed for completely different people who want to do completely different things with computers than, say, Linux users. Lots of people in these discussions don't realize this and get their panties in a knot about which system is "better". This is sort of like asking if a bread knife is better than a scalpel.

Apple provides you with a flashy, very consistent, closed, minimal-options operating system that starts with the idea that choice is bad and will confuse the user. Steve Jobs tells you what you can and can't do, and in return, you don't have to deal with the computer as such: You just plug things in, and they work (or they don't). It is ideal for people who just want to listen to music, surf, do some email, and chat -- that is, 90 percent of the population. If this is all you want from a computer, by all means, go buy a Mac. It is what I recommend to my computer-illiterate colleagues when they complain about the latest Microsoft virus or crashing Windows.

However, some people think choice is good, and want to be able to decide for themselves just where they want to be in the big computer trade-off of ease-of-use and efficiency. To take the cliche example, one mouse button is not confusing, but when you do lots and lots of cut-and-paste, three buttons kick ass all over the place. One single desktop is not confusing, but virtual desktops give you more room to move without having to invent flashy tricks like Expose. A mail program without TLS support is one less option for the user, but if your provider happens to require that extra layer of security, you're screwed.

This is the reason why I will be installing Linux with KDE 3.2 on my iBook: I like choice, I am willing to learn things so that I can be more efficient, and the cozy, closed world of OS X is just too limited for what I want (and like) to do. Does this mean that I hate OS X or dispise it? No, it is just the wrong tool for the job in my case. No need for flames (or caps), just a rational assessment of my needs vs. those that OS X provides. Go forth and be happy with OS X, just realize that it is not the uberOS of the Gods. And please stop shouting.

As for the "best of Unix": Apple did the right thing from a business point of view. They realized that they could make all kinds of money without having to give anything in return by using BSD, and then even get to charge premium for a glossy GUI pasted over that. Basically, this is another case where the BSD people are helping a major corporation get richer (remember Micorosoft and the TCP stack?) while getting peanuts in return. If Apple had used Linux for the base system, they would have been forced to be part of the community and give full value in return instead of getting away with dropping a bone here and there. And they still could have sold that flashy GUI on top, made lots of money, made their users happy, whatever.

It is Apple's job (no pun intended) to be greedy: They are bound to shareholder value just like Microsoft. I just wonder if it should be our job to give them a free ride -- for any meaning of "free".

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (5, Funny)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856267)

Dell Dimension 2400...sixhundred seventy-nine dollars....

Dell Dimension 4600...nine hundred ninty eight dollars....

Saving a buck of two for an inferrior user experience....priceless

There are somethings money can't buy....for everything else, there's Microsoft.

Answer this instead.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856290)

Since the moderators are on iCrack and modded down the parent comment, let me ask this:

WHY DO YOU LIKE APPLE PRODUCTS?

I really cannot fathom the reasons why you'd choose to buy an Apple over an Intel machine. They don't have any software. Nobody makes games for them - BUT YOU CONTINUE TO BUY THEM.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD - WHY?

Re:Answer this instead.. (2, Informative)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856329)

If you want a game machine, buy a PS2

If you want to run some special windows only app, buy Virtual PC for OS X

If you want to get work done in an efficient, user friendly, secure, stable, virus-free, low stress manner, buy a Mac

Re:Answer this instead.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856440)

If you want a game machine, buy a PS2
If you want to run some special windows only app, buy Virtual PC for OS X


Can I have some of your money please?

You obviously don't care how much you spend on computer equipment if you're buying a $1000 Mac that sucks for multimedia applications.

If I do as you suggest, I'm looking at a $180 Playstation 2. A TV is, say $200. Virtual PC: $130. That's an extra $510 tax just to play games and run windows applications.

I can actually buy an entire PC for $510. And it won't even be bottom of the range.

If you want to get work done in an efficient, user friendly, secure, stable, virus-free, low stress manner, buy a Mac

Let's look at the Windows experience, shall we:

+ Friendly. Check. XP is easy enough for my mom to use.
+ Secure. Check. Get a cheap hardware firewall / router on your internet connection and you'll have zero intrusions - even if you don't run Windows Update.
+ Stable. Check. I last saw a bluescreen crash about 18 months ago - due to a network card that failed. Yes, a hardware problem.
+ Virus free. Check. I'm sorry, but if you run random attachments you receive in the mail, you're asking for trouble.
+ Low-stress. Check. Windows just works.

Mozilla is actually the most unstable app on my system - I use it primarily as a development workstation, for games and for occasional document processing and photo printing.

Re:Answer this instead.. (0, Troll)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856471)

+ Virus free. Check.

You're on crack

Re:Answer this instead.. (3, Funny)

PretzelBat (770907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856642)

XP can easily be virus free. Three easy steps:

1) Start with a fresh install of Windows.
2) Plug in monitor, power, keyboard, mouse.
3) Stop.

So long as you follow these three steps EXACTLY, you will not have a single virus on your computer.

DISCLAIMER: I cannot make any promises if you attempt any other actions with the PC.

Re:Answer this instead.. (0, Offtopic)

iLeader (680112) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856493)

so, get an xbox instead $149, then you can play Ninja Gaiden, the best game ever. xbox is way better then ps2:P also, you don't already have a TV? not even a commadore 64 monitor to use as a TV occasionally with a vcr? nothing? what it wrong with you!

Re:Answer this instead.. (1)

DavidLeblond (267211) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856834)

If I do as you suggest, I'm looking at a $180 Playstation 2. A TV is, say $200. Virtual PC: $130. That's an extra $510 tax just to play games and run windows applications.


I'm willing to bet $5 he already has a TV. And a $180 PS2 will set you back almost as far as a decent videocard... oh and you don't have to pray your game starts whenever you want to play it either.

Stable. Check. I last saw a bluescreen crash about 18 months ago - due to a network card that failed. Yes, a hardware problem.


Windows XP... Stable... funny, never thought I'd see them in the same sentence together. I personally have NEVER seen an XP bluescreen... my WinXP never gets that far, just freezes up.

Virus free. Check. I'm sorry, but if you run random attachments you receive in the mail, you're asking for trouble.


Want some crack? 'Course you do! If you think opening email attachments is the only way to get a virus in Windows, you probably have never been on a corporate network where they spread like wildfire.

Low-stress. Check. Windows just works.


Stress is the reason I dumped my Windows PC after being a strict user since Windows 3.0. If MS can't make a decent OS, I don't want to give them any more money.

Re:Answer this instead.. (2, Informative)

crackshoe (751995) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856353)

well, in order. A different proccesor architecture, theres a fuckload of software, and almost any gnu app can easily be ported (or, if you don't insist on tying apple products to their OS, you can run linux or BSD just fine), blizzard dual releases and other companies eventually port (but if you only own a computer for games, why do you read the apple slashdot page... oh, you're an AC. this post doesn't really matter.) I use a g3, a dual g5, an ulstra sparc, 1 althon box and 3 pentium III's. I like my macs better. oh well.

Re:Answer this instead.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856482)

blizzard dual releases and other companies eventually port

I hate to break your bubble, but EBGames (a major videogame retailer with brick & mortar stores throughout most of the continental US) - currently has three Mac games [ebgames.com] on sale.

Yes. That's THREE (3!) games (and one strategy guide to a game they no longer sell).

(but if you only own a computer for games, why do you read the apple slashdot page... oh, you're an AC. this post doesn't really matter.)

I really, really hate iSteveJobs.

Re:Answer this instead.. (1)

crackshoe (751995) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856703)

would you go to a best buy to get a sparc station? that would be ridiculous. you'd go to a vendor that had what you want. a single vendor is never a good example of anything. considering i currently own 10 or so mac games (ha!), i'm quite sure theres more than 3. but it is a point that there simply aren't as many games for mac. this does mean that a lot of the stinkers don't cross over, though.

mod parent up (0, Flamebait)

JackBuckley (696547) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856291)

I know, another slashdot Windoze/M$ vs. "two words: Mac gamer" flamewar is just what we need, but the parent is on topic and not flamebait. For dog's sake, if the editors post an advertisement for a new mac, people should respect a post that meets the ad on its own terms.

Re:mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856441)

good point - hopefully the moderators will be metamoderated correctly ... or perhaps we need some meta-meta moderators

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856421)

>Even with their update, the entry level Macs are still not even remotely competetive with today's cutting edge Intel machines.

since when is a 2.4GHz celeron cutting edge?

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (2, Insightful)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856488)

since when is a 2.4GHz celeron cutting edge?

Since people stopped caring about how much a large cache improves performance.

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856647)

Theres so many flaws in that post to point out I would be up another hour. I might think about it if you were something besides a AC.

I'll just list the biggest - Mac buyers dont give a shit about any of the stuff you are moaning about. They dont care about Linux or open source software. Mac users above all other computer users *dont give a shit* about the speed of the machine. They for sure dont want to build a fucking computer, and view anyone that does as *wasting their time*.

What Mac users want is FREEDOM from all the shit you list as reasons they shouldnt buy a Mac in the first place. Mac people are TOOL USERS who use their Macs to DO THINGS THAT MAKE THEM MONEY. That's mostly what they do.

And another thing - why do you even care?

Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856729)

This is an obviously bogus comparison. Since when is a 2.4 celery a 1.25 ppc? Even worse, motherboard integrated el cheapo graphics don't compare to a Radeon 9200. This is not even considering the iLife suite, the comm ports on the mac, and os x. The high-end dell machine is nice, I'll admit, but what it gains in terms of hardware is compensated for by things like the iLife suite on the mac.

I for one (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856221)

welcome our DMCA-wielding jackbooted thug overlords.

~~~

Ridiculous (-1, Offtopic)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856248)

First off I must say that while I'm not a mac fan (the only one I own is an aging PowerBook runningYellowDog) I've always admired Mac and wnated one since OSX came out. I think I'll wait till the G5 hits the PowerBook...but thats besides the point.

When I read the news I went to checkout what I could get as a minimum configuration... then I found that this clear plastic eMac stand [akamai.net] COST $95 (you can find it when you select the eMac; price is from apple.ca). I'm sorry but thats WAY too much for a piece of plastic that should come with a monitor. I'm going to have to be very skeptical next time some MAcFan tells me Macs aren't over priced.

On the other hand it's nice to see the canadian prices being cheaper than it would be to go down to the states and exchange currency.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

iLeader (680112) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856372)

except that you don't actually NEED that, if you really want to raise it a bit, sit it on a phonebook

Re:Ridiculous (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857605)

A phone book?

Wouldn't that ruin the 'design' that apple spend so much time on? But this is apple so when they nickle and dime you to death it is a Good Thing!

Just Damn.

So I'm stupid... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8856272)

But what does the 'e' in 'eMac' stand for?

Hopefully, not for electonic as that would be a bit redundan t.

Re:So I'm stupid... (4, Informative)

amichalo (132545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856300)

'e' stands for 'education'.

Apple released the eMac as a more durable, less expensive alternative to the LCD iMac. Schools wanted it.

Edu pricing is pretty good (2, Informative)

iLeader (680112) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856337)

$749 for the combo/40gb, and $899 for the superdrive/80gb!!! That's $100 savings on the latter. Seems like it'll be a great buy for students who.

Re:Edu pricing is pretty good (2, Funny)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856718)

students who.

Ahh, these are the kids who want to become Doctor Who, I take it. ;-)

The cache of owning an Apple? (4, Informative)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856720)

Cache = store, etc. I think you might mean cachet. That's pronounced "kash-ay" for you Americans that don't speak foreign.

Re:The cache of owning an Apple? (1, Offtopic)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856764)

Actually kash-ay or kach-et are both correct pronunciations for the word. look it up.

Re:The cache of owning an Apple? (0, Flamebait)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856803)

Duh. I know. And your point is?

My point was that it isn't cache - that's pronounced "kash" (or maybe "kaysh", if you're Australian (but what do they know?)

Nice little system (5, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856774)

At last a reasonably priced Apple computer. And the international prices don't have the standard 50% Apple International tax, they are reasonably close to the US prices after currency conversion!

For a laugh earlier I configured a system on Dells site with similar features. This was a 2.6GHz Celeron 2400C system. It came out higher priced than the eMac (eMac 549, Dell 580) for as close a match of specification as possible (and I made sure that warranties, etc, were minimal on the Dell, I'm not an Apple owner so I won't cheat like that!). Certainly not a bad deal in my opinion, especially with iLife and Panther included (after a year of using XP, I realise how much I loathe it). The Dell looked like a turd as well, if that matters to you! :)

Re:Nice little system (1)

ratsnapple tea (686697) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856984)

"At last"? The eMac's been available for years. This is a speed bump, nothing more.

Re:Nice little system (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8857229)

At last"? The eMac's been available for years. This is a speed bump, nothing more.

It's a bit more than just a processor speed bump. Yes, the G4 now runs at 1.25GHz instead of 1GHz. It also runs on a 167MHz FSB (instead of 133MHz), and also has 512K of L2 cache (instead of 256KB). The memory subsystem is now DDR333 based instead of PC133 SDR. The graphics chip is now a Radeon 9200 instead of a Radeon 7500. The USB ports are now USB 2 compliant instead of 1.1. The SuperDrive is now 8x instead of 2x. It also ships standard with 256MB of RAM instead of 128MB. And the price has been reduced.

So apart from the CPU speed, CPU cache, front side bus speed, memory subsystem, graphics subsystem, I/O ports, optical drive, standard memory and the price, yes...you are right. Not much else has changed.

Re:Nice little system (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857324)

Yeah, but it is cheaper than it used to be whilst getting a speed bump. Instead of being overpriced and underpowered for being a budget system it is now a reasonable priced budget system that will compare reasonably well with other OEM budget systems (not white box systems though).

Fast DVD burner, too! (5, Insightful)

jimlau (581205) | more than 10 years ago | (#8856961)

From the "Tech Specs" page:

SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW); writes DVD-R discs at up to 8x speed, reads DVDs at up to 10x speed, writes CD-R discs at up to 24x speed, writes CD-RW discs at up to 10x speed, reads CDs at up to 32x speed

8X DVD-R speed, that's twice what they're putting in the G5s! Bonus points for that. It's nice that it's not a bare-bones low end model.

Re:Fast DVD burner, too! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857061)

To me, this is an iron-clad sign that the entire lineup of desktop Macs is about to receive an update.

I mean, making the second-cheapest computer have a faster drive than the top of the line PowerMac? And making this new eMac better or equal to the iMac in every way at a significantly cheaper price? This can't stand for long. Either LCDs are so expensive that they're not making much of a profit off the iMacs, or the iMac is about to be updated.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if everything else but the iBook gets an update within two weeks. (This also signals to me that the iMac will either receive a noticeable speed bump, or go G5.)

I just hope (1)

mst76 (629405) | more than 10 years ago | (#8857519)

that the fan isn't as loud as in the previous model. It uses the newer G4, so there is some hope. But the quiet old fanless iMacs were really nice.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?