eMacs Changing?

[MacRumors]

Some are speculating (http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5497) that eMacs may be updated (http://store.apple.com/) due to their listing under "Previous Generation eMacs" in Apple's Special Deals page. But this small change alone does not appear to be convincing evidence of updates.

That being said, an anonymous unconfirmed report previously sent to MacRumors had claimed that eMacs would be discontinued in January with the introduction of a new iMac. The validity of this anonymous report is completely unknown and only published as possible color to the above speculation.

[imaswitcheryeah]

cool... maybe a whole new imac thats better than the current ones. hopefully the current imacs will drop down to the prices of the current emacs.

[dongmin]

The eMacs are due for an update, and not just an under-the-hood features update. The low-end of the Apple's line needs a major jolt of excitement, whether this comes in the form of a headless box, or some new cool all-in-one form factor.

[nslyax]

As I recall, eMacs have been there since they were updated in like November. Unless something has changed that I am missing?

[marano]

$599 headless mac here we come!

[Coca-Cola]

I would really enjoy this. A headless iMac for an emac price. Yeah.

[~Shard~]

This would be excellent. iMac = attached monitor - take the monitor away and you have an eMac. Cool.

[Jetson]

I hope Apple keeps the eMac line. The eMac is the continuation of the popular all-in-one Macintosh product. Sure, the iMac is all-in-one too - and maybe it IS time to say goodbye to the CRT-based machines in favor of LCD screen technology.

But update the eMac with the G5 chipset in the 2-3 gHz range, bump up the bus speed to at least 1 gHz, upgrade to USB 2, put in a bigger hard drive and the eMac will be still be a great machine for a few more years yet.

[Anonymous Freak]

Apple apparently decided that the eMacs got new 'models' when they changed the prices. Even though the 'old' 1GHz Combo drive eMac (at $999) seems like it should be identical to the 'new' 1GHz Combo drive eMac (at $799,) it's not.

The old ones came with Jaguar pre-loaded, and could still boot into OS 9. The new ones come with Panther pre-loaded, and can *NOT* boot into OS 9.

I'm guessing that that 'previous model' one is one of the 'old' Jaguar models. Even though it has the same specs as the current model, it's listed by Apple as separate. (The 'old' 1GHz Combo drive had a model number of M8950, the new one has a model number of M9252.)

[backspinner]

The most important fact about the eMac: the CRT is loved by schools and parents because they don't break so easily if abused by children The same is true for the all-in-one setup and the build in speakers with the strong plastic grill. I don't think it's wise to leave out a CRT based Mac. It would be good though if they made a headless box with about the same price. There is demand for such a thing, some people just don't like the all-in-one concept or the big tower.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by backspinner
The most important fact about the eMac: The same is true for the all-in-one setup and the build in speakers with the strong plastic grill. I don't think it's wise to leave out a CRT based Mac. It would be good though if they made a headless box with about the same price. There is demand for such a thing, some people just don't like the all-in-one concept or the big tower. Apple should definitely keep the eMac around. It shouldn't be the only low-end solution but for the K-12 market, the eMac works like a dream. And no, it doesn't need a 3 ghz G5 chip to work. If anything, I'd like to see it get the rumored 750vx and keep the costs down (assuming that the 750vx is cheaper than a G4 or G5).

[Dont Hurt Me]

I dont see why Apple couldnt take out that crt and put in a fixed lcd and keep about the same price point and continue with the ahem, moto bumps, you know what i mean. But imac needs a lot of help if its supposed to be the flagship of the ahem, consumer line. The G4 in any configuration just does not compete. any benchmark will show that hence you dont see anymore benches mentioning g4. Lets hope for a new imac and emac line.

[backspinner]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I dont see why Apple couldnt take out that crt and put in a fixed lcd and keep about the same price point... 1. crt's are far more durable in combination with (little) children
2. crt's are still a lot cheaper
3. crt's have far better viewing angle, wich is good if used in e.g. a classroom

[TomSmithMacEd]

Yeah, remember everyone eMac means education. This isn't suppose to be a consumer machine. I don't really know what they could do to it besides make it faster... I like the 3 desktop models too, it is a lot better then the day of iMac or Powermac.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by ehurtley
I'm guessing that that 'previous model' one is one of the 'old' Jaguar models. Even though it has the same specs as the current model, it's listed by Apple as separate. (The 'old' 1GHz Combo drive had a model number of M8950, the new one has a model number of M9252.)

Absolutely correct.

The "Previous Generation eMac" is prior to the last (1GHz min) update. The one item listed under refurbished was the top-end model previously, and sold for, IIRC, $1299. Which is why the refurb is $1099. Not sure if there is any physical difference between this and the current top-end eMac (new for $1099) ...

A few weeks ago, this same "previous gen eMac" was listed alongside an 800MHz previous gen eMac. All that's changed is that the 800MHz variant has sold out.

[Edit:]

Actually, the model number hasn't changed much. Put the refurb prev-gen and the current gen eMac on an order and the only model number change is "/A" to "/B" at the end of the model number:

Old eMac
New eMac


eMac 1GHzG4/256MB/80GB/SuperDrive/E/56K
M8951LL/A
Same bus.day
Remove
$1,099.00
$1,099.00

Accessory Kit
SuperDrive
56K internal modem
80GB Ultra ATA drive
Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
256MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
Built in display




eMac 1GHz/256SD/80G/Super/56K
M8951LL/B
Same bus.day
Remove
$1,099.00
$1,099.00

Accessory Kit
SuperDrive
56K internal modem
80GB Ultra ATA drive
Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
256MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
Built in display

[OutThere]

I would have to agree with some previous posters, that a headless emac and cheap 15" monitor could be a really good plan, seeing as mac users don't have much of a monitor choice, only the powermacs allow you to pick you monitor, the imacs and emacs lock you into one monitor. I think that a separate approach could be good. Maybe offer a bundle of a monitor and computer as well.

[Spock]

Maybe this could be the the rumors we have been hearing about the iMac, befor the eMac came out their was talk of a 17'iMac CRT
this could happen again

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by Jetson
I hope Apple keeps the eMac line.

Me too, unless it's replacement can satify my needs. Our leases are up so I have to purchase 600K of Macs, including a planned 150-200 eMacs. The eMac's fit in nicely due to its form factor, power and PRICE. I just want a "low end" all-in-one. I doubt Apple will kill it becasue of it's education value. They can't afford to cut schools off from the price point. It'll kill them.

[macnews]

I agree with some who have said keep the emac line. I would hate to see a cheap all in one go away. For many education buyers the all in one CRT provides more than just ease with children (compared to LCD's), it also fits what most of them do every day - surf the web, and do SIMPLE, non-CPU task heavy programs. Educators, me included, would hate to buy an iMac when all I really need is a computer to surf, check email and do word processing. I do not need a G5 for that. I don't have young children but sometimes college students can be worse. I would hate to have to start worrying about LCDs.

The emac fits where it is supposed to. It would be hard to get and all in one w/LCD at a sub 1k price range. LCD prices are on the rise due to demand, a 15" LCD was going for $200-$300 (expected to rise) compared to $100 for a CRT. Not to mention you would be dropping down from a 17" CRT to a 15" LCD.

[latergator116]

Apple needs to get rid of that ugly chrome logo on the drive door.

[takao]

Apple needs a headless iMac.
sure the eMac is nice entry class Apple computer but it isnt well suited for a "switcher". I could make an easy list of 5-10 switcher if they only could keep their own CRT display without spending extra money for a display they don't need.

for myself if this is available in January 2005
*headless Mac with G5(single 1,6ghz would be enough, won't say no to 2,0 ghz ;-)
*changeable graphicscard in agp slot
*1 x free PCI Slot
*more than 4 USB ports ( printer,scanner,keyboard,webcam,+spare)
*place for an extra hard drive (easy to upgrade)
*easy to upgrade RAM

for max. 1000 EURO ( inkluding taxes, approx. 1200 $ at the moment ) im gonna get one or perhaps even two

the "e" in eMac doesnt really count as education here in europe because for a school it is much more expensive to buy them never heard of a school using them here in austria)

PS: sorry for bad english: native german speaking

[natey]

Originally posted by Jetson
But update the eMac with the G5 chipset in the 2-3 gHz range, bump up the bus speed to at least 1 gHz, upgrade to USB 2, put in a bigger hard drive and the eMac will be still be a great machine for a few more years yet.
You're hilarious. Not everything has to have a G5 in it. It wouldn't be an eMac if it had a G5 in it (at least not now). What you're describing is an iMac, so just get an iMac.

Neither will the iMac or the headless iMac (which I think is totally stupid and inconceivable) will get a G5 until the PowerBooks get them. Apple has to differentiate the iBooks and the PowerBooks. Both lines are too close now. I think it'll be their priority. Go G5 with the Pro line first, later the consumer line.

And Apple's "concept" has always been all-in-one computers for the consumer line. So unless Apple change their concept, you won't see a headless iMac.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apples concept for a all in one for consumers was good 4 years ago, but what it has become is not only do we want consumers to have a all in one we want consumers to have a all in one that has a slow outdated cpu, lowest current videochip being made, no upgrade path and is a lousey gaming machine.This is acceptable for emac but total crap for 2 thousand dollar imac and a headless imac would be terrific since there are many many people who have posted they would like one. all you i want g4's forever people sound like Apple or Motorola Trolls. Why the hell anyone would want Apple to stay with the company that has nearly killed them is simply stupid, naive or ignorant on Apple and Motorolas history.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Jetson

But update the eMac with the G5 chipset in the 2-3 gHz range, bump up the bus speed to at least 1 gHz, upgrade to USB 2, put in a bigger hard drive and the eMac will be still be a great machine for a few more years yet.

HAHA - thanks for the laugh. Let me guess, you're one of these people who believes a G5 has to be in every machine, right? :rolleyes:

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
all you i want g4's forever people sound like Apple or Motorola Trolls.

I agree that anyone making such a claim is rather ignorant - why would anyone want to stay with G4s forever? But could you please back up this claim with some posts of people saying specifically that? - That they want G4s forever? I would be curious to see such posts, as I would give them a talking to myself! Sure, current G4 machines will be used by people for years to come, no doubt doing everything that their user requires just fine, and some people will never need the power of a G5, but for someone to say they never want to see the G5 progress and that we should stay with G4 forever is very silly - please back up your claim, I'd be interested to see the posts!

[yamabushi]

There should be a G5 in every model except the eMac and iBook. Hopefully this will happen within the next six months. An all G5 consumer line consisting of a CRT iMac (17" or 19"), Widescreen LCD iMacs(17"and 20") and a G5 Cube would be really good news. The eMac can stick around for a while longer but should be redesigned to be made at even less expense and should be priced much lower. Right now it is stuck at a point where it is still too expensive for education and too underpowered for consumers.

[sworthy]

the only difference between the "previous generation" and refurbished machines is that those labeled previous generation are new in box, and not just refurbished. Take a look at the ibook G3's listed. There are two sections, one for previous model, and another for refurbished. All this is, is a labeling system to differentiate between new and used. :rolleyes:

[thatwendigo]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
I agree that anyone making such a claim is rather ignorant - why would anyone want to stay with G4s forever? But could you please back up this claim with some posts of people saying specifically that?

Good luck.

I may lurk, but all I've seen out of Donthurtme on this subject has been this constant rave against Apple and their engineering. For some reason, anyone who even slightly defends the choices Apple has made, and the forces of the market, is an apologist who thinks that macs shouldn't ever be used as gaming machines. Maybe it's never occured to him that companies have to modify the boards to be used in Apple machines, and that an economy of scale applies in these matters. DVI is standard enough, but ADC is not exactly the connector of choice in the PC world. Add into that the consideration of writing OpenGL and OS X compatible drivers that are fast and stable, and you're getting into some major investment by the firms who manufacture cards. I don't know how much of a return they get from what already exists, but I bet it isn't enough for them to decide it's a justifiable expense to make more models available.

Oh, and you know all those wonderful advancements in the mac that we love and cherish? Things like the G5 towers? We wouldn't have them if Apple didn't have the money to keep sinking into R&D. Lower profit margins mean less cash in the short term (at least), and perhaps a gamble that wouldn't pay off to begin with.

In other words, this is not a simple issue of 'Apple Hates Gamers.' Hell, my 700mhz emac runs most games well enough for my tastes, even if I do lust for something better. I'd love to have a 1.6 G5 with a 5200 FX, right about now. Hell, slide me an imac, and I'd still be better off than I am!

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
Good luck.

I may lurk, but all I've seen out of Donthurtme on this subject has been this constant rave against Apple and their engineering. For some reason, anyone who even slightly defends the choices Apple has made, and the forces of the market, is an apologist who thinks that macs shouldn't ever be used as gaming machines. Maybe it's never occured to him that companies have to modify the boards to be used in Apple machines, and that an economy of scale applies in these matters. DVI is standard enough, but ADC is not exactly the connector of choice in the PC world. Add into that the consideration of writing OpenGL and OS X compatible drivers that are fast and stable, and you're getting into some major investment by the firms who manufacture cards. I don't know how much of a return they get from what already exists, but I bet it isn't enough for them to decide it's a justifiable expense to make more models available.

Oh, and you know all those wonderful advancements in the mac that we love and cherish? Things like the G5 towers? We wouldn't have them if Apple didn't have the money to keep sinking into R&D. Lower profit margins mean less cash in the short term (at least), and perhaps a gamble that wouldn't pay off to begin with.

In other words, this is not a simple issue of 'Apple Hates Gamers.' Hell, my 700mhz emac runs most games well enough for my tastes, even if I do lust for something better. I'd love to have a 1.6 G5 with a 5200 FX, right about now. Hell, slide me an imac, and I'd still be better off than I am!

Well said thatwendigo, I completely agree with you. I too have become tired reading Donthurtme's narrow, re-hashed comments, and whenever I have replied in detail, as you have done above, I never seem to get a constructive reply back from him - not that I'm surprised.

But, I digress. There are marketing, economics, engineering, economies of scale, R&D and many other important factors in this business of Apple's, and it's refreshing to see another member on this forum who realizes and fully understands these issues. Excellent post.

[neoelectronaut]

Being a life-long PC user and, well, increasingly hating it day by day, I dove into the Mac world with my purchase of an eMac towards the end of October. I think it's great. It doesn't everything I want it to and more. I don't see a problem with it. And what's more, the price was right. For $1200 I got a beautiful 17" monitor and a Superdrive. If I wanted a 17" display and a superdrive on an iMac, I would have to pay $1800 MINIMUM. That's just out of my budget range. I don't see a freaking problem with the eMac, and I'm satisfied.

In a few years, I'll be able to get something new, so I'll try for something higher on the rack then. Until that time, my eMac is the best damn computer I've ever owned.

I can play Max Payne, Medal of Honor, and a load of other games too, for that matter. That's not an issue.

[thatwendigo]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
Well said thatwendigo, I completely agree with you. I too have become tired reading Donthurtme's narrow, re-hashed comments, and whenever I have replied in detail, as you have done above, I never seem to get a constructive reply back from him - not that I'm surprised.

But, I digress. There are marketing, economics, engineering, economies of scale, R&D and many other important factors in this business of Apple's, and it's refreshing to see another member on this forum who realizes and fully understands these issues. Excellent post.

Let's put it this way, Shard...

I'm a realist in many ways, and that applies to my computer usage, too. I may be younger than many of my fellow posters (though I suspect I'm older than a few, too), but that doesn't bar me from having a grasp of the issues. True, I'm no prosumer or professional user, but I know that the machine on my desk is perfectly good for anything but the most demanding image manipulation and running brand new games at high settings. Oh, and unlike some of my PC-using friends, I knew that this bargain machine I bought wasn't intended to do those things.

That's the thing that doesn't seem to quite sink in. This is the bottom of the Apple line, and was never meant to be competitive with anything but *gasp* the bottom of the line in PCs.

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by natey
You're hilarious. Not everything has to have a G5 in it. It wouldn't be an eMac if it had a G5 in it (at least not now). What you're describing is an iMac, so just get an iMac.

Neither will the iMac or the headless iMac (which I think is totally stupid and inconceivable) will get a G5 until the PowerBooks get them. Apple has to differentiate the iBooks and the PowerBooks. Both lines are too close now. I think it'll be their priority. Go G5 with the Pro line first, later the consumer line.

And Apple's "concept" has always been all-in-one computers for the consumer line. So unless Apple change their concept, you won't see a headless iMac.

First, in order for Apple to compete they can't keep the pro and consumers lines divided by the processor, processor speed yes, but not the processor. The current G4 is an old design. If they can put a G5 in the iMac they should, even if they can't put it in the PB yet. Apple needs to do what is right for its customer base and shareholders, and that’s to sell systems that customers want.

The iMac is not an All-In-One design; it has external speakers.

[thatwendigo]

For those who are interested, this discussion is also taking place here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=632602).

Dont Hurt Me actually replied there, Shard, so you might want to hop over and take a look. I don't think you'll be surprised, but you might find something of interest in the other replies.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
For those who are interested, this discussion is also taking place here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=632602).

Dont Hurt Me actually replied there, Shard, so you might want to hop over and take a look. I don't think you'll be surprised, but you might find something of interest in the other replies.

Thanks for the head's up - I always like getting into discussions like this. :cool: But it always seems that once a person like you or me responds with a constructive, well thought out, logical post, dissecting the original post, guys like Donthurtme never reply back. I wonder why? ;)

Anyway, I'm off to that other discussion - this should be fun! <This is another one of those times I need an evil happy face emoticon>

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Lanbrown
First, in order for Apple to compete they can't keep the pro and consumers lines divided by the processor, processor speed yes, but not the processor. The current G4 is an old design. If they can put a G5 in the iMac they should, even if they can't put it in the PB yet. Apple needs to do what is right for its customer base and shareholders, and that’s to sell systems that customers want.

The iMac is not an All-In-One design; it has external speakers. thatwendigo is beating the Apple Drum, i like you think there is no reason to keep crippling the consumer line, G4 has crippled apple for the past few years there is no debate its simply fact. They have to build computers that the consumer wants, right now they are not referring to imac. Emac is a good deal because of the low price and what you get. Imac on the other hand is so far back from the pro line its almost sad, Im sure we will get another childish comment from thatwendigo on my post but i dont care. Its a fact that Motorola is at the back of this race and apple doesnt have to keep going and going with this looser. Steve Jobs said the G4 was a tonka toy and he is right. Apples biggest headache has been this company that cant seem to progress or deliver what apple needs. we all know G5s are coming lets just hope it dont take 2 more years to get there. Iam expecting a new emac and imac in 2004. People like thatwendigo apparently dont like to play games on a mac and therefore seem very content with stuff like G4,Fx5200,slow busses,memory being half used,and a monitor you cant keep. Apples hardware has to catch up to the wintel world it just that simple.

[RichardCarletta]

CRTs may be the least costly type of momitors to use for entry level computers like the eMac. What if Apple introduced a 19" CRT emac with a minimum 1600 X 1200 display , Radeon 9600 graphics, 60 GB 7200rpm hard drive, Firewire 800 and USB 2.0 , 4X Superdrive , 1.4 GHZ G4 and a standard 512 MB Ram ? This would be the top model and would sell for under $1499 . Then around August they could put the 2 GHZ G5 in the iMac and the 19" emac and the 2.4 , 2.6 , and 3.0 GHZ G5 in the PowerMacs and Powerbooks.

January :

19" G4 emac
2.4 GHZ DP PowerMac
2.6 GHZ DP PowerMac

August :

20" 2 GHZ G5 iMac
19" 2 GHZ G5 emac
3 GHZ DP PowerMac

December:

2.4 GHZ Powerbook

[montecristo]

Originally posted by RichardCarletta
CRTs may be the least costly type of momitors to use for entry level computers like the eMac. What if Apple introduced a 19" CRT emac with a minimum 1600 X 1200 display ....


Good idea to expand the display area, but with a 19inch CRT, the weight would be too much, I think. When the iMac went to the 20 inch LCD, the additional weight of the LCD combined with the ballasst needed to keep the thing from tipping over basically doubled the weight!

The eMac is already at around 50 pounds. I don't know if they can really sell something that would be much heavier than that.

[montecristo]

Originally posted by RichardCarletta
CRTs may be the least costly type of momitors to use for entry level computers like the eMac. What if Apple introduced a 19" CRT emac with a minimum 1600 X 1200 display ....


Good idea to expand the display area, but with a 19inch CRT, the weight would be too much, I think. When the iMac went to the 20 inch LCD, the additional weight of the LCD combined with the ballasst needed to keep the thing from tipping over basically doubled the weight!

The eMac is already at around 50 pounds. I don't know if they can really sell something that would be much heavier than that.

[backspinner]

Originally posted by montecristo The eMac is already at around 50 pounds. I don't know if they can really sell something that would be much heavier than that. My father bought one, and had to carry it upstairs with a lot of help from my mom! These things are heavy.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thats why the schools like them so much, pretty hard to rip off and carry around. This is just my opinion but i think apple could take out that crt and use a lcd in its place with just a slighty smaller enclosure. Lot less heat generated, easier to produce and could put it in a smaller package. they could use say the 15 inch screen that they use in powerbook and cut a deal with the lcd maker by ordering millions! talk about cost savings.

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Thats why the schools like them so much, pretty hard to rip off and carry around. This is just my opinion but i think apple could take out that crt and use a lcd in its place with just a slighty smaller enclosure. Lot less heat generated, easier to produce and could put it in a smaller package. they could use say the 15 inch screen that they use in powerbook and cut a deal with the lcd maker by ordering millions! talk about cost savings.
I just don't see the point.
What is an eMac with an LCD but an iMac?
Unless the iMac becomes a G5 and the eMac stays G4 why would they both become LCD?

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think you answered your own question

[~Shard~]

I agree - I think a LCD eMac would not be a bad thing at all, and is definitely possible with the G5 iMacs coming out in a few months - there will be enough product differentiation to warrant a LCD eMac.

I'm really indifferent as to whether the eMac receives an LCD or not, but definitely could see it happening and wouldn't be opposed.

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I think you answered your own question
But do you really think G5 iMacs are coming out anytime soon?

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
But do you really think G5 iMacs are coming out anytime soon?

Honestly, my hunch is around summer this year - maybe even late spring. We're used to seeing slower release times for things like this, but that was thanks to the Motorola world, and we are now in the IBM world - I see updates and progression happening a lot faster now than what were used to. With the PowerMacs due for speed boosts soon, there is no reason we couldn't see a 1.6 or 1.8 G5 in an iMac, since the PMs will have possibly up to 2.6 GHz at the time, with the 3 GHz G5s around the corner a few months after that. (Just speculating of course!)

But, that's just my opinion. I also think when we do see a G5 iMac, it may completely break the "iMac model" - it may no longer be a consumer-level machine, and become a mid-level machine, between the eMacs (and old G4 iMacs), and the PowerMacs. It might become more of a "digital hub", and actually run $3000-$3500. But it'll have all the goodies the PMs have, just a little more stripped down. Just my crazy speculation and predictions though. :cool:

[RichardCarletta]

Put a glass pane barrier in front of the LCD ( like a window pane built in the case ) to protect it . Keep the same case , inset a LCD in the place where the CRT was and mount a pane of glass in front of it in the case. Install a huge fan or two in the space where the CRT would have been . Maybe there would still be space inside to include the board from a Formac Studio HDTV to make it " cable ready " and Install a 2 GHZ G5 . :p

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by RichardCarletta
Put a glass pane barrier in front of the LCD ( like a window pane built in the case ) to protect it . Keep the same case , inset a LCD in the place where the CRT was and mount a pane of glass in front of it in the case. Install a huge fan or two in the space where the CRT would have been . Maybe there would still be space inside to include the board from a Formac Studio HDTV to make it " cable ready " and Install a 2 GHZ G5 . :p

You just had to throw that last little detail in there, didn't ya? ;)

[thatwendigo]

Originally posted by backspinner
My father bought one, and had to carry it upstairs with a lot of help from my mom! These things are heavy.

Eh, I carry mine on my own, but I'm a big guy. It is one of the heaviest machines I've ever owned, though, weighing in at. subjectively, a bit more than that 17" monitor I keep around for the legacy hardware that I'm currently restoring. :D

Originally posted by ~Shard~
But, that's just my opinion. I also think when we do see a G5 iMac, it may completely break the "iMac model" - it may no longer be a consumer-level machine, and become a mid-level machine, between the eMacs (and old G4 iMacs), and the PowerMacs. It might become more of a "digital hub", and actually run $3000-$3500. But it'll have all the goodies the PMs have, just a little more stripped down. Just my crazy speculation and predictions though.

Intriguing idea, Shard. I'm going to take what you and Richard said and run with it for a moment, and see what you two think. This is a game I've played with my dad, through email, ever since I started actively following the Apple hardware lineup and the rumormill.

Apple eMac/iMac lineup, circa Spring-Summer 2004:

eMac
17-inch LCD (glass fronted)
1.33ghz/1.42ghz
256/512MB PC2800 RAM
60/80GB UltraATA
ATI Radeon 8500
Combo/Superdrive
Airport Extreme Ready
2 Firewire, 3 USB
10/100 Ethernet
$799/$1199

iMac
15/17/20-inch LCD
1.6/1.8/1.8ghz G5
256/512/512MB PC3200 RAM
80/120/160GB SATA HD
FX 5200/FX 5200/Radeon 9600
Combo/SuperDrive/SuperDrive
Apple Pro Speakers
Airport Extreme Ready/Airport Extreme Ready/Airport Extreme
Bluetooth Ready
2 Firewire, 1 Firewire 800, 5 USB 2.0
Analog Audio/Analog Audio/Digital Audio
10/100 Ethernet
$1599/$1999/$2399

I went and poked around at component costs to check on the price scale, too. The HD difference is roughly $20-30 for a Maxtor 7200RPM SATA at each jump in the iMacs. The graphics cards are things Apple already has in quantity and possesses the drivers for. I'm not sure how much the onboard audio unit costs, but it seems likely to be something they also have in quantity. The one real, hard guess I have to make is the processor, but stories have placed G5s as being cheaper, per-unit, than G4s. This would almost certainly require either a huge fan or a case redesign, but I'm not opposed to changing the form factor. It also keeps a nice, tight grouping in the product line, with the high end iMac still being lower speced than a bottom powermac. Incidentally, it also makes a nearly contiguous path from emac to imac, since there's a hop of $400 at each step.

Thoughts? Criticism or comments?

[thatwendigo]

Incidentally, I'd love to be able to ditch that G4 in the eMac for, say, a 750VX running at 2ghz. That's just me, though.

My god, I want that chip to be real and as amazing as it sounds. For the heat output, you could cram two of them into a portable, and I want a dual-processor laptop. I mean... You want to talk about a Centrino killer? Take two of those "super G4s" and mate them to the higher bus and actual usage of DDR, with a newer ASIC and some faster parts, and you've got a smoking portable processor that doesn't literally smoke the way a G5 would. :rolleyes:

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
But, that's just my opinion. I also think when we do see a G5 iMac, it may completely break the "iMac model" - it may no longer be a consumer-level machine, and become a mid-level machine, between the eMacs (and old G4 iMacs), and the PowerMacs.
I guess this is just a pet peeve of mine, but why is the iMac considered a "consumer" machine. Is it just because it has slower processor, memory, etc. than the PowerMac. Because cost wise it ceased to be a "consumer" long ago in my mind.
When I bought my iMac DV SE some four years ago. $1200 was much less than it would have cost to buy a PowerMac with DVD-ROM drive and a monitor. Now the iMac is ridiculously overpriced for what you get. You can get an refurbished G5 and studio display for ($2300) for barely more that a 17" iMac with the same amount of memory and same size hard drive ($2100).
Are sales figures availible the iMac since it's release to today? When it came out it was a huge product for Apple. Now it is just an overpiced novelty computer.
The iMac line needs a major overhaul. Faster processors, faster memory, and most importantly a lower price.
If you have $2000+ to spend on a computer you can do much better while still buying a Mac!
Just my opinion.

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by thatwendigo

Apple eMac/iMac lineup, circa Spring-Summer 2004:

eMac
17-inch LCD (glass fronted)
1.33ghz/1.42ghz
256/512MB PC2800 RAM
60/80GB UltraATA
ATI Radeon 8500
Combo/Superdrive
Airport Extreme Ready
2 Firewire, 3 USB
10/100 Ethernet
$799/$1199


The only problem with the idea I see is Apple currently charges $699 for a 17 inch LCD, so unless these prices are going to come down dramatically you are basically paying $100 for a 1.33 GHz G4, 256 MB of RAM, etc. I don't think there is any money for Apple in such a computer. (Not that I wouldn't gladly buy that config headless for $300 if Apple wanted to offer it).
Also, I hope that we are seeing the last of the Motorola G4 speedbumps. Apple needs to know that the future is in the IBM 750VX chips (whatever they are branded) and G5's. By the summer the PowerMac should be at least dual 2.6 GHz, it is going to be very hard to get excited about a 33 MHz speed bump in the eMac line.

[neoelectronaut]

Originally posted by thatwendigo

Apple eMac/iMac lineup, circa Spring-Summer 2004:

eMac
17-inch LCD (glass fronted)
1.33ghz/1.42ghz
256/512MB PC2800 RAM
60/80GB UltraATA
ATI Radeon 8500
Combo/Superdrive
Airport Extreme Ready
2 Firewire, 3 USB
10/100 Ethernet
$799/$1199


I hope to god it doesn't jump that quickly. I only bought this thing a few months ago, and I knew it wouldn't great for long...but I was hoping for a good 6 months of use before it became COMPLETELY overshadowed.

It's also going to make me look real stupid..."if I had only waited a few more months..."

[thatwendigo]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
The only problem with the idea I see is Apple currently charges $699 for a 17 inch LCD, so unless these prices are going to come down dramatically you are basically paying $100 for a 1.33 GHz G4, 256 MB of RAM, etc. I don't think there is any money for Apple in such a computer. (Not that I wouldn't gladly buy that config headless for $300 if Apple wanted to offer it).
Also, I hope that we are seeing the last of the Motorola G4 speedbumps. Apple needs to know that the future is in the IBM 750VX chips (whatever they are branded) and G5's. By the summer the PowerMac should be at least dual 2.6 GHz, it is going to be very hard to get excited about a 33 MHz speed bump in the eMac line.

I did mention that I'd love to see the VX replace the G4, didn't I? *goes back and checks* Yeah, sure did...

I threw that together this afternoon, and the prices were a little forced at the low end. It wouldn't surprise me to see them $200-300 higher, at the least, if Apple were to replace the CRT with an LCD. I'd be all for the change, in both senses. Hopefully, with Fishkill fabbing the 750VX, it'll be cheaper and available in quantity, too. I'd imagine that the eMac and iBook would keep the 750VX as their chip for a while, and then iMac and Powermac would get G5s. I'm still undecided on the Powerbook, but I'm not expecting the G5 to appear for a while, for heat concerns that have more to do with the other components than the processor.

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
I'd imagine that the eMac and iBook would keep the 750VX as their chip for a while, and then iMac and Powermac would get G5s. I'm still undecided on the Powerbook, but I'm not expecting the G5 to appear for a while, for heat concerns that have more to do with the other components than the processor.

I guess we actually agree then.:)
I hope that the 750VX running at speeds much greater the current Moto G4's, is the future of the low end Mac.
I just hope that Apple doesn't speed bump eMacs and iBooks with the old ones for another year in an attempt to use up inventory.
More importantly, I hope that Apple finally realizes there are a lot of people out here who would jump at sub $1000 "headless" Mac. Essentially an iMac without the built-in monitor. It may even encourage switchers who already have $500+ invested in a monitor they would like to keep.

[dieselg4]

I would assume that the architectural firm I work for is similar to a number of business that don't replace their entire desktop computers with new monitors.
Whenever a new computer is purchased, the existing 19" crt is connected to it. Why? because back when 14" LCD's were mighty pricey, they bought new computers with flat screen 19" monitors. Sure they draw more poer, and sure they take up more space, but they also cost alot less. And they already have them.
If Apple wants to make more inroads into businesses, it would be a fetaher in their had to have a small headless desktop with a standard VGA port, regardless of whatever kind of "all-in-one" mantra they may have had in place at some time.

And for those of you that say professionals should buy powermacs, i would be willing to bet that most companies do not buy top-end equipment for the bulk of their staff. If that were the case, I'd be sitting in a room full of Xeons, and that's not the case.

[yamabushi]

If you were to include the cost of electricity in the TCO, an LCD could eventually beat out a CRT in cost. Compare the expected yearly power draw based on usage for each and multiply the difference by the cost of electricity in your area. You might be surprised at how quickly it adds up, especially if the monitor is used 24/7/365.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by dieselg4


And for those of you that say professionals should buy powermacs,...

Even non-professionals, or semi-professionals may want their own say in monitors.

Apple's failure to introduce a low/mid range headless has driven more people away than anything else they've done. I've got a beige G3 with a nice LCD monitor. There's no way I can afford a $1300 tower and there's no way I'm blowing $600 on a 3 year old machine on ebay. I don't care about the cost of upgrading my software at this point. I'll spite Apple and find PC versions of all my paid-for versions of Mac software for free. My conscience is fine with that.

Apple plays dirty politics. They're friggin' bastartds when it comes to customer service. Eff 'em...

[Spock]

Here Apple this is what I want.

[marano]

Perfect, I would buy one of those in a second it is exactly what apple needs a nice $599 headless mac. As for the emac what if they went with a 15" LCD and discontinued the 15" LCD iMac so if you wanted a bigger display than 15" you need to go with a iMac if not a emac is for you.

[kryten2000]

I have one of the first emacs with a 700 mhz processor and not even a combo drive, but I just have to say I love my emac.Certainly adding ram and a external dvd burner has helped, but I've done everything on this machine from 3d design to video editing and it just doesnt quit. I don't see a g5 in the emac future but if they could at least update the video card and bus speed and put in the fastest g4 possible then I would be sold on a new one. It was the emac that made me switch in thefirst place

[Spock]

Originally posted by marano
Perfect, I would buy one of those in a second it is exactly what apple needs a nice $599 headless mac. As for the emac what if they went with a 15" LCD and discontinued the 15" LCD iMac so if you wanted a bigger display than 15" you need to go with a iMac if not a emac is for you.

Or how about this...

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Spock
Or how about this...

What an ugly-looking cube...

[Dont Hurt Me]

have to agree with shard, looks like it would tip over very easily.

[CMillerERAU]

Apple could get away with bringing back the original cube design, I think it's very classy and wouldn't look outdated at all. As for specs I'd say go for broke and put a zippy G3, say 1.2GHz in it. That way you could price it at $499 at the max and sell a zillion. You could even use the same form factor for several models, the 1.2 G3 in the low end, 1.5 G4 mid-range, and 2.0 G5 in the top. It would require different motherboards in each model but if priced well, I think they could sell enough in each category.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by CMillerERAU
Apple could get away with bringing back the original cube design, I think it's very classy and wouldn't look outdated at all. As for specs I'd say go for broke and put a zippy G3, say 1.2GHz in it. That way you could price it at $499 at the max and sell a zillion. You could even use the same form factor for several models, the 1.2 G3 in the low end, 1.5 G4 mid-range, and 2.0 G5 in the top. It would require different motherboards in each model but if priced well, I think they could sell enough in each category.

I don't think Apple would ever segment a product using G3s, G4s and G5s in the line-up - just me though.

I definitely think a headless Mac (besides the PowerMac!) would be a great idea though - it would give consumers who already have monitors a nice option, if they don't want to spend the money on the PowerMac...

[CMillerERAU]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
I don't think Apple would ever segment a product using G3s, G4s and G5s in the line-up - just me though.

Yeah I suppose you're right, I just think a headless mac would be a hit in any segment. If I had to pick any slot for it, I'd put it waaayyy down at the bottom. Slap in a 1.2 GHz G3 and a modest graphics accelerator and sell it as cheap as possible. A $399 Macintosh? I think it's possible, and performance be darned! People buy eMachines all the time knowing full well they're piles. Just think how far Apple could go with a super-cheap PC killer like this?

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by CMillerERAU
Yeah I suppose you're right, I just think a headless mac would be a hit in any segment. If I had to pick any slot for it, I'd put it waaayyy down at the bottom. Slap in a 1.2 GHz G3 and a modest graphics accelerator and sell it as cheap as possible. A $399 Macintosh? I think it's possible, and performance be darned! People buy eMachines all the time knowing full well they're piles. Just think how far Apple could go with a super-cheap PC killer like this?

The other thing with this though, is that I doubt Apple would release a "snazzy brand new awesome product", and then announce it has a G3 in it. What else in the Apple product line currrently has a G3, now that the iBooks have been upgraded? The G3 is looked at as old technology now, even though it is, all things considered, a decent chip. I think you would at least have to put a G4 in it, otherwise the iBook and eMac would look far superior to this "new" product. Many people would question why Apple is releasing a NEW product with OLD technology.

But I see what you're saying about putting it at the low end of things, to keep it cheap - but I think you could still make it fairly cheap with a G4 in it, since G5s are now where it's at, if that is indeed the way you want to work things.

[Quixcube]

Apple doesn't want to sell a boatload of super cheap headless Macintoshes. They would rather sell fewer Macs at a higher profit margin. It costs more to provide warranty services and tech support to 800,000 Macs than it does for 500,000 Macs, and if the profit margin it set correctly they make the same money off the deal.

Apple isn't going to (ever) experience a *sudden* surge in market share. Introducing a super cheap machine will not change that. Many of the people who would buy Macs anyway would buy the cheaper machines instead of forking out extra for an iMac or Powermac. This canibalizes Apple's profits on the more expensive machines. Sound familiar (clones?) The eMac may be saddled with the heavy built-in CRT for a reason; to keep it from becoming too perfect an alternative to the other models.

For those of you asking for a headless G5 eMac with a swappable graphics card, why not just ask for a $599 Powermac model? It sounds less feasible in those terms.

For the more realistic ones asking for a G3 at 1.2Ghz in a headless form factor, I say that Apple is just protecting profit margins, and R&D money, and I don't think such a machine is going to happen.

They do a lot to keep us happy (by existing as an alternative) so we can't really expect them to capitulate on every front and charge us practically nothing for something that costs them a lot to develop.

[x86isslow]

i went to compusa 2 weeks ago, and they still had emacs on display, and in the stock-room that was right behind the "store-in-store".

i went to the same store yesterday and they had all the apple products on display, except for the emac. a quick check of the stock-room showed no emac boxes, just a lot of powerbooks, and powermacs.

[Anna]

they would not get rid of the emac because of the new iMac. It is much harder to steal an emac weighing in at a hefty 22kg and easier to clean and no moving parts

[Waluigi]

Over the past 5 years, I have done extensive consultant work for the IT needs for a k-12 school district. For years, my esteemed colugees have shut down my plans to buy macs, because you can get cheaper, and faster dell's. What apple needs is to put a G5 in all lines and an LCD screen in the eMac for the same price. If they did this they would beat dell in value hands down.

First of all, the eMac shouldn't be discoutinued:
1. Durable
2. Speakers are in the machine
3. Ultra Cheep
4. Hard to steel

Why the LCD screen in eMacs:
1. Smaller overall body of the machine
2. There will be less of a need to replace them in a few years when there are no such thing as CRT's
3. Price can be the same if apple produces enough in mass quanitity

Why Apple should go all G5
1. Less R&D for the OS since all the computers run on the same chip
2. Cheeper to mass produce tons of G5's, thus the price wouldn't go up to put a 1.6G5 rather then a 1GHz G4 in an eMac
3. Get rid of moto finally
4. With IBM churnning out processor updates more frequently, the high end G5 PowerMac will easily be much faster then the comsumer line even though they run on the same processor
5. Less consumer confusion
6. People won't feel they are buying a clearly outdated product on the low end machines
7. Apple would sell much more in the edu market in terms of desktops and laptops, and thus more districts will buy xserves, and increase xserve sales.
8. All computers will have all the new IO ports, and new standards like SATA, PCI-X, etc

January/Feburary 2005:
PowerMac: Dual 3.5GHz G5
PowerBook: Dual 3GHz G5

iMac: 2.5GHz G5
iBook: 2.5GHz G5
eMac: 2GHz G5

Basically, our district has gone dell every year for the last 5 years I've been working there because the macs that are in our price range are crippled in performance. I would love to go into a budget meeting, present my plan to go mac, and have it approved. Can apple switch to G5 by the end of MWSF 2005?

--Waluigi

[Liquidog]

I think people are assuming that the G4 is going to hang on as long as the G3 did, which is probably a false assumption. The G3 hung on for so long because the same company was making the G4, so it made good business sense to maximize the application of the older CPU. Now that IBM has become the supplier, we will not likely see the G4 stick around for any longer than it takes to use up Apple's current stock of the chip; they may even cut their losses and ditch whatever G4s they have left in favor of the new 750VX from IBM. I don't have a lot of patience for hardcore gamers that demand this and that from their macintosh; Apple makes computers that are the best at doing ALMOST everything. They're not the best at gaming. You can't always get what you want. Isn't a computer that isn't constantly crippled with security/reliability issues worth 15 frames per second and one step down on the resolution of a game that was designed with a Radeon 9600 in mind? Waah, waah, Halo won't run at 1024. Cry me a river.

[neoelectronaut]

Originally posted by Waluigi
Over the past 5 years, I have done extensive consultant work for the IT needs for a k-12 school district. For years, my esteemed colugees have shut down my plans to buy macs, because you can get cheaper, and faster dell's. What apple needs is to put a G5 in all lines and an LCD screen in the eMac for the same price. If they did this they would beat dell in value hands down.

First of all, the eMac shouldn't be discoutinued:
1. Durable
2. Speakers are in the machine
3. Ultra Cheep
4. Hard to steel

Why the LCD screen in eMacs:
1. Smaller overall body of the machine
2. There will be less of a need to replace them in a few years when there are no such thing as CRT's
3. Price can be the same if apple produces enough in mass quanitity

Why Apple should go all G5
1. Less R&D for the OS since all the computers run on the same chip
2. Cheeper to mass produce tons of G5's, thus the price wouldn't go up to put a 1.6G5 rather then a 1GHz G4 in an eMac
3. Get rid of moto finally
4. With IBM churnning out processor updates more frequently, the high end G5 PowerMac will easily be much faster then the comsumer line even though they run on the same processor
5. Less consumer confusion
6. People won't feel they are buying a clearly outdated product on the low end machines
7. Apple would sell much more in the edu market in terms of desktops and laptops, and thus more districts will buy xserves, and increase xserve sales.
8. All computers will have all the new IO ports, and new standards like SATA, PCI-X, etc

January/Feburary 2005:
PowerMac: Dual 3.5GHz G5
PowerBook: Dual 3GHz G5

iMac: 2.5GHz G5
iBook: 2.5GHz G5
eMac: 2GHz G5

Basically, our district has gone dell every year for the last 5 years I've been working there because the macs that are in our price range are crippled in performance. I would love to go into a budget meeting, present my plan to go mac, and have it approved. Can apple switch to G5 by the end of MWSF 2005?

--Waluigi

That is perhaps the most logical post in the whole danged topic.

[neoelectronaut]

http://www004.upp.so-net.ne.jp/hikka/maku/gallery/fake3.html

Though it's fake, it still looks pretty neat.

[Waluigi]

Originally posted by neoelectronaut
Though it's fake, it still looks pretty neat.

That is exactly what I had in mind (but with a little more flare in its design from Mr. Ive). Thanks for the link.

--Waluigi

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
eMac
17-inch LCD (glass fronted)
1.33ghz/1.42ghz
256/512MB PC2800 RAM
60/80GB UltraATA
**********ATI Radeon 8500*************
Combo/Superdrive
Airport Extreme Ready
2 Firewire, 3 USB
10/100 Ethernet
$799/$1199
[B]

Are you mad!!!!
The R8500 stoped production in early 2003 on the PC front. While a great card in it's time it is now very dated.
I would expect at the very worst the bottom of the line mac have at least the current bottom of the line graphices card (R9200,) which by the way is better than the old R8500.

[QCassidy352]

I don't think the "$599 headless mac" is coming while SJ is in charge. He wants macs to be a premium product; he does NOT want to compete with low end emachines. Whether or not that's good business strategy is debatable. But Apple has no interest in competing for the low end market, so just forget this "cheap headless mac" stuff. :rolleyes:

[jade]

I don't thinkanyone really wants and emachine priced emac....how about something like $700-$1200 and upgradeable and headless. Basically a tower for under $1700

[K12MacTech]

Apple needs to keep the all-in-one design for schools, be it an eMac or not. The day they stop making one is probably the day my district starts to lose it's Macs completely.

I had to install clusters of Compaqs at some of our elementary schools. Two power cords each, 10 ft. video cable, speaker cables, and ended up with quite a bird's nest. Four systems meant 8 power cords. Hmm... wall outlet only provide two, and one is used by the pencil sharpener. Outlet strips in our schools have 7 ports, so string two together or buy longer ones. Space constraints mean a small table, so we jam 4 CPUs, LCD displays and a mess a cables on a surface area that could comfortable handle two. Insufficient room for the keyboard and mouse pad. Can't push them tighter together back to back because of the cables. Can't put the CPUs on the floor since we are talking about little kids that like to swing their legs and kick things. And wow, you can poke a hole in the LCD display with a pencil! (Remember - it's elementary school.)

In contrast, setting up a cluster of eMacs was a breeze. One power cord to plug in, add keyboard and mouse, and plug into network. Small footprint. Plenty of room for keyboard and mouse. No mass of cables to keep straight. And all 4 power cords will easily plug into a single power strip.

Schools can't always easily modify the building infrastructure. Electrical outlets are under chalk/whiteboards - not exactly where you want to put your computers. Buildings are not conducive to running network wire. Everything is subject to retrofitting. One less headache makes a big difference. The simplicity of the all-in-one design - from the early days of 5200s, then iMacs, then eMacs - is attractive to schools, and always will be. There are all-in-one PC's out there, but they are mostly junk. The price is not too high for the eMac. Our district has standards for minimum PC requirements, and we don't buy from el-cheapo brands. We have to meet state bid requirements as well. And the eMacs are cheaper than the PCs we buy - in the initial price as well as maintenance.

I for one hope that Apple does not do away with the eMac or a comparable all-in-one, inexpensive design.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by takao

*headless Mac with G5(single 1,6ghz would be enough, won't say no to 2,0 ghz ;-)
*changeable graphicscard in agp slot
*1 x free PCI Slot
*more than 4 USB ports ( printer,scanner,keyboard,webcam,+spare)
*place for an extra hard drive (easy to upgrade)
*easy to upgrade RAM

for max. 1000 EURO ( inkluding taxes, approx. 1200 $ at the moment ) im gonna get one or perhaps even two

the "e" in eMac doesnt really count as education here in europe because for a school it is much more expensive to buy them never heard of a school using them here in austria)

PS: sorry for bad english: native german speaking

They should build a $600 mini-tower for education, business, and anyone who wants a cheap computer purposes. A good portion of the market is in low end no frills, but somewhat upgradable sector.

[V.A.Toss]

You are all correct when you say that Moto lurch when it comes to R&D and clockspeed. You are also right when you say that when put up against a similarly priced PC the eMac gets utterly crushed (bearing in mind that the equivalent PC would have an AthlonXP 3000+ in it). But you musnt assume that the logical and the best thing to do would be to wack a G5 in an emac and make it headless. A consumer and education machine would have zero use for a cpu of power like the G5s. Do not confuse the fact that the G4 is outdated with it being a bad design, both the G4 and G3 could hold their own against any other CPU of comparable clockspeed and it is only because moto have rubbish R&D that these CPUs are outdated. The design of the G4 and G3s are actually pretty good for a consumer machine, and the only things holding them back from being adequate are its clockspeed, and its FSB. Not having a DDR FSB in 2004 is ludicrous. So if this 750VX goes ahead at a clockspeed of around 1.4Ghz with a DDR fsb, it could be comparable to an Athlon 2400+ system. This 750VX could be a very decent chip, and exactly what a consumer machine would require. A Consumer machine does not need a G5.
As for the iMac, I think dual 750VX would be a good idea, good for a semi pro. And with IBMs reputation for making cost efficient CPUs (unlike moto) the imac price could drop nicely.

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by V.A.Toss
You are all correct when you say that Moto lurch when it comes to R&D and clockspeed. You are also right when you say that when put up against a similarly priced PC the eMac gets utterly crushed (bearing in mind that the equivalent PC would have an AthlonXP 3000+ in it). But you musnt assume that the logical and the best thing to do would be to wack a G5 in an emac and make it headless. A consumer and education machine would have zero use for a cpu of power like the G5s. Do not confuse the fact that the G4 is outdated with it being a bad design, both the G4 and G3 could hold their own against any other CPU of comparable clockspeed and it is only because moto have rubbish R&D that these CPUs are outdated. The design of the G4 and G3s are actually pretty good for a consumer machine, and the only things holding them back from being adequate are its clockspeed, and its FSB. Not having a DDR FSB in 2004 is ludicrous. So if this 750VX goes ahead at a clockspeed of around 1.4Ghz with a DDR fsb, it could be comparable to an Athlon 2400+ system. This 750VX could be a very decent chip, and exactly what a consumer machine would require. A Consumer machine does not need a G5.
As for the iMac, I think dual 750VX would be a good idea, good for a semi pro. And with IBMs reputation for making cost efficient CPUs (unlike moto) the imac price could drop nicely.

I couldn't agree with you more. Over the past two years I have been replacing PCs in my computer labs with macs. First I used the CRT iMacs, now I use CRT eMacs. I don't need LCDs, I don't need G5s. The machines need a bit more "snap," but that can be done without throwing a G5 into the mix. Remember that the entire architecture of the machine has to change to accomplish that. Which is expensive. Which brings me to my point.

I need a price of $549 per seat instead of $649 per seat. The bean-counters only see price. If it is low enough, they wouldn't care if I installed Amiga Ones :) into the labs.

I don't think Apple will accomplish a price drop by entirely changing the machine's architecture.

If they continue the small evolutionary steps, lowering the price along the way as they have done for the past year and a half, things will be just fine for the education market--which is the target market of the eMac anyway.

In a lab setup, a CRT is good--it resists ink, jabbing, and Windex. Weight is good--it grants stability. All-in-one is crucial!

I still say that the headless folks are barking up the wrong tree here. You don't want a redesigned eMac. You want a new product.

You want an iTowerMac. Which is fine, but isn't an eMac.

[neoelectronaut]

Something else I don't have to worry about while owning an eMac:

"My screen is slightly tilted to the right!"(or left)

[V.A.Toss]

I agree with you about the headless emac not being a completely brilliant idea, it certainly wont appeal to consumers that already want an emac. However, it definetely would appeal to PC users who already have a monitor (Given it has the correct input connector). So there is a market for both of these theoretical machines.

A PC user will not be prepared to pay over £1000 for a machine, most wont pay over £500.

I have to say from reading these forums, alot of people here dont realise exactly what Moto are good and bad at, they seem to generalise. The fact is, the G4 was and still is a decent chip design-wise, it had a flaw at the 7400 stage, but with IBM i believe moto overcame that. Motos downfall is pushing the clock, and the FSB. With IBM hopefully making a 750VX, this would mean you would have a G3 with altivec, which has a DDR FSB and can scale well. I might also point out to people here that clock for clock a G4 with a DDR fsb could practically match an athlon, and seeing as a consumer level athlon is around about 1.8 Ghz, the 750VX wouldnt be far off. SoPerfect solution which doesnt eat into G5 sales.

Ofcourse this is speaking hypothetically, and apple doesnt always go down the route i like them to.

[V.A.Toss]

The only thing that i dislike about Apple is theyve always been elite-ist when it comes to pricing and products, a headless mac would break this barrier, and would hopefully get rid of the snobbish attitude alot of mac owners have.

but dont get me wrong here. A headless mac and an emac would be 2 different products, both with different purposes and both for 2 individual markets.

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by V.A.Toss
The only thing that i dislike about Apple is theyve always been elite-ist when it comes to pricing and products, a headless mac would break this barrier, and would hopefully get rid of the snobbish attitude alot of mac owners have.

but dont get me wrong here. A headless mac and an emac would be 2 different products, both with different purposes and both for 2 individual markets.

Apple is elitist. I don't think they have ever wanted to be anything else.

Case in point. Apple didn't design a small cheaply priced digital music player to accompany the iPod. They had the chance to do so. They designed an equally high-end smaller form factor digital music player instead. They enjoy their spot at the high end of the price scale.

Apple's message to the smallish percentage of their customers who even care enough to wonder wether their Mac is cutting edge or not: Buy a PowerMac and pay the premium for cutting edge hardware.

Their message for the rest of their users (non-professionals, non-gamers, and of course non-technology-hobbyists): Pay less and don't worry. Your Mac is fine.

[panphage]

This is a beauty. It's plastic though, so I'm not sure it'll cool very well. Still at least as well as the original cube:

http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/making/cube_9.html

But it do look real good. Too bad it's not actually a g5, even though the ol' cube can now be made faster than any G4 available from Apple, the 100mhz bus is a serious problem compared to the monster pipes on the G5.

[Mord]

what i would like is the current emac form factor with a protected lcd sceen and room in the back for an upgadable agp 4x-8x slot and a few pci-x slots + support for 8gb ram room for another HD and a 1.6 g5

you have enough space for g5 cooling and a popular form factor all for $999

[yamabushi]

panphage - that design isn't as heat efficient or as elegant as the original cube in my opinion. I think a better idea is to vent the heat out the top to provide some passive cooling and then add a variable speed fan to help out when the need arises. The slot loading drive and ports for peripherals should also be on top in order to expand options for placement of your Cube. I will gladly cut a hole in the top of my desk and add a bracket underneath in order to flush mount my G5 Cube.

Hector - I think you are asking too much from an eMac. I agree that the eMac could use an updated internal layout but I think this should be done to reduce the price.

The current eMac is very complicated internally and has fairly high manufacturing costs from what I have heard. I think a redesign with the goal of minimizing manufacturing costs might be in order. Keep the eMac an entry level computer with entry level components at an entry level price. A superdrive isn't really needed but is nice as a BTO option. The graphics chipset could stand to be upgraded. It can keep the updated G4 for now but let it run at 1.33GHz. Keep the CRT unless for some crazy reason a design with a different display could be made at less expense.

How about starting at $599? Low enough to fill up numerous computer labs with new eMacs. Low enough to be a low risk initial investment for potential switchers. Make a little money for Apple now and a lot more later as the expanded user base buys new software and more powerful Macs in the future.

[V.A.Toss]

Originally posted by Quixcube
Apple is elitist. I don't think they have ever wanted to be anything else.

Case in point. Apple didn't design a small cheaply priced digital music player to accompany the iPod. They had the chance to do so. They designed an equally high-end smaller form factor digital music player instead. They enjoy their spot at the high end of the price scale.

Apple's message to the smallish percentage of their customers who even care enough to wonder wether their Mac is cutting edge or not: Buy a PowerMac and pay the premium for cutting edge hardware.

Their message for the rest of their users (non-professionals, non-gamers, and of course non-technology-hobbyists): Pay less and don't worry. Your Mac is fine.

I agree completely, thats exactly what i was saying. But being elitist isnt good for business, and is just plain wrong in principle. Just because an mp3 player costs £100 doesnt mean it isnt of as high a quality, a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different. A cheap mp3 player for instance will not be used to keep an entire library of songs, it will be to keep a few. And to alot of people this is what they need. As long as this Mp3 player would come with good software and a high quality design both aesthetically and ergonomically, this mp3 player would be as high quality as an ipod (if not in spec).

And the plain and simple fact for "the rest of their users" is that actually their mac is not fine, its pretty damn far from fine, seeing as alot of these macs are using technology that is the PC equivalent of being 3 years old. These machines get slaughtered by any PC that costs around £300 to build.

Having control over the high end of computing is a good thing, there are people who need that, and people who are willing to pay money for that. Infact if you are as good at it as apple it means that you will be guaranteed to have a market that wont jump ship to another company. But things have changed in the last 15 years in industrial design, a product can be made at a sufficiently high quality so as not to tarnish the reputation of a brand, and yet be a budget model. If anything, the reason why people choose PC over mac is just because they find PCs are more accessible. It annoys me the way mac users look down on people who use PCs when there is nothing from apple that PC users could consider as an alternative. Its not their fault they pick PC, i would too given their position.
So give them an alternative, make a 750VX product of high quality and price it reasonably competitively. Then if they still pick a PC, i too will be pissing in their face.

If you think im gonna spend £600 on an emac, when i could get the latest Athlon 3200, 400Mhz DDR fsb, radeon 9800 and 512Mb DDR RAM in a box for the same money, your sadly mistaken.

Anyway, this has gone slightly off topic. So i will leave it at that.

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by V.A.Toss
I agree completely, thats exactly what i was saying. But being elitist isnt good for business, and is just plain wrong in principle. Just because an mp3 player costs £100 doesnt mean it isnt of as high a quality, a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different. A cheap mp3 player for instance will not be used to keep an entire library of songs, it will be to keep a few. And to alot of people this is what they need. As long as this Mp3 player would come with good software and a high quality design both aesthetically and ergonomically, this mp3 player would be as high quality as an ipod (if not in spec).

...

Anyway, this has gone slightly off topic. So i will leave it at that.

I agree with you here too, although I don't think it is really wandering off topic to discuss the ability of Apple's entry level machine to compete in terms of responsiveness with an entry level PC. I think we are still good here. :)

I agree that "a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different." I agree whole-heartedly.

Take Honda for example. Something I love about that company is that their entry level cars are of the same very high quality as their premium level cars. A Civic is cheap in cost, but uses as much high-end engineering as possible. Until recently, Honda built them with fully independent suspensions all the way around and other touches that you don't find on most econo-boxes. Just because Civics are at the low end of the product line doesn't mean that they are of low quality in any way. You get less overall, but what you get is of substance. Every part of the machine is trying harder than the average to impress--as much as its cost to manufacture will allow. And I think this is the right way to run a company.

Does Apple follow this philosophy? I don't think so. They have historically castrated machines to develop a product line that has tiers. They have historically stripped cache away from one model of Mac to ensure the next higher on the line performs better. They have kept slower hard drives in models to protect the performance advantage of the next higher model. Think iBook G4 vs. PowerBook G4. Hell, think way back to the 68k Macs. Remember how Apple introduced models with a 32 bit 68k processor on a 16 bit bus to protect the performance of the higher models, while still having the audacity to claim a 32 bit processor as a key feature? This is a *long* standing practice at Apple.

the plain and simple fact for "the rest of their users" is that actually their mac is not fine, its pretty damn far from fine, seeing as alot of these macs are using technology that is the PC equivalent of being 3 years old. These machines get slaughtered by any PC that costs around £300 to build.

I think you are right, but that must not be how Apple sees it. I guess Apple feels that the overall hardware/software package is enough to justify the cost. At least the eMac has gotten cheaper than it was at introduction.

Apple has word processing and internet browsing in mind for the eMac. They will not let it get to close in performance too the premium models.

If they want to keep the cost down, they need to keep it slower by using older hardware. If they redesign it and give it a faster architecture, they will still hobble it somehow.They always have. The difference is that they might raise the price to cover the R&D on the new architecture which screws everyone. I still want the price to hit $549 (a $100 drop.) If they keep the machine identical and drop the price, I would buy another 45 of them today.

[Dont Hurt Me]

quixcube uses a very nice analogy about Honda. I have allways wished apple would simple make the best computers in its different segments and then let the market decide in terms of volume what they build, but instead as we all know they cripple hold back one line so it doesnt take away from another. I mean just listen to all the talk that they cant make Imac faster then a powerbook? these are two total different uses and markets yet Apple plays this idiotic game and in the end lowers the amount of sales they could make. they couldnt give Imac the 1.33 or 1.4? they just did the same thing with Emac keeping it a 1 gig and giving Imac a 1.25. they could have given Emac a little more and would have sold a ton more but we cant do that cause of Imac. Apple has to stop this anti business practice and start letting the market decide on what to build. instead they do this over and over and just cant seem to grow their computer business.

[thatwendigo]

Hector's even worse than DHM, so I'm not touching that one.

Instead, let's hit the fun part, and play with the money trail!

Originally posted by V.A. Toss
Just because an mp3 player costs £100 doesnt mean it isnt of as high a quality, a cheap product can be of just as high a quality only its purpose will be different. A cheap mp3 player for instance will not be used to keep an entire library of songs, it will be to keep a few. And to alot of people this is what they need. As long as this Mp3 player would come with good software and a high quality design both aesthetically and ergonomically, this mp3 player would be as high quality as an ipod (if not in spec).

Quality - n, pl. - Superiority of kind; Degree or grade of excellence

No, actually, it looks like the cheap player is really unlikely to be the one that is as quality a product as the superior one. True, different price points can serve different needs, but the most excellent of your products will be the one that is truly a "quality" purchase.

If you think im gonna spend £600 on an emac, when i could get the latest Athlon 3200, 400Mhz DDR fsb, radeon 9800 and 512Mb DDR RAM in a box for the same money, your sadly mistaken.

Really?

AMD Athlon "Barton" 3200+ XP, 400Mhz FSB, 512k L2 - $220
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 8x AGP, 128MB DDR (no secondary manufacturer, since Apple uses ATI cards!) - $298
2x 256MB OCZ PC3200 Dual-Channel DDR - $125
Seagate Barracuda 120GB 7200RPM SATA - $105
Asus K8V Deluxe Motherboard - $137
17-inch Flat CRT (take your pick) - $120
Pioneer DVD-RW/+RW DVR-A06 - $144

Those are all taken from newegg (www.newegg.com). Without the chassis and power supply, that's $1149 US, or £621, if you build the machine yourself.

If anything, the reason why people choose PC over mac is just because they find PCs are more accessible. It annoys me the way mac users look down on people who use PCs when there is nothing from apple that PC users could consider as an alternative. Its not their fault they pick PC, i would too given their position.

What position would that be? Not knowing the difference in hardware integration and ease of use in the mac? Perhaps you meant to say that they've only used Windows, and they haven't had enough exposure to the mac world to know how much easier the average consumer has it with Apple than with an unstable Windows box?

I'd love to hear how there's 'no alternative,' since Apple has a whole product line full of them.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I mean just listen to all the talk that they cant make Imac faster then a powerbook? these are two total different uses and markets yet Apple plays this idiotic game and in the end lowers the amount of sales they could make. they couldnt give Imac the 1.33 or 1.4? they just did the same thing with Emac keeping it a 1 gig and giving Imac a 1.25. they could have given Emac a little more and would have sold a ton more but we cant do that cause of Imac.Apple has to stop this anti business practice and start letting the market decide on what to build. instead they do this over and over and just cant seem to grow their computer business.

Anti-business? :confused: :eek: :p

We're talking about a company that offers more than one product, doesn't have a lock on the market, and doesn't make the legislative decisions regarding the market, right? If so, then I'm really, really failing to see where Apple isn't behaving exactly like a business with a very particular plan. Illuminate us, DHM, and explain how the recent growth figures for Apple aren't signs that things are going right.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple is so near sighted on product placement they make poor marketing and business decisions more worried about a product stepping on another toes then making the best machine in a segment and letting sales determine the success of a product. the examples i have given above are perfect. a 1.33 could have just as easily fit into the imac as a 1.25, why didnt they ? oh yeah we cant have a consumer machine at a higher speed then a pro laptop? same goes for emac why not the 1.25? there isnt much difference in heat or cost but why? same thing cant step on Imac toes. so what we have is Apple competing with Apple instead of Apple building the best product in a price range and letting the consumer decide which is the hit and which is the miss. Apple has 3-5% market share why? they got the best software in the world. so its not the software. Lets look at the hardware. G4 games, products competing with each other, and a consumer line that locks out any Pc user with a monitor that wants to spend less then $1700. so who is Apple competing with? they compete with themself and in the end all those switchers keep using Pcs. why else such a poor marketshare. no wonder they are chasing the walkman market. they have locked themself into motorola's G4 game. If any Pc maker was using G4 they would have gone belly up. the reason apple hasnt is because of the software division(#1) and some very fancy styling. yes i know G5 is here but its a year or more late.

[thatwendigo]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Apple is so near sighted on product placement they make poor marketing and business decisions more worried about a product stepping on another toes then making the best machine in a segment and letting sales determine the success of a product. the examples i have given above are perfect. a 1.33 could have just as easily fit into the imac as a 1.25, why didnt they ? oh yeah we cant have a consumer machine at a higher speed then a pro laptop? same goes for emac why not the 1.25? there isnt much difference in heat or cost but why? same thing cant step on Imac toes. so what we have is Apple competing with Apple instead of Apple building the best product in a price range and letting the consumer decide which is the hit and which is the miss. Apple has 3-5% market share why? they got the best software in the world. so its not the software. Lets look at the hardware. G4 games, products competing with each other, and a consumer line that locks out any Pc user with a monitor that wants to spend less then $1700. so who is Apple competing with? they compete with themself and in the end all those switchers keep using Pcs. why else such a poor marketshare. no wonder they are chasing the walkman market. they have locked themself into motorola's G4 game. If any Pc maker was using G4 they would have gone belly up. the reason apple hasnt is because of the software division(#1) and some very fancy styling. yes i know G5 is here but its a year or more late.

Sorry, DHM, but I'm not biting this time. You're making the same rant, over and over again, and I've already defeated every single one of those arguments on other threads.

Time for some new material, my friend, because yours is about as old and slow as the G4 you keep ranting against. :D

[Dont Hurt Me]

to keep holding back Emac is a sin, look at what ibodnar did to his 800 emac on another thread. if he could do that Apple could have a 1.25 Emac a long time ago and more:D point has been made.:cool:

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
Instead, let's hit the fun part, and play with the money trail!

Don't try to argue that an entry level Mac will give you the same hardware performance as an entry level PC. The Mac has to make up for its performance shortcomings through software superiority right now because the hardware is still in a mess on the low end. The high-end Athlon example given above isn't really on the money, but the argument being made is sound. The Mac has a big hurdle to overcome at the entry level right now. Shoppers who care about benchmarks (not Apple's biggest buyers, but they do look at Macs sometimes) are turned off by the hardware in the low end machines. Your rebuttal here isn't particularly strong. It is based on refuting an example, but not the logic behind it.

Quality - n, pl. - Superiority of kind; Degree or grade of excellence

No, actually, it looks like the cheap player is really unlikely to be the one that is as quality a product as the superior one. True, different price points can serve different needs, but the most excellent of your products will be the one that is truly a "quality" purchase.

Hmm.. I don't get it. Why should two products that serve their own unique purposes equally well be of a different quality? I think they can both be of the same quality. I think this is true even if one costs less. After all, someone who doesn't want all of their music with them for some reason would define the specific player that meets *their* needs as "more excellent" than another player. I don't think any product has to be totally analogous to another product on some independent achievement scale (in this example GB of storage) to be of equal quality. I think you are talking about bang for the buck, which has only a passing association with the quality of a product. If you have two products, both of which perform their intended functions flawlessly, you have two high-quality products. It doesn't effect the quality of one in a detrimental way if the other has the potential to out do the other unless they were both intended to have an identical function (to store x number of songs, to run at x rate of speed.)


Anti-business? :confused: :eek: :p

We're talking about a company that offers more than one product, doesn't have a lock on the market, and doesn't make the legislative decisions regarding the market, right? If so, then I'm really, really failing to see where Apple isn't behaving exactly like a business with a very particular plan. Illuminate us, DHM, and explain how the recent growth figures for Apple aren't signs that things are going right.

I also think that Apple is shooting itself in the foot over and over again. I read anti-business to mean "anti-consumer driven" and therefore bad for business. Apple isn't looking out for its customers when it castrates a line of computers for the sake of another of its lines.

I am still not sure if Apple is doing this with the eMac or not. I like to think they are just using old hardware designs because they can't manufacture a new one yet at the current price point. Still, they have castrated product lines in the past and it has hurt them. Apple doesn't have a reputation in the industry for engineering-heavy hardware.

If so, then I'm really, really failing to see where Apple isn't behaving exactly like a business with a very particular plan. Illuminate us, DHM, and explain how the recent growth figures for Apple aren't signs that things are going right.

I am sure they do have plan, and it is working if the market share goes up and Apple makes money. Don't attack someone for implying that Apple isn't a customer friendly company though. Quite a few Apple fans--myself included--like Apple despite their marketing crap.

[Spock]

Wow, You people are putting alot of thought into Your Post's.

[Quixcube]

Originally posted by Spock
Wow, You people are putting alot of thought into Your Post's.

Applz rock PeeCees sux!

:D

[Spock]

Originally posted by Quixcube
Applz rock PeeCees sux!

:D

O.k, that was irelivant.


But kinda Funny ;)

[jade]

Actually Apple has pulled of a coimputer industry miracle: Selling the same harware for 3 years! How can it be...we still have the same stuff and people are still buying it in reasonable amounts. Pretty good if you ask me. And if you have a problem with the current product, don't buy it. Apple will correct its product line when facing market pressures.

[takao]

Originally posted by jade
How can it be...we still have the same stuff and people are still buying it in reasonable amounts. Pretty good if you ask me. And if you have a problem with the current product, don't buy it. Apple will correct its product line when facing market pressures.


hm marketshare apple computers USA: pretty stable 5% buying in reasable amounts

marketshare germany: less than 1,5% (more likely <1% of _new_sold ones) but is still on the way down...

i only saw 4 macusers the last...well...4 years (1 pod user in the bus, 1 mother of a friend with her red imac, 2 students at university with 12" ibooks)

oh i nearly forgot those two powermac at university with the paper "out of order" in front of screen ... never saw them in use in the last 1,5 years

personally i never saw sombody switching _to_ a mac in the last years...always _from_

perhaps americans are buying them in reasonable amounts but apple is under very big pressure outside of the us

[V.A.Toss]

Originally posted by thatwendigo
Hector's even worse than DHM, so I'm not touching that one.

Instead, let's hit the fun part, and play with the money trail!



Quality - n, pl. - Superiority of kind; Degree or grade of excellence

No, actually, it looks like the cheap player is really unlikely to be the one that is as quality a product as the superior one. True, different price points can serve different needs, but the most excellent of your products will be the one that is truly a "quality" purchase.



Really?

AMD Athlon "Barton" 3200+ XP, 400Mhz FSB, 512k L2 - $220
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 8x AGP, 128MB DDR (no secondary manufacturer, since Apple uses ATI cards!) - $298
2x 256MB OCZ PC3200 Dual-Channel DDR - $125
Seagate Barracuda 120GB 7200RPM SATA - $105
Asus K8V Deluxe Motherboard - $137
17-inch Flat CRT (take your pick) - $120
Pioneer DVD-RW/+RW DVR-A06 - $144

Those are all taken from newegg (www.newegg.com). Without the chassis and power supply, that's $1149 US, or £621, if you build the machine yourself.



What position would that be? Not knowing the difference in hardware integration and ease of use in the mac? Perhaps you meant to say that they've only used Windows, and they haven't had enough exposure to the mac world to know how much easier the average consumer has it with Apple than with an unstable Windows box?

I'd love to hear how there's 'no alternative,' since Apple has a whole product line full of them.



Anti-business? :confused: :eek: :p

We're talking about a company that offers more than one product, doesn't have a lock on the market, and doesn't make the legislative decisions regarding the market, right? If so, then I'm really, really failing to see where Apple isn't behaving exactly like a business with a very particular plan. Illuminate us, DHM, and explain how the recent growth figures for Apple aren't signs that things are going right.


Ok, firstly i would like to point out to you that you have just proved what i was saying about the emac, that a top of the range athlon system can compete with it. Bearing in mind the PC has DDR400 400Mhz FSB and 2.(something) Ghz of processing power.

Ill tell you exactly the position they would be in. Lets take your quote for the PC and say that a PC user will want to spend around about £600 for a PC, now lets look at what apple offer as an equivalent:

1GHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
DVD/CD-RW drive
ATI Radeon 7500
32MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem

128Mb SDRAM !!!!
An ATI 7500, how many years old is that???
a single data rate bus, and a 1Ghz CPU.

you call that a viable alternative???

"I'd love to hear how there's 'no alternative,' since Apple has a whole product line full of them."

You see youve missed the point, how is a PC user that can afford a £600 PC meant to be able to consider anything in the mac line when the equivalent offering has a GPU that is 3 years old. What? you expect everything in apples product line to be a alternative to someone who can only spend around £600? Ridiculous.

If you think that emac is a reasonable alternative to that monster spec PC, you obviously havent tried photoshop on an emac.

Now im not saying that that PC or any PC is as good quality as mac, the fact is that a PC just doesnt have the design and finish to be considered as good quality. But when it comes to spec, the macintosh offering is poor.

Now, as for the rest of your argument. You dont have much knowledge of product design obviously, so i will clarify. When we talk about quality, we are not on about spec, we are talking about several things:

The finish of the product (i.e the materials used and how they are put together)
The design of the product, both aesthetically and ergonomically.
The products' durability.

Your speaking as if these qualities are only available to people who pay more. If you think that then you are living in the 1980s, alot has happened in the last 10 years, it is no longer expensive to manufacture a product at a high quality, assembly line standards have improved so that now a durable and well finished product can be very easy and cheap to manufacture. And there are enough good designers coming out of my country atleast that a cheap Mp3 player can look and feel as good as an expensive one.

For example, excluding if you look at an mp3 player from iRiver and compare it to an mp3 player from say creative, generally they will both be a good design, both work as well as each other, and both last as long as each other. Where the difference lies is in the storage space, it is a technological gap that creates this price point. The quality is the same, its just the specification that isnt.

The honda example is a very good one, a honda civic type R is a good quality car. It has VVTi, a torquey engine, good handling, a stiff suspension that also rides bumps well, and a great chassis. Where it would differ from say a BMW 3 series, is in the performance, size of engine. The BMW is just a higher spec car, both are equally good at what they do, both very high quality in design, manufacture, and finish, both have tight shut lines. The fact is it just costs more to buy a higher performance car than a lower performance, but both are high quality.

I dont know about apple being anti-business, but certainly they havent made the best business decisions. You may come up with all these good points for apple business-wise, but they obviously arent doing apple all that good, seeing as their market share hasnt budged significantly over the past 3 years. The correct thing for apple to do would be to make macs more available to the mass market, they have a strong foundation of high end users that will not budge from using a mac, so that market is safe and apple are always guaranteed sales. So now apple has a defence it should be time to eat into the PC market with a cheap mac.

You have demonstrated quite a typical mac attitude. That a PC user with not as much money should be considering a high end mac. Its not on.

[V.A.Toss]

I dont mean to be harsh.

Just pointing out to you why apple doesnt have a very large market share considering.

And pointing out little details on product design and R&D.

The fact is that quality in manufacture does not cost a significant amount these days. And i dont care how good the software is on a mac, you cannot consider buying an emac over a PC. The margins are just too large.

[V.A.Toss]

By the way the reason why apple has had a steady 5%, is that there is a market of people who just will not consider anything but mac because they rate product quality and design over performance in leaps and bounds. And when it comes to product design there is no-one that touches apple, if there was, then apple woul be dead.

[Purple Worm]

V.A.Toss - fair points but do you think you could limit your rantings to just a few paragraphs please! We've got to read these and as much as I agree with what you said a lot of mac fanatics are going to stop reading after a few sentences.

P.S. Honda Civic Type-R (good car) as good as a top end BMW 3 series...no chance pal (I take it you own a Civic hehe)

[V.A.Toss]

Nope, actually i own a 1970 Alfa Romeo 1750 coupe. Styled by the late great Bertone.

Im not saying a civic is as good as a 3 series. A 3 series (whilst dull and bavarian) is an exceptional piece of engineering. But im saying they are as good quality-wise, youd be sursprised at how well designed a civic typeR is, i certainly was, and the technology under that is pretty astounding. And when u drive the thing, it sweats torque.

The fact is, a civic does what its meant to do as well as how the Bima does what its meant to do.

Different cars, different needs. Same/similar quality.

[Purple Worm]

Mmm Alfa. BMWs boring? I think most of the rest of the world's population would disagree.

[V.A.Toss]

not dull to drive, i drove the latest 3 series 2 months ago (my barber drives one), its a very good drive, and very well balanced. Just looks and feels uninspirational, hardly beautiful, and very very german.

I have to say though, I think most of the rest of the world's population havent driven one.

[Dont Hurt Me]

well i have a MGB with 35,000 miles weber conversion and looks like a 63 and i love it but its Time to get back on thread guys, remember the Emac?

[Purple Worm]

OK, OK lets end it here cos this is not the forum's issue, hehe. I love Alfas and I kinda think I know how your thinking, but BMWs are beautiful cars and as for the M3, well it's a stunning car. How anyone can say they look boring and look simply functional (compared to fords/GM's lot) is beyond me. Well it's not, you like your car's designs with a bit more flair.

[Purple Worm]

What's an MGB?...No NO! The thread, THE THREAD!

I think they should scrap the eMac line altogether and bring in a new iMac with that 'thing' that the original had (a cuteness? Was it more 'loveable'). The new line of iMacs should start pricing around the cost of the eMacs.

Of course this would mean the new design would have to use cheaper materials or whatever to keep the retail price down but hey they're not selling any at the moment anyway!

[takao]

on topic:
i whink we can all agree that apple has to do something about their entry-consumer line computers... ibook/powerbook/powermac are all as they should be ...but something should be changed about emac/imac/ [perhaps 3. form]


off topic:
hm your guys are talking a alot about BMW ?
perhaps for somebody living in center europe, german cars aren't so special at all....
they are well manufactured....(well designed would be _more_ correct..only the development & finally assembly is made in germany: engine: steyr in austria, body: peugeot in france, drivetrain: switzerland, some parts at Skoda, some in spain etc.)
the new 5 & 7 and roadsters are very good but the rest looks boring like VW,Audi, or Skoda (my opinion perhaps i only see to much of them)

[Purple Worm]

You do my friend. Think of the UK, Audis for one look great, let alone next to a truly boring ford or vauxaul (opel).