User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

eMac is the worst desktop of the year.


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
eMac is the worst desktop of the year.
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next Thread Tools
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-12-20, 15:28

PC magazine complains about the emac G4. Saying how the 9200 GPU in there can't play all the new Mac games, how the 40 GB HD is pathetic, and how pathetic the design is. He also complains about how the eMac doesn't come with a DVD burner so he can't transfer files to DVD's. What he misses the point is that the eMac was for education market but, was brought out due to demand. The eMac isn't designed to handle the latest games. The eMac isn't designed to be a hardcore gaming machine.

I have a 40 GB HD in my 12" powerbook. This is a pro machine and I have only used 9 GB (28.62 GB free) for the 11 months of me using it. Now for an entry level Mac the 40 GB HD should satisfy the customer.


I will give him some points about the design. It is sort of a stale design since it looks like the jellybean imac G3 on steroids. But, other than that it still holds apple's innovation design. The emac can trounce almost any brand PC in looks even with its stale design.


Yes, the $799 emac doesn't come with a DVD burner. Maybe he missed the $999 eMac? Or he could of thought the superdrive was something else? Anyway, most consumers still use CD's to tranfer and back up files. I do not know anyone who uses DVD's for backup yet.

Overall, I think this person is just ignorant like a friend at my school is. He doesn't look at the details of the specs, he doesn't know how apple setup their Mac line up, and he won't listen to mac people. Maybe that is just my opinion. I also expect that once the eMac goes G5, the specs will improve a little bit.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/fee...ahoo&referrer=

giggity
 
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2004-12-20, 19:07

No, I think he's right... the eMac is fairly disappointing. It's not that bad, but it's not very good either. Also, I don't know anyone who uses CDs for backup - they're so small, DVDs are just the way to go. DVD burners are $50-$80 now, so it would be nice if there wasn't a $200 premium to get one. And although the Radeon 9200 is not very powerful, the main problem isn't the GPU itself but the stupidly low amount of VRAM on it. Apple could put 64 MB in and not pay more than a few cents extra per unit, while probably increasing performance by a very large margin. They choose not to, and that is a gripe I have with them.

32 MB of VRAM and a 40 GB hard drive might have been pretty sweet four years ago, but these days it's pretty awful even for a low-end machine. Nowadays, even $50 video cards come with 128 MB of RAM, and 64 MB is a bare minimum. It's difficult to even find a 32 MB video card. And 80 GB is generally standard equipment on any machine costing around $800. You might see a 40 GB on one of those $300-$500 PCs, but not on an $800 one.
 
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-12-20, 19:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca
No, I think he's right... the eMac is fairly disappointing. It's not that bad, but it's not very good either. Also, I don't know anyone who uses CDs for backup - they're so small, DVDs are just the way to go. DVD burners are $50-$80 now, so it would be nice if there wasn't a $200 premium to get one. And although the Radeon 9200 is not very powerful, the main problem isn't the GPU itself but the stupidly low amount of VRAM on it. Apple could put 64 MB in and not pay more than a few cents extra per unit, while probably increasing performance by a very large margin. They choose not to, and that is a gripe I have with them.

32 MB of VRAM and a 40 GB hard drive might have been pretty sweet four years ago, but these days it's pretty awful even for a low-end machine. Nowadays, even $50 video cards come with 128 MB of RAM, and 64 MB is a bare minimum. It's difficult to even find a 32 MB video card. And 80 GB is generally standard equipment on any machine costing around $800. You might see a 40 GB on one of those $300-$500 PCs, but not on an $800 one.
I used to back up my files on cds intill I got my 20 GB iPod. Well, 6 months back when they were first updated it was a good computer. With the next update which looks like G5, I will suspect to see a 5200 in there and a 60 GB HD. You can't blame the emac for having those specs. It is being held back by the iMac. Once the iMac gets a 128 MB GPU, we might see a 128 MB GPU in the emac. We do not want the eMac to become better than the iMac again. My friend also uses cds to back up his computer. Yes, I agree though DVD's are the way to go but, like with cds at first, it will take another year or two for the majority of the users to use DVD's.

giggity
 
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2004-12-20, 19:30

My girlfriends 1.0 ghz eMac is a fantastic machine.
 
spiff
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to spiff  
2004-12-20, 20:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrao
My girlfriends 1.0 ghz eMac is a fantastic machine.
I have a friend with an eMac and I think it was an amazing bargain. It's the equivalent to what the original iMac was.

It's great for people who really don't do a whole lot with their computer but want the experience of using a mac.

It could use a spec update for sure.
 
Barto
Student extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
 
2004-12-20, 20:12

Next up: Top Gear complains that a low end Toyota Camry isn't much of a rally car.

WTF is wrong with PC magazine?
 
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2004-12-20, 20:18

I just said it was a bit disappointing, and it could be fixed with a generous spec bump. I certainly don't think it's worthy of a "bottom 10" list.
 
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2004-12-20, 21:36

yeah, 32MB of RAM seems like crap compared to the 64 that machine over there has. oh, what's that? it's shared RAM? oooh.

just think it's a little stupid to say the eMac is the worst desktop of the year. i promise you i could find A LOT worse.

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
 
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2004-12-20, 21:38

I love my emac. Granted I didn't buy it myself but... Any Mac at $800 is better than any PC at that price. I'm sorry but I couldn't bring myself to use a PC to get a few extra features.
 
BarracksSi
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington, DC
 
2004-12-20, 21:45

It's certainly more than capable for most school computer labs, kiosk setups, receptionist desks, and most home tasks. It's certainly better than the bottom-rung Wintel boxes, too. Certainly better than a "Bottom 10" designation.
 
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2004-12-20, 22:25

That 32mb Radeon 9200 is better than comparable PCs which come with shared memory. Now, if they should only do something with the archaic CPU.
 
IonYz
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Send a message via AIM to IonYz  
2004-12-21, 01:01

Or do something about the noise? Sure the machine was designed for the EDU market but I can't imagine dozens of these things droning away. When I had my Power Mac at home (1.33GHz, Radeon 9800, WD Raptor, complete with 120mm case fan and 80mm PSU fan) the "quality" of sound was easier to handle then the eMac's.

Speed-bump and redesign with a more effort in the acoustic category por favor.

/* styling for my posts */
.intelligence {display: none;}
 
roc
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2004-12-21, 01:15

Hey, I've got a 1GHz eMac here at work and I love it. I hardly get anything done... It takes hours to import or export video.

Photoshop? The beachball of life, man... "Is it done yet?" Of course not! I surf and surf to my heart's delight.

If the morons want some real work done, they can buy me a real Mac.
 
ulothrix
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The 'Nard
 
2004-12-21, 04:01

iMac is far more appealing after the G5 bump, but until that happened, the eMac was a smart buy. Even if eMac is a monster on the desk, my mother-in-law loves her large, bright screen set at 800-600 for her bad eye-sight.

I am completely lost when people 'need' gross power to write letters, surf the web, and look at email. My grannie is still using a Performa and manages to forward and write more mail than any 'most-wanted' spammer in the world.

Ulo.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2004-12-21, 10:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarracksSi
It's certainly more than capable for most school computer labs, kiosk setups, receptionist desks, and most home tasks. It's certainly better than the bottom-rung Wintel boxes, too. Certainly better than a "Bottom 10" designation.
I would agree with this generally, but by the standards we should be using (Mac user standards, not some stupid magazine), the eMac is very stale at this point and needs to go away. It's just too damn damn clunky / heavy with that CRT in there, and the specs could use a boost for the money.

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-12-21, 13:51

I still think the eMac serves its purpose well. The fact that is has iLife makes it worthwhile.
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2004-12-21, 14:10

The eMac is a great value, frequently cited by many as Apple's "best bang for the buck".

I'd love to see it trimmed up, a G5 and a64MB VRAM...who wouldn't? But it's still a damn better machine than any similarly (or lower) priced PC, if only because of the OS it happens to have on there.



And yes, having iLife pre-installed and available to EVERYONE, out of the box, is only that much nicer! Find the PC equivalent of iLife...you can't. Anything close won't be preinstalled (or $49) and work that well together.

If it can get a slightly smaller/slimmer case, a G5 and double the VRAM and still occupy an $800 area, it will be awesome.

For what it is, what it does, who it's intended for, etc., it's wonderful. If you TRULY can't surf, e-mail, chat, write, use the iLife stuff, Sherlock, other iApps, etc. on today's eMac (with appropriate RAM, of course), then you're either doing something wrong, or you just need something a bit more in line with your expectations on speed, specs, etc. (an iMac G5 or tower...or a Fast™ PC of some sort).



Anyone acting like they can't do the above tasks on a 1.25GHz G4 (again, with sufficient RAM, which is important) is delusional. Or making stuff up. Or battling a severe, terminal case of Specwhoritis.

 
ryguy777@frontiernet.net
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2004-12-21, 15:47

Yes, the eMac is a bit dissapointing, but remember, it's due for an update- maybe even a major one, in the near future...

Apple recognizes the fact that the eMac may need some more power, and will update it accordingly...

I'm thinking a 1.5GHz G4 , 64MB Graphics Card and possibly an 80GB HD (Probaly not)... Remember the eMac is not high end... or even mid-range...
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2004-12-21, 18:03

Was "1.5GHz G4 " meant in a good way (as in "that's AWESOME!") or a bad way (as in "are you KIDDING me?!?")



I honestly couldn't tell. I tend to use that face in a positive, good news type of way. I use the to denote disgust, sarcasm, "yeah, whatever...", etc.

 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2004-12-21, 19:48

I was more thinking of the form factor than anything else. It's just a clunky piece of hardware now compared to everything else Apple sells IMO. Needs to go on a diet. Maybe keep a similar form factor but with an LCD screen inside. One of decent but lower quality (hence affordable for all invovled) than what's in the iMac...

...aren't there "cheap CRT comparable" 15" LCDs out there at about $300 or so now?

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2004-12-21, 20:01

I'm with you Moogs - the eMac is an eyesore. Yeah, it is cheap - but that alone doesn't cut it. Get it on a diet, give it a facelift and "tighten up" the internals Apple.

All I want is a simple life
twitter
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2004-12-21, 20:25

Maybe that's one of the things slated for MWSF?

How would you guys feel about a widescreen 17" eMac? That just crossed my mind today for some reason. But I don't know if they make 17" wide CRTs.

But I was thinking something like a white, opaque version of that cool 17" ADC mobius strip display from a few years ago (in other words, a permanent, integrated tilt/swivel stand).

I guess "going wide" (in addition to maybe not being 17" widescreen CRTs) might add expense?

In my head, however, an eMac-white widescreen 17" with a cool, clear acrylic integrated base doesn't offend me.

Pack it with respectable specs (those of the $1299 or $1499 iMac G5) and you'd have a nice machine, with a pallete/GarageBand/iMovie-friendly widescreen, a built-in tilt/swivel base and iMac G5-level power/performance.

It would sell.
 
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2004-12-22, 00:27

Time to post a mock-up of your concept Paul?
 
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2004-12-22, 16:43

Nah, it's easy to imagine this one...no visual assistance needed:

Take the eMac (color, pricing), that cool 17" ADC CRT monitor (base, sleekness) and a 17" iMac G5 (specs, 17" widescreen) and toss them into a blender. Add a dash of Ive seasoning, to taste.

Voila!
 
Zodiac
Shiny, Musky, Fleshy Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Beer Store
 
2004-12-22, 17:06

But the emac is so... sweet. Mine runs photoshop and flash mx fine. It's screen is perfect. And I run halo on it decently. Any non spec whore mac user should knoe that the eMac is fine. Maybe even a little too powerful for a standard school computer.

EDIT: Hope you know this is an exaggeration

Founder of the Applenova Folding Team

Last edited by Zodiac : 2004-12-22 at 17:50.
 
murbot
Hoonigan
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
 
2004-12-22, 17:07

There is a nice little write up about the eMac at Low End Mac.

eMac a Worst Buy? I Don't Think So
 
WBG4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA CPSU
Send a message via ICQ to WBG4 Send a message via AIM to WBG4  
2004-12-22, 17:12

For where i work in education, the eMac is perfect. IT's cheap durable reliable and is rather snappy. It does what it was designed for perfectly. I am very glad apple makes the eMac, it allowed me to dumb 4 B&W G3s

Comic sans sucks.
That is all
 
SonOfSylvanus
Fro Productions(tm)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London Town
 
2004-12-22, 17:35

Quote:
Originally Posted by zodiac
But the emac is so... sweet. Mine runs photoshop and flash mx fine. It's screen is perfect. And I run halo on it decently. Any non spec whore mac user should knoe that the eMac is fine. Maybe even a little too powerful for a standard school computer.


...




 
Zodiac
Shiny, Musky, Fleshy Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Beer Store
 
2004-12-22, 17:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfSylvanus


...





Look again.
 
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-12-22, 20:58

Those of you that seem to be defending Jim Louderback against criticism for calling the eMac one of the 10 worst computers might want to read what he said again. For example, he said "the lack of a DVD burner makes offloading files impossible". Did you get that? IMPOSSIBLE. Are you sure you want to defend comments like that? Then he bitches about the Radeon 9200, despite the fact that the Dells in that price range have even worse integrated, shared-ram video. I'm sure he just forgot about that part, rather than intentionally omitting it.

And he's recommending that you buy a Dell instead of an eMac - despite the fact that any Dell you buy for less than $799 won't have a DVD burner or a HD over 40 GB or a Radeon 9200, or a monitor as good as the eMac's either. This guy is a tool. Whether you believe the eMac is due for a refresh or not is irrelevant, read this fool's article again and tell me you agree with everything he says.

Then, go to Dell's site. Customize the Dimension 3000 that starts at $499 so that it matches the eMacs's specs. Add XP Pro, a combo drive, a Firewire card, speakers, Microsoft Works, Norton SystemWorks and the Anti-spyware bundle, and voila. Now the Dell costs $821, with an inferior monitor, an inferior OS and nothing even close to iLife.

oh noes, pc magazine R teh pwned111!!11!one!!1
 
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next

Closed

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The future of the eMac? ja0912 Speculation and Rumors 28 2005-01-10 15:14
No Desktop Mac between $799-$1299? bborofka Speculation and Rumors 50 2004-09-29 10:29
Could next eMac to be low end G4 based iMac? Satchmo Speculation and Rumors 33 2004-09-14 15:39
Trade in desktop for laptop - when? Luca General Discussion 0 2004-09-14 13:12


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova