Slashdot Mirror
Apple Revises eMac
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."
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
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.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
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.
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.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
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".
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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I had hoped that when people started to make IBM PPC 970 reference boards that something like the idea would resurge.
But giving the whole thing a little more thought, there is no-way Apple would allow something to run Apple's OS at a lower cost that any of their offerings. Perhaps something will come out that requires mad soldering and live BIOS swapping, but not something someone not willing to sacrifice a goat would attempt. Which is too bad. I really think if they produced some at a Mail Station price point that would really increase their market share.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
As a person who would potentially switch
If they built the same system sans monitor. I'd buy it in a minute. But, they don't. So I'd either have to give up the monitor I love (because it takes up so little desk space and can sit further back than a CRT) or move up to a standard PowerMac
I understand that CRTs are cheap, but shipping them around isn't free, so sell the 'eMac base' for $50 less