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."

Comments

Worth buying?

[psyconaut]

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?

[somethinghollow]

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?

[merdark]

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?

[chrism238]

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

I'm a bit confused by your comment. One of the very reasons for having (lots of) RAM is for it to act as a cache. I help lots of first-time Linux users who express disappointment that the free command keeps showing that 95% of RAM is being used ("but I just bought 512MB more, and it's full again!!?!").

Are you suggesting that using RAM as cache is somehow unusual? What are you saving it for?

Re:Fast DVD burner, too!

[Anonymous Freak]

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.)

Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it

[Nice2Cats]

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:The first ever "bargain" Mac

[bhima]

Actually a last a guy had a pretty good idea for a bargain Mac. Stupid name "Core Crib" but a good idea none the less. It was basically a headless / Speaker-less eMac G4. The prototype rendering he had was very nice, very "Macish", very cheap. I believe he wanted either to buy spares or factory reconditioned parts or something like that. Of course Apple legal emasculated him and so a good idea lays by the way side.

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.