Get a new (and fast) Mac for $799

[Fred Derf Veteran]

i didnt actualy buy it i just customised it to see what i could get for that price. if i wanted to buy a pc i would build it myself too. i only did it becuase timdor (or someone) said that macs arent overpriced anymoe and i proved that they are(i think).

In a thread located under "Macintosh Customization & Support > Apple Hardware Discussion" if you post a message that ends with "suck on that apple", it is going to be perceived as bear baiting or trolling or whatever.

[VGVL]

I agree with Timdorr and I'm glad they updated the eMac's, even though I'm not in the market for one.

What keeps bothering me though, is that the $999 eMac got an 8x SuperDrive while the $3000 PowerMac G5 has a 4x SuperDrive. :hmmm:

[NetRyder]

If I had to chose between this and the Dell, I probably would take this. If I needed a computer to do what this one does, I wouldn't buy either of them.

I've personally never been a fan of Apple's pricing, but this is definitely a very nice, refreshing change. Selling an eMac for almost the same price as a Dell with similar specs is a great first step. Hopefully, the trend continues with their other products in the future. I'm sure it'll attract a lot more customers, since price has always been one of the major concerns when choosing between PCs and Macs.

With that said, I think the above comment sums up my opinion. If I were to choose ONLY between the eMac and the Dell Dimension mentioned above, I'd probably go with the eMac. If not, I'd certainly build my own, which would be much better value for the general purpose stuff that the machine will be used for.

Nevertheless, this is a good purchase. It has to be said. :yes:

[threetonesun]

Anyone who would suggest using XP Home should be shot. XP Home has crippled networking. It is even more crippled than Windows 98 for godness sake. You cannot compare OS X to XP Home. XP Home is XP Lite really. It is missing several key features like Domain network support, Remote Desktop and encryption.

Hardly, XP Home is perfectly fine for home networks, and considerably cheaper. If you'd prefer to run 98, that's fine too, I'm sure it costs even less now, but try getting hardware support for it.

[oik]

Posting about his new Athlon-based PC and making comments like "suck on that apple" in a thread called "Get a new (and fast) Mac for $799" does a moron make.

thanks fred. that's exactly what i was thinking after i read superfula's post.

nuka_t: you have proven nothing by walking into an apple thread and trying to prove they are overpriced. we all know they're overpriced, but we (apple users & fans & zealots) are willing to pay the premium for the exceptional quality (go look at any consumer reports, and notice that apple is consistently #1 in the doa and overall areas), operating system (it's a matter of opinion really), and looks.

and now that the emac beats a dell on the price/feature scale, it's even better.

you can always hide behind the "i can build my own for less", or "hey look, here are people who build a better computer for less", and that's ok. but i'm sick of people who hide behind this excuse. it's too common. as apple becomes a better value, you keep ducking lower and lower; first you hide behind dell, and now from ibuypower (who really, i've only ever heard of in the back page adverts in maximum pc), and next it will be "i can built it for less than apple can!".

[BroChaos Veteran]

they really aren't that overpriced. on the mid and high end, they are equal to pc counterparts. with this new emac, they are pretty much in line with dell on all levels now.

[rocks1985]

Aren't G5's radically cheaper to manufacter than G4's?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Aren't G5's radically cheaper to manufacter than G4's?

It's not about what they cost to make, it's about what people are willing to pay...

[aristotle-dude]

It's not about what they cost to make, it's about what people are willing to pay...

The chips themselves might be cheaper but not the motherboard with a custom ASIC and cooling system. People seem to forget that the P4 boards were extremely expensive when the first came out.

If Intel came out with a new P4 (about 3.4Ghz) with a much higher wattage and faster FSB than the current ones the redesigned motherboard would cost quite a bit.

[oik]

The chips themselves might be cheaper but not the motherboard with a custom ASIC and cooling system. People seem to forget that the P4 boards were extremely expensive when the first came out.

If Intel came out with a new P4 (about 3.4Ghz) with a much higher wattage and faster FSB than the current ones the redesigned motherboard would cost quite a bit.

true... the g5 mobo incorporates many high-end features. 1ghz buses to both cpu's? blue pcb? oh yea, that one's gonna cost you.

[aldo]

While I love the eMac's, the only thing that I hate about them is the lack of upgradability. I'll add another 512MB of RAM in there, no doubt, but what about if I want to add a better graphics card? Or another hard drive (without spending $$$ for a firewire one).

Another thing I don't want is another CRT cluttering up the place. If Apple made a 'Cube Lite' which was the same as the eMac apart from no monitor, I think a lot of people would buy it...

[oik]

even though the emac's lack upgradability, in the mac world, that's not really a problem. look at windows... everytime you upgrade your os, older computers lose performance. but with osx, they keep speeding it up for all their computers. so while that emac might have a comparatively weak gpu and a small hard drive five years from now, it will likely still be able to hold it's own running osx (or os11?).

exception: if apple goes totally g5 in the next couple of years and then makes a seperate, completely 64-bit os and then g4 macs (like the emac) will just be stuck on the 32-bit versions.

anyway, the cube was a nice idea, but apple had it all wrong when they started... it just cost too much. if they repeated the idea today, with another g4, and it had the same features as an emac but cost just as much as an emac, i think it would fail again. now if apple priced it for $599* and it had vga, dvi, and adc capabilities, i think people would crap themselves and go for it.

*$799 emac - $200 17" crt = $599 cube

[nuka_t]

i agree with aldo, the 9200 is already obsolete and if you plan on doing any gaming on an emac, it would be verry choppy. sure, this emac can perform about the same as that dell but the dell has one very important feature. you just go to best buy, buy a GeForce 6800ultra, shove it in, and you can have a pc that is longhorn ready and about eight times faster in gaming than the emac and one and a half times faster than a G5.

i agree iwth you about the cube but it needs to be upgradeable. also, a top of hte line (consumer) 17" monitor is only 100-150 dollars so that would add more incentive to buy the cube if priced that way. if i can, for 700 dollars, get a 1.8 G5 with a PCIx and a PCIe slot and 256/512 ram i would buy it, until then, i cant buy a mac.

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

you just go to best buy, buy a GeForce 6800ultra, shove it in, and you can have a pc that is longhorn ready and about eight times faster in gaming than the emac and one and a half times faster than a G5.

First off, you're a fool if a 2Ghz G5 == a 2Ghz Athlon XP == a 2Ghz P4. Different processors have different IPC ratios. Why do you think my 1.8Ghz AthlonXP can keep up with a 2.6Ghz P4? Same reason a 2.0Ghz G5 can outperform a 3.0Ghz P4.

Second, you clearly don't understand the market of the eMac. It's not designed for you. It's designed for those that just want a computer they can set up and having working. They don't want to upgrade it and have to open the thing up, they just want it to work. Now, I don't know why you can't get that through your head, but it's painfully obvious that you don't have a clue.

Lastly, I'm sure you can get a PC MUCH cheaper than the Dell. However, you can also probably get a car cheaper if you buy your own scrap metal. But do you want to build it? Great for you if you're savy enough to throw a PC together, but the general populus is not. They want a machine they can take ouf of the box and have set up quicly. They don't want to deal with jumper settings and BIOSes and power connectors. They want to plug in, turn on, and be done.

[frod]

thank you timdorr.

it's about time someone brought that up.

no one on neowin tends to realize that most of the world doesn't want to/can't build their own computers and don't want to play games.

[oik]

to the moron who said you can go get a 6800 and put it in a dell... would work, except for the fact that the dell lacks an agp slot. and the psu could not support it either.

[Chad]

With XP Home, which is compareable to OS X, the 2400 runs at 650 dollars.

2.4ghz Celeron (quite a bit better than the G4)

XP Home

256MB Ram

19" Monitor

Integrated graphics (the only thing the emac would win at...hardwarewise)

80gig hd

cdrw

crap speakers

Edited April 16, 2004 by superfula

[Knight']

to the moron who said you can go get a 6800 and put it in a dell... would work, except for the fact that the dell lacks an agp slot. and the psu could not support it either.

Umm... all current Dells have an AGP interface, and you could just replace the PSU.

[Chad]

Umm... all current Dells have an AGP interface, and you could just replace the PSU.

They're talking about the 2400.

What I find quite humourus, is that you lemmings are very much will to compare prices with a Dell computer that matches the emac in price/performance, but when someone comes in and quite handily beats the emac down badly with an Athlon-based computer, they are off-topic and get flamed for it. It doesn't matter how he ended his post...hell he was called a moron. Talk about called the kettle black. The on-topic discussion was the emac vs a cheap pc. His post was very much on topic. Instead of calling a truce and going home with your tail between your legs, you flamed him up and down. Grow up, and pull your head out of Apple's arse.

Granted, against what Dell has, the emac looks decent. But let's face it...the emac sucks for a home computer....as does the Dell.

[BroChaos Veteran]

to the moron who said you can go get a 6800 and put it in a dell... would work, except for the fact that the dell lacks an agp slot. and the psu could not support it either.

thats exactly what i was gonna post, but you beat me to it...

[oik]

They're talking about the 2400.

What I find quite humourus, is that you lemmings are very much will to compare prices with a Dell computer that matches the emac in price/performance, but when someone comes in and quite handily beats the emac down badly with an Athlon-based computer, they are off-topic and get flamed for it. It doesn't matter how he ended his post...hell he was called a moron. Talk about called the kettle black. The on-topic discussion was the emac vs a cheap pc. His post was very much on topic. Instead of calling a truce and going home with your tail between your legs, you flamed him up and down. Grow up, and pull your head out of Apple's arse.

Granted, against what Dell has, the emac looks decent. But let's face it...the emac sucks for a home computer....as does the Dell.

apparently you've lost touch with reality. we've already determined that the emac and dell are good for things like simple image editing, music, writing papers, reading email's, and browsing the internet. i know you live at neowin, but no, neither computer sucks as a home computer. get into the real world, kid... go look at your grandmother. when was the last time she needed an athlon64 and a geforce 6800? when was the last time she played a nice game of ut2004? oh, that's right, never. all she wants to do is keep in touch with the grandkids, see pics from the last family gathering, and maybe listen to a cd while she catches up with the news.

both computers are fine for that, i know these things take awhile to melt through your skull, as dense as it is, but one day i think you'll understand.

[Chad]

apparently you've lost touch with reality. we've already determined that the emac and dell are good for things like simple image editing, music, writing papers, reading email's, and browsing the internet. i know you live at neowin, but no, neither computer sucks as a home computer. get into the real world, kid... go look at your grandmother. when was the last time she needed an athlon64 and a geforce 6800? when was the last time she played a nice game of ut2004? oh, that's right, never. all she wants to do is keep in touch with the grandkids, see pics from the last family gathering, and maybe listen to a cd while she catches up with the news.

both computers are fine for that, i know these things take awhile to melt through your skull, as dense as it is, but one day i think you'll understand.

LOL!! Kid. That's hilarious. I'd really like to know who has established that it's a good home computer, since neither company markets them as such. They are educational computers...one step down from a home machine. Hear me well here....they SUCK as a home computer. Clear enough?

I would never buy my grandmother an emac OR that dell. Both are dead end machines. If she would ever decide to do more with the computer, or upgrade it, she'd have to buy a whole new computer. That is why the eMac sucks as a home machine. It's also why the imac isn't that great either. With the amount of money you spend on two eMacs, you can buy a sweet powermac. By the time the emac isn't fast enough to do what grandma wants (sooner than you think), the powermac will still be going strong, and she'll probably have spend about 400 dollars less on a dual powermac than two emacs. The same applies for the athlon. It's not about what you can do with it, it's about how long the computer will last. If someone came up to me and wanted a pc that will run the newest version of windows for the next 5 years (give or take), I tell them to get the nicest computer they can....almost top of the line. Price. Why in the HELL would I buy a dead end piece like the emac, when I could get a machine that is probably twice as fast, will last twice as long, for the same price.

The only thing the emac has going for it is OS X and all the nice apps bundled with it.

Like I said...if you want to make your stay at neowin a long you, you best be learning how to post without flaming someone.

[nuka_t]

all she wants to do is keep in touch with the grandkids, see pics from the last family gathering, and maybe listen to a cd while she catches up with the news.

This 400 dollar (510 with 17" flat screen monitor)emachines can take care of all that nicely and still cost more than 300 dollars less (when you add taxes) than an emac. Get THAT through your skull. And dont go saying emachines sucks, gtrandma dosent want to OC.

[nuka_t]

First off, you're a fool if a 2Ghz G5 == a 2Ghz Athlon XP == a 2Ghz P4. Different processors have different IPC ratios. Why do you think my 1.8Ghz AthlonXP can keep up with a 2.6Ghz P4? Same reason a 2.0Ghz G5 can outperform a 3.0Ghz P4.

i never said anything about that. i just said that the fastest card on macs is a radeon 9800pro and for pc its a 6800u, that is why it is faster than the G5, not proc speed.

[giga Veteran]

This 400 dollar (510 with 17" flat screen monitor)emachines can take care of all that nicely and still cost more than 300 dollars less (when you add taxes) than an emac. Get THAT through your skull. And dont go saying emachines sucks, gtrandma dosent want to OC.

eMachines are known for their bad reliability and quality. Im not talking about overclocking, im talking about overall build of the parts.

And im sure that the 6800 or the X800 will be available for mac soon.