eMac and iMac EOL'd?

[Hattig]

I agree with the people posting that Apple just has nothing for the average consumer who wants to buy a machine.

Apple has a professional machine that is very nice.

Apple has a small form factor machine with attached LCD. Again, this is a nice SFF machine. It has virtually no upgradability (even less than a PC SFF machine).

Apple has no mass market consumer machine (single processor, some expandability, nothing amazingly fancy). Most people want this. However they are forced to choose between the limited upgradability of the SFF machine, or the overspecified, overpowerful and much more expensive professional line ... or that cheap HP/Dell/Toshiba machine nearby. This is why Apple is not selling vast quantities of computers these days.

The laptop line-up is nice though, not complete, but Apple wouldn't want to sell a fat ugly laptop that ran a 2GHz G5 just to compete with Dell's 3GHz P4 laptops.

In my opinion, Apple needs to make a standard consumer machine. Yes, it might cannibalise a lot of PowerMac and iMac sales, however if you can sell 3m of them a year ...

My specs for the new Mac:

- Small Tower, PowerMac G5 style, made with cheaper materials though
- Single G5, but the speeds the same as the PowerMac G5 line, which will be dual-processor across the line
- Single channel memory, PC3200
- AGP 8x graphics card (with selectable options - cater for gamers)
- Standard PCI expansion, no PCI-X

Then the hard bit ... sell these for not too much premium over a similarly specced consumer machine from Dell/HP/etc ... the premium is for the decent OS and software - and would be worth $200 for me.

 

[lewdvig]

I agree with the people posting that Apple just has nothing for the average consumer who wants to buy a machine.

Apple has a professional machine that is very nice.

Apple has a small form factor machine with attached LCD. Again, this is a nice SFF machine. It has virtually no upgradability (even less than a PC SFF machine).

Apple has no mass market consumer machine (single processor, some expandability, nothing amazingly fancy). Most people want this. However they are forced to choose between the limited upgradability of the SFF machine, or the overspecified, overpowerful and much more expensive professional line ... or that cheap HP/Dell/Toshiba machine nearby. This is why Apple is not selling vast quantities of computers these days.

The laptop line-up is nice though, not complete, but Apple wouldn't want to sell a fat ugly laptop that ran a 2GHz G5 just to compete with Dell's 3GHz P4 laptops.

In my opinion, Apple needs to make a standard consumer machine. Yes, it might cannibalise a lot of PowerMac and iMac sales, however if you can sell 3m of them a year ...

My specs for the new Mac:

- Small Tower, PowerMac G5 style, made with cheaper materials though
- Single G5, but the speeds the same as the PowerMac G5 line, which will be dual-processor across the line
- Single channel memory, PC3200
- AGP 8x graphics card (with selectable options - cater for gamers)
- Standard PCI expansion, no PCI-X

Then the hard bit ... sell these for not too much premium over a similarly specced consumer machine from Dell/HP/etc ... the premium is for the decent OS and software - and would be worth $200 for me.

Send a resume to Apple. This is a nice spec! I would consider it.

Some people still like CRTs too (myself included).

 

[Meemoo]

I'd like a pizza top box

 

[oingoboingo]

The point applies to all Apple products really.

Apple needs a lineup where desktops are not available slower than 1.6GHz. If people are really going to enjoy their macs with all the great software Apple makes - they need this power. Also, put in graphics parts that are cutting edge. This way, one year from now people will still be able to play highly hyped-up games. Even for people who don't play games, they have paid a premium for an Apple, they deserve something good.

Don't kid yourself, Apple could do this tomorrow if they wanted. I think the margin is there too. I will need to see a comparitive bill of parts between a current spec eMac and a G5 one with a RADEON 9600 before I believe otherwise.

I agree. Apple's desktop lineup doesn't get even slightly interesting until you get to the G5 PowerMacs...and then they ship the 1.6GHz G5 with only 256MB RAM, an 80GB hard drive and a GeForce FX5200 as standard. Come on...that kind of crap would barely make it into the cheapest PC you could buy from your local screwdriver shop. Thankfully, Apple appears to be willing to let you in on the joke, and they allow you to upgrade your FX5200 to a Radeon 9600 at ordering time for only AU$89 or AU$99 (can't remember, I bought mine about 7 months ago). But even so...a G5 which is upgraded to a decent level is still quite an expensive computer...without a screen.

The EOL rumour for iMac and eMac is a good one...because it hopefully means Apple will do something to address the complete lack of attractiveness of both of their consumer desktop machines. Nobody except the most hardened Apple zealot or willfully ignorant hardware moron would want to shell out a premium amount of cash for a desktop system which comes with a 32MB Radeon 7500, a 1GHz G4, USB 1.1...AND THEN CAN'T BE UPGRADED. The 128MB standard RAM is also disgraceful...Apple's minimum system requirement for iLife '04 are 256MB RAM!!! How can Apple sell a machine which doesn't even meet their own minimum specification for their bundled flagship consumer apps? Take a look at the calendar...it's 2004. Software evolves, and user's needs evolve. The entry-level systems Apple sells leave no room for growth at all.

Please please please don't let the updates just be a speed bump from 1GHz to 1.25GHz and changing the included DIMM from 128MB to 256MB (although that would be a start).

 

[jade]

I agree. Apple's desktop lineup doesn't get even slightly interesting until you get to the G5 PowerMacs...and then they ship the 1.6GHz G5 with only 256MB RAM, an 80GB hard drive and a GeForce FX5200 as standard. Come on...that kind of crap would barely make it into the cheapest PC you could buy from your local screwdriver shop. Thankfully, Apple appears to be willing to let you in on the joke, and they allow you to upgrade your FX5200 to a Radeon 9600 at ordering time for only AU$89 or AU$99 (can't remember, I bought mine about 7 months ago). But even so...a G5 which is upgraded to a decent level is still quite an expensive computer...without a screen.

The EOL rumour for iMac and eMac is a good one...because it hopefully means Apple will do something to address the complete lack of attractiveness of both of their consumer desktop machines. Nobody except the most hardened Apple zealot or willfully ignorant hardware moron would want to shell out a premium amount of cash for a desktop system which comes with a 32MB Radeon 7500, a 1GHz G4, USB 1.1...AND THEN CAN'T BE UPGRADED. The 128MB standard RAM is also disgraceful...Apple's minimum system requirement for iLife '04 are 256MB RAM!!! How can Apple sell a machine which doesn't even meet their own minimum specification for their bundled flagship consumer apps? Take a look at the calendar...it's 2004. Software evolves, and user's needs evolve. The entry-level systems Apple sells leave no room for growth at all. .

AMen: outdated specs are no way to grow marketshare when your competition is offering 2-4 times the specs at 20-50% less.

 

[aswitcher]

I agree. Apple's desktop lineup doesn't get even slightly interesting until you get to the G5 PowerMacs...and then they ship the 1.6GHz G5 with only 256MB RAM, an 80GB hard drive and a GeForce FX5200 as standard. Come on...that kind of crap would barely make it into the cheapest PC you could buy from your local screwdriver shop. Thankfully, Apple appears to be willing to let you in on the joke, and they allow you to upgrade your FX5200 to a Radeon 9600 at ordering time for only AU$89 or AU$99 (can't remember, I bought mine about 7 months ago). But even so...a G5 which is upgraded to a decent level is still quite an expensive computer...without a screen.

And thats especially true in the land of Oz.

The EOL rumour for iMac and eMac is a good one...because it hopefully means Apple will do something to address the complete lack of attractiveness of both of their consumer desktop machines. Nobody except the most hardened Apple zealot or willfully ignorant hardware moron would want to shell out a premium amount of cash for a desktop system which comes with a 32MB Radeon 7500, a 1GHz G4, USB 1.1...AND THEN CAN'T BE UPGRADED. The 128MB standard RAM is also disgraceful...Apple's minimum system requirement for iLife '04 are 256MB RAM!!! How can Apple sell a machine which doesn't even meet their own minimum specification for their bundled flagship consumer apps? Take a look at the calendar...it's 2004. Software evolves, and user's needs evolve. The entry-level systems Apple sells leave no room for growth at all.

Please please please don't let the updates just be a speed bump from 1GHz to 1.25GHz and changing the included DIMM from 128MB to 256MB (although that would be a start).

I am hoping for a significant jump...we may have to wait even longer for it but to pull sales back I would prefer another 3-6 months to bring out a beauty than a half baked machine anytime soon.

 

[MacinDoc]

New eMacs, iMacs

I suspect Apple may come out with G5 iMacs this summer (by that time, there should be considerable cost savings to use the 970FX), and I hope that they will come with flexible arms that can attach interchangeably to the new Cinema Displays. This would allow users to upgrade the CPU and display seperately, but they would still have to use Apple products to create the all-in-one product.

I'm also hoping (but not holding my breath) for all-in-one (CRT) and headless options in the replacements for the eMac.

 

[thatwendigo]

The base iMac should outperform ANY pc, not just the PM G5.

Sure thing, ledvig. We'll be sure to have Apple get right on that, as long as you don't mind paying premium prices for a machine that will have to compete against premium hardware. I hear this so often around here, people ranting on and on about how cheap PC X can do thing Y so much faster and cheaper than any Apple machine.

So, once again, I think I'm going to go the pre-assembled and purely parts route...

For parts only, I'm using newegg. You ought to be able to figure out Dell and Apple

Supermicro E7505 Dual-Xeon Mobo $390
(SATA, 8x AGP, PCI-X, gigabit ethernet, but conditional and less supportive than Apple's motherboards)
Intel Xeon 3.06ghz x2 $950
(533 FSB, 512k L3, Hyperthreaded)
Pioneer DVR-A07 DVD +/- RW $188
Maxtor 250GB 7200RPM SATA HD $226
Kingston 512MB PC3200 RAM x4 $344
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB AGP 8x $212
Thermaltake XaserV Aluminum case $115
Antec SL450 2-fan 450 watt PSU $57
Running total, parts only: $2482


Dell Precision
Intel Xeon 3.06ghz x2 (533 FSB, 512k L3, Hyperthreaded)
2 GB PC 2100
250 GB SATA 7200 RPM
8x DVD+RW/+R w/ Roxio Easy CD, Sonic SE plus DVD decode
nVidia Quadro NVS 280 64MB
Soundblaster Audigy 2 (for digital in/out)
Dell TrueMobile 1300 802.11b/g (USB 2.0 external)
No monitor, no productivity software (hint: no iLife)
Running Total: $5,076


Apple G5
IBM 970 2.0ghz x2 (1ghz FSB, 512k L2 cache)
2 GB PC 3200
250 GB SATA 7200 RPm
8x DVD+/-RW
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
onboard 6.1 and digital audio
Airport Extreme 802.11 b/g internal wireless
no monitor, free iLife
Running total: $3,944

Maybe I will go back to intel - I can buy a single machine that I can carry, burn DVDs and play the LATEST games on in native LCD resolution. Nah. I will just wait for Stevie Wonder to get a clue.

If you want to play games, go back to Intel. Period. We don't have the developer support, nor do I want my machines to be so geared to something I only sometimes engage in. At the moment, I can do two out of three of those on Apple's laptops without really worrying about it at all. I expect it to get even better when the revised PowerBooks show up.

 

[thatwendigo]

AMen: outdated specs are no way to grow marketshare when your competition is offering 2-4 times the specs at 20-50% less.

Are you forgetting to factor in the 100-800% more frequent headaches?

 

[jade]

Sure thing, ledvig. We'll be sure to have Apple get right on that, as long as you don't mind paying premium prices for a machine that will have to compete against premium hardware. I hear this so often around here, people ranting on and on about how cheap PC X can do thing Y so much faster and cheaper than any Apple machine.

It's not the high-end powermacs that can't hang with the PCs. Most of us realize to get a similarly specs PC you need to pay the big bucks. But for 1000-1500 range in PC-land you get a whole lot more performance and specs than you get with an imac oe emac.

Are you forgetting to factor in the 100-800% more frequent headaches?

You know what, I hardly had serious issue in my use of PCs. so the headache factor for the average user doesn't really matter. But of course if you are going to get serious about your digital hub you should get a mac, but there are acceptable movie creation and cd burning stuff availible for PCs, and most users are perfectly happy with it.

I just don't see a lot of value in the current emac/imac line. There is no way I would ever buy an apple desktop right now. Way overpriced for the specs.

In 2004 we should not see any computer shipping with a piddly 256 RAM. And all computers over $1500 should have 512 RAM minimum.

And there should not be any desktop computer shipping with a measly 32MB VRAM, in a super outdated card!

40GB hard drives..those were banished to laptops, the emac is too expensive for that, sorry.

Too an extent you get what you pay for, but you don't wanna walk out of the store and know your computer is outdated. Even if it is an apple with historically high resale values. The 1ghz g4 chips have been around since 2002...that is like 8 product cycles for HP.

 

[thatwendigo]

But for 1000-1500 range in PC-land you get a whole lot more performance and specs than you get with an imac oe emac.

...

In 2004 we should not see any computer shipping with a piddly 256 RAM. And all computers over $1500 should have 512 RAM minimum.

And there should not be any desktop computer shipping with a measly 32MB VRAM, in a super outdated card!

40GB hard drives..those were banished to laptops, the emac is too expensive for that, sorry.

Funny, I go to Dell's website, and their consumer machines are sporting 40GB 5400 RPM HDs, 256 MB PC 2700 shared RAM and integrated graphics, a 48X CD-RW, no decent software for burning with, no MS Office, no firewire... The list goes on. The one, single place it at all competes is the processor, and that's a 2.6 P4.

So, to spec one out a little more fairly...

P4 3ghz at 800mhz FSB
Windows XP Pro with PLUS!
512 PC3200 DDR
80GB UltraATA 7200 RPM
8x DVD+RW w/ RecordNow and MyDVD Deluxe
MS Office 2003 with Money
17" Ultrasharp Digital Flat Panel
GeForce FX 5200
Integrated Audio
Dell QuietKey and Optical Mouse
Dell Jukebox Premium
Microsoft Digital Media Edition PLUS!
Dell Picture Studio, Photo Album Premium
RealOne Player PLUS
IEEE 1394 Adapter
10/100 Ethernet
TrueMobile 1300 external 802.11b/g
Microsoft Office
Total: $2126

iMac 17"
G4 1.25ghz
512 PC2700
80GB UltraATA 7200RPM
4xDVD+RW
17" Wide-Screen Flat Panel
GeForce FX 5200
Integrated Audio
Apple Keyboard and Optical Mouse
iLife
Built-in Firewire
10/100 Ethernet
built-in Airport Extreme 802.11b/g
Microsoft Odfice
Total: $2122

The only clear loss is the processor. You were saying?

 

[oingoboingo]

If you want to play games, go back to Intel. Period. We don't have the developer support, nor do I want my machines to be so geared to something I only sometimes engage in. At the moment, I can do two out of three of those on Apple's laptops without really worrying about it at all. I expect it to get even better when the revised PowerBooks show up.

There's no 'gearing' of x86 systems towards playing games. There's no sliding scale with 'Gaming Performance' at one end, and 'Content Creation Performance' at the other. It's a simple question of "are the basic computational and graphical subsystems of this computer fast enough to cope?". The basic computational and graphical subsystems of Apple's eMac and iMac lineup are not powerful enough to cope with the demands of modern games at acceptable levels of performance. And what is one of the most common uses for a home computer? Gaming. No sale for the eMac/iMac.

If these subsystems were improved to play games well, then all of those other non-game tasks which you perform on your Mac would be sped up also. I find your attitude of 'gaming performance is not only unimportant, but undesirable' to be intriguing. There has never been a time in Macintosh history when the overall perceived performance of the system has been more tied to 'gaming' type performance boosts than now. Quartz Extreme acceleration of basic GUI operations is performed through the OpenGL drivers and hardware...exactly the same systems which need to be fast for decent games performance. Quartz Extreme acceleration is proudly touted by Apple as one of the major attractions of Mac OS X (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme). Expose, the Panther feature which has all my x86-using friends drooling with envy, is directly tied to having a powerful graphics chip with plenty of VRAM under the hood.

Can profit margins at Apple really be *that* tight that they can't afford to ship an eMac with anything better than a 32MB Radeon 7500? But what really gets me on the eMac is not the graphics chip (yes, it's bad), but the amount of RAM. 128MB of PC133 SDRAM? Yes, say that again...128MB. This is not even enough RAM to meet the minimum official requirements of iLife '04 (256MB physical RAM). If you don't believe me check www.apple.com/ilife. What possible reason can Apple have for not being able to deliver a consumer system which can't even run their own (heavily promoted) consumer application suite? Did someone in the eMac division do something to irritate Steve Jobs one day and now it's payback time?

Bring on the EOL and bring on the updated eMac and iMac range. Fix the 3D graphics performance by including a GPU designed in the last 3 years...if you can play games, more home users will want it, and Quartz Extreme performance will rise correspondingly. And include enough memory to run the bundled apps!!! (I'm still shaking my head on that one...128MB standard...what a total bollocks up).

 

[RichardCarletta]

I believe its time for Apple to abandon G4

Once the G5 Powermac gets updated around April , Apple must introduce a 970FX into their iMac productline (alot better fit for such a small enclosure than the original 970 ) then update the Powerbooks with G5s no later than August . With 3 out of 5 products using G5s , Apple could make the eMac a G5 machine at the end of December, leaving the iBook as a low cost G4 laptop until Spring 2005. The consumer and laptop products are long in the tooth and really outmoded today. Basically 3 months after the Powermacs are updated with each revision B. or later version , the Imac and Powerbook needs to have the same kind of aggressive improvements. Like it or not , the majority of consumer Macintosh buyers are not really wanting , need or can afford the DP Powermac class of computer. However , a reasonable priced and reasonably fast ( not minimum speed ) single G5 iMac would be ideal. Plus a 2 GHZ G5 Powerbook for those who really need portability. The eMac and the iBook can be Apple's budget machines.

 

[jade]

I never said Dell...once you get past the deal they rip you off. Bad comparison.

Here are the specs on a very equivalent HP I configured, I despecced it and ignored the promos for free RAM and extra hard drive space to come closer to matching the imac. Unlike Dell, HP bundles great software for burning and ilife (PS Windows bundles Easy CD Creater for burning so your need for software was an exaggeration)

*


HP Pavillion A450e
AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3200+
Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional Edition
256 MB DDR / PC3200 (1 DIMM)
80 GB 7200 rpm Ultra DMA Hard Drive
Primary CD/DVD Drive
4X DVD+RW/+R drive (DVD writer & CD-writer combo
1 USB 2.0, 1 Firewire, ArcSoft, 7-in-1 reader
Graphics Card
64MB NVIDIA GeForce4 MX(TM) 440-8X w/TV-out
Integrated 5.1 Capable Sound w/ front audio ports
HP pavilion vf17 17" LCD flat panel display (actually very user friendly to adjust, similar to imac)
Altec-Lansing 221 2.1 Speakers
HP Internet Keyboard, HP Optical Mouse
Microsoft(R) Works 7.0/Money 2004/MSN Encarta Plus


*HP software bundle includes:
HP Image Zone
Symantec Norton Antivirus 2003 (includes 60 days of complimentary live updates)
RecordNow! (in models with CD writer or DVD writer)
InterVideo® WinDVD® SE (in models with DVD drive)
MUSICMATCH® Jukebox
RealOne™ Player
ArcSoft ShowBiz Video Editor
ArcSoft® ShowBiz DVD (in models with DVD writer)
Microsoft Windows MovieMaker 2.0
Intuit Quicken New User's Edition 2003
Adobe® Acrobat Reader


Price $1495 (not included $100 rebate)


So for $300 cheaper than the imac you get TV-out. A 64 bit processor, and the rest of the specs are similar, but HP is offering a free upgrade to 512 RAM.

And for comparison check out the Sony I configured:

PCV-RS500C Series
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 2.80C GHz supporting Hyper-Threading
512 MB DDR-SDRAM (DDR333, 256 MBx2)
120 GB Hard Disk Drive
ATi Radeon 9200 (128MB)
DVD+-RW Drive
CD-ROM Drive
Microsoft Works 7.0 with Office 2003 Business Trial Edition
VAIO Creation Suite VIDEO Software:
Video PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite PHOTO Software:
Photo PLUS Package
VAIO Creation Suite MUSIC Software:
Music PLUS Package
Accessories:
SDM-HS73/L - HS-model 17" Flat Panel LCD

total $1674

So not only does this include twice the RAM, twice the VRAM and 50% more Hard drive space. It also includes Photoshop Elements (a step up from iphoto), Abode Premier LE (like imovie), Sony''s click to DVD, and SonicStage Mastering Studio and Screenblast Acid LE (never used them but functionally equivalent to garageband). And you save $125 on the deal.


If you only comparison shop at Dell you will notice that the prices are very expensive once you venture beyond the promo. The cheap Dell computers with small hard drives and so on are the price leaders, and also allow a cheap person who wants an LCD to get one and a decent web browsing computer for under 1k. Unlike in Apple-land where 1k gets you an outdated emac or a closeout g3 ibook.

Other tier 1 computer manufacters generally are far less expensive. In my head the processor is the less important of the specs, but you can easily get more of the stuff that is easily comparable cross platform for cheaper.

Apple should match up the hard drive/video card/and RAM with the competion and I would get over it (But I'm not buying a g4 based computer becasue they have been around for 1200 years)

 

[thatwendigo]

There's no 'gearing' of x86 systems towards playing games. There's no sliding scale with 'Gaming Performance' at one end, and 'Content Creation Performance' at the other. It's a simple question of "are the basic computational and graphical subsystems of this computer fast enough to cope?".

No, that's where you're wrong. There's all kinds of support that developers take for granted, and which never makes it into mac ports of games. DirectX is one, since you hardly ever see anyone using OpenGL on the PC side of things. There's a wider choice in available hardware, too, because the gaming market has long been a stronghold of the PC, and not the mac. Perhaps Apple could be blamed for letting this come to pass, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

The basic computational and graphical subsystems of Apple's eMac and iMac lineup are not powerful enough to cope with the demands of modern games at acceptable levels of performance. And what is one of the most common uses for a home computer? Gaming. No sale for the eMac/iMac.

Most common for who? The games my little brother and sister play all run stunningly well on an 800mhz iMac G4. I could play Neverwinter Nights and Halo on my eMac, though admittedly not as well as on the 'gaming tower' that my dad and I cobbled together by updating his old Sawtooth.

Contrary to popular belief, games are not necessarily what most people use their computers for at home. We have some nice consoles for most of our gaming needs, and a Blockbuster two miles down the street that we can rent titles for both of our current-generation gaming systems.

If these subsystems were improved to play games well, then all of those other non-game tasks which you perform on your Mac would be sped up also. I find your attitude of 'gaming performance is not only unimportant, but undesirable' to be intriguing. There has never been a time in Macintosh history when the overall perceived performance of the system has been more tied to 'gaming' type performance boosts than now. Quartz Extreme acceleration of basic GUI operations is performed through the OpenGL drivers and hardware...exactly the same systems which need to be fast for decent games performance. Quartz Extreme acceleration is proudly touted by Apple as one of the major attractions of Mac OS X (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme). Expose, the Panther feature which has all my x86-using friends drooling with envy, is directly tied to having a powerful graphics chip with plenty of VRAM under the hood.

Yet it runs not only acceptably, but well enough to get the 'wow' factor from some of my PC friends, while being processed on the same hardware you're laughing at. I'm sitting here, typing at a 700mhz eMac, and my processor monitor is ticking over at roughly 15-25% while I listen to music, have an actively scrolling muck client thrown to the side, and have the display set to maximum resolution. Hey, now watch Expose work flawlessly as I swing windows around without a hiccup...

For daily use, this machine has served me very well. My one complaint is that it tends to lag a little on disk access, though my understanding is that I actually have a better setup on the board than the poor saps with a shared IDE controller in the iMacs.

Can profit margins at Apple really be *that* tight that they can't afford to ship an eMac with anything better than a 32MB Radeon 7500? But what really gets me on the eMac is not the graphics chip (yes, it's bad), but the amount of RAM. 128MB of PC133 SDRAM? Yes, say that again...128MB. This is not even enough RAM to meet the minimum official requirements of iLife '04 (256MB physical RAM). If you don't believe me check www.apple.com/ilife. What possible reason can Apple have for not being able to deliver a consumer system which can't even run their own (heavily promoted) consumer application suite? Did someone in the eMac division do something to irritate Steve Jobs one day and now it's payback time?

Apple's always been stingy on RAM, and a cutpurse on the upgrade prices. We all know it, and none of us terribly like it. I concede the point readily, but I don't see it as something to get mad over. It's the work of a few minutes for me to slot cheaper aftermarket RAM.

Bring on the EOL and bring on the updated eMac and iMac range. Fix the 3D graphics performance by including a GPU designed in the last 3 years...if you can play games, more home users will want it, and Quartz Extreme performance will rise correspondingly. And include enough memory to run the bundled apps!!! (I'm still shaking my head on that one...128MB standard...what a total bollocks up).

What I think you people don't get when I do these posts is that I'm fully in favor of the idea of Apple making faster, more obviously competitive products. More RAM, bigger drives, faster processors... It's all great, but it costs. For a company that does so much of its own work, I think we get an awful lot out of Apple for what we pay, even if it's not perfect.

I'd love to pay $1,000 for a G5 2.0 with a Radeon 9800 XT, 10,000 RPM SATA drive, 1 GB of PC3200, and everything else that would make the iMacs faster. I'm just enough of a realist that I understand how Apple is in unfavorable economy of scale, when it comes to anything but the most simple components.

 

[thatwendigo]

Here are the specs on a very equivalent HP I configured, I despecced it and ignored the promos for free RAM and extra hard drive space to come closer to matching the imac. Unlike Dell, HP bundles great software for burning and ilife (PS Windows bundles Easy CD Creater for burning so your need for software was an exaggeration)

...

So not only does this include twice the RAM, twice the VRAM and 50% more Hard drive space. It also includes Photoshop Elements (a step up from iphoto), Abode Premier LE (like imovie), Sony''s click to DVD, and SonicStage Mastering Studio and Screenblast Acid LE (never used them but functionally equivalent to garageband). And you save $125 on the deal.

While I can't comment on the programs in particular, I can say one thing... No PC bundle I have ever laid hand to has ever been as easy to flexible, powerful, and yet simple and easy to use as iLife. I have PC friends who gripe constantly about the limitations of MusicMatch, RealPlayer, and other lesser programs. I've used Photoshop Elements for the mac, but not Windows, and I'm not exactly impressed. Most of what I've seen it do is a lot of cheesy filters that Adobe pulled directly from the program's big brother.

I'd pay more just to have the use of OS X and iLife, thanks.

If you only comparison shop at Dell you will notice that the prices are very expensive once you venture beyond the promo. The cheap Dell computers with small hard drives and so on are the price leaders, and also allow a cheap person who wants an LCD to get one and a decent web browsing computer for under 1k. Unlike in Apple-land where 1k gets you an outdated emac or a closeout g3 ibook.

No argument that Dell is expensive compared to some other vendors. They're also the only company besides Apple turning a profit on the last year, and that makes me wonder how much of a cut the others have put on their margins. Since that's the case... Well, do I really have to point out that Dell survives on volume and Apple on margins? To alter the margins significantly is to risk our favorite computer company, unless you can find some magical source of income for them to tap instead.

 

[lewdvig]

Sure thing, ledvig. We'll be sure to have Apple get right on that, as long as you don't mind paying premium prices for a machine that will have to compete against premium hardware. I hear this so often around here, people ranting on and on about how cheap PC X can do thing Y so much faster and cheaper than any Apple machine.

So, once again, I think I'm going to go the pre-assembled and purely parts route...

For parts only, I'm using newegg. You ought to be able to figure out Dell and Apple

Supermicro E7505 Dual-Xeon Mobo $390
(SATA, 8x AGP, PCI-X, gigabit ethernet, but conditional and less supportive than Apple's motherboards)
Intel Xeon 3.06ghz x2 $950
(533 FSB, 512k L3, Hyperthreaded)
Pioneer DVR-A07 DVD +/- RW $188
Maxtor 250GB 7200RPM SATA HD $226
Kingston 512MB PC3200 RAM x4 $344
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB AGP 8x $212
Thermaltake XaserV Aluminum case $115
Antec SL450 2-fan 450 watt PSU $57
Running total, parts only: $2482


Dell Precision
Intel Xeon 3.06ghz x2 (533 FSB, 512k L3, Hyperthreaded)
2 GB PC 2100
250 GB SATA 7200 RPM
8x DVD+RW/+R w/ Roxio Easy CD, Sonic SE plus DVD decode
nVidia Quadro NVS 280 64MB
Soundblaster Audigy 2 (for digital in/out)
Dell TrueMobile 1300 802.11b/g (USB 2.0 external)
No monitor, no productivity software (hint: no iLife)
Running Total: $5,076


Apple G5
IBM 970 2.0ghz x2 (1ghz FSB, 512k L2 cache)
2 GB PC 3200
250 GB SATA 7200 RPm
8x DVD+/-RW
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
onboard 6.1 and digital audio
Airport Extreme 802.11 b/g internal wireless
no monitor, free iLife
Running total: $3,944




If you want to play games, go back to Intel. Period. We don't have the developer support, nor do I want my machines to be so geared to something I only sometimes engage in. At the moment, I can do two out of three of those on Apple's laptops without really worrying about it at all. I expect it to get even better when the revised PowerBooks show up.

You don't need a dual XEON to kick the crap out of an iMac - a single Athlon64 3000 will do nicely.

 

[thatwendigo]

You don't need a dual XEON to kick the crap out of an iMac - a single Athlon64 3000 will do nicely.

Way to completely miss my argument, guy.

I'm not talking about the lowend configurations, as they stand right now. However, since you seem set on trying to troll anyone who supports Apple's decisions and understands things like market pressure and economies of scale, let's take a little look at what's likely to be holding back the iMac/eMac in terms of processor updates.

The current form factor is 10.6" x (I have to assume) 5.8" (http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html), and that's about the size of a lot of these microATX conversions you see around the web. They tend to processors that are down in the 500-800 mhz range, for cooling reasons, and use either no fan or one fan in an attempt to manage silent cooling. So, if you want to have a fair comparison, we need to talk things within the same physical spec. It's all well and good to run around and scream "Apple's hardware design department sucks because a cheap, undercut PC can outperform it," but you're leaving out the hordes of reliability issues that cheap parts bring, the massive addition of space to do things like cool and place components, lack of integration, and other factors in the design.

I took a look at the PC all-in-ones at HP and Sony. Guess what they cost? $1699 and up. Gee... Looks like Apple might not be all that stingy, after all.

 

[jade]

I took a look at the PC all-in-ones at HP and Sony. Guess what they cost? $1699 and up. Gee... Looks like Apple might not be all that stingy, after all.

Well there are a few key differences: Sony and HP don't only sell all-in-ones. For them the all-in-ones are just a niche product, not the bread and butter consumer choice. Also most of the shuttles I have seen still fit in a standard AGP slot and rely on, although slower, AMD chips like the 2500-2800 series ones which still are faster then the old g4s.

The Sony all-in-ones, while very similar in price to the imac, include wireless keyboards, more RAM and hard drive space and even PC card slots for expansion, as well as a TV tuner card. Although they are nowhere near as slick as an imac, they are still overspecced when compared to your imac in the same price range. But of course poor values when compared to your average tower/monitor combo.

But if Apple wants to seriously compete in the consumer space, Apple needs to offer a compelling product that will actually attract new buyers, and keep old customers in the fold. If you are in the store upgrading you g3 imac/blue and white/ beige g3, the current Apple line up offers very little value when compared to the PC competition.

I have seen it firsthand, a lot of classic Mac users pondering if they should switch because the hardware is 50% cheaper and does everything they need to do. It is pretty hard to justify paying the premium for being an Apple user with the current desktop lineup.

I am a switcher and I looked at notebooks, Apple notebooks offer a lot more value when compared to the competition, but I cannot say the same for the desktops.

 

[thatwendigo]

Well there are a few key differences: Sony and HP don't only sell all-in-ones. For them the all-in-ones are just a niche product, not the bread and butter consumer choice. Also most of the shuttles I have seen still fit in a standard AGP slot and rely on, although slower, AMD chips like the 2500-2800 series ones which still are faster then the old g4s.

I'll concede that point. The G4 is a decent chip for what it does, but what it does is run at low heat and wattage draw, now outperform everything on the PC side.

The Sony all-in-ones, while very similar in price to the imac, include wireless keyboards, more RAM and hard drive space and even PC card slots for expansion, as well as a TV tuner card. Although they are nowhere near as slick as an imac, they are still overspecced when compared to your imac in the same price range. But of course poor values when compared to your average tower/monitor combo.

As much as some people hate it, since Jobs has been back at Apple, we've all been paying a bit of a 'slickness tax' for products that are not only functional, but also better looking than just about anything out there. I refuse to relent on pointing out that Apple can't just buy off-the-shelf as much as other PC vendors, because it's true. Certain components have to be manufactured or specially commissioned by Apple, or they just won't be around, and that costs serious cash when you're both running lower volume than the others, and also avoiding cheap, crap parts.

I have seen it firsthand, a lot of classic Mac users pondering if they should switch because the hardware is 50% cheaper and does everything they need to do. It is pretty hard to justify paying the premium for being an Apple user with the current desktop lineup.

Maybe for the iMac/eMac, I might agree... However, unless you build your own machines, the G5s are an amazing buy for the value, even 10 months after their initial announcement.

I am a switcher and I looked at notebooks, Apple notebooks offer a lot more value when compared to the competition, but I cannot say the same for the desktops.

You keep saying this... Are you including the pro towers in this equation? Also, I find it interesting that you'll praise the PowerBooks while downing the iMac. Isn't that still using the '1200 year old' G4 you were so against a few posts ago?

 

[jsw]

IMaybe for the iMac/eMac, I might agree... However, unless you build your own machines, the G5s are an amazing buy for the value, even 10 months after their initial announcement.

Definitely. I love my dual-2, and I've had it for over six months. And it is built better than any PC I've ever seen - toppping even Alienware due to the aluminum case.

And good point about quality parts. My 4.5-year-old laptop works admirably well even after constant use. Even my ancient IIci works fine. Apple builds computers to last. PC makers build computers to just make it until the next speed bump comes out.

 

[xy14]

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You.

According to Appleinsider, the eMac and iMac have been "end of lifed" (EOL'd).

End of life status on products occurs when products are discontinued or about to be upgraded.

Apple is not going to upgrade their eMacs. They are going to discontinue them because they are making the iMacs lose profits. They are probably going to upgrade the iMacs though because it would be horrible if they discontinued them (not everyone wants to pay $1799 for a Mac).

 

[jade]

You keep saying this... Are you including the pro towers in this equation? Also, I find it interesting that you'll praise the PowerBooks while downing the iMac. Isn't that still using the '1200 year old' G4 you were so against a few posts ago?

Yeah I agree the pro towers are decent value...I just wouldn't pay that much for a desktop. And unfortunately for me, the cheapest superdrive equipped Apple where I can choose my own monitor is $1799. Might as well get a 12" powerbook with super drive for that, at least I can take it with me.

AS for the 1200 year old g4s in a notebook: whole different story. In general notebooks sacrifice power for size (except for those 15lbs p4ee clunkers). Paying a premium for a small notebook with good battery life is completely pratical, and actually the PBs are fairly price competitive for notebooks in their size category. And you don't get top end performance in a notebook unless it never leaves your desk, not exactly my kind of notebook.

Today, I wouldn't buy a g4 powerbook, because a) i am typing this from my g4 ibook and b) holding out for a g5. But I have been back and forth on the whole powerbook issue for the past 2 years. And there really wasn't a lot in terms of thin and lights in PC-land. Actually, that is why I went for the ibook, it is one of the cheapest 12" notebooks around. (the only cheaper one is by a company called Sotec, and only by about $100)

I am willing to pay a "style tax" to get an Apple up to a point, but not more than 20%

 

[MarkCollette]

Hmm, I wonder if we'll get to the point where the consumers just have notebooks, and maybe a docking station kind of setup, with larger monitors, printers, etc. And then only pros would use desktops.

We've just reached the point where the majority of new computer sales are notebooks, not desktops, and the lowest end new notebooks can do all basic tasks, and with good expansion like FW and USB 2 we have have all expansion external... I wonder if and when.

 

[thatwendigo]

Yeah I agree the pro towers are decent value...I just wouldn't pay that much for a desktop. And unfortunately for me, the cheapest superdrive equipped Apple where I can choose my own monitor is $1799. Might as well get a 12" powerbook with super drive for that, at least I can take it with me.

Well, I guess that means you have no real need for the power, anyways, if the powerbook does what you need it to. That means the towers aren't marketed at you.

They're not marketed at me, either, if it makes you feel any better.

I am willing to pay a "style tax" to get an Apple up to a point, but not more than 20%

How are you figuring that? Where are you applying that 20%?