eMac CRT Suddenly Turns Off

[SkyBell]

Some of y'all may remember my thread back in August about the flickering issues I was having with the CRT monitor in my eMac. Well, those still happen every so often (though not nearly as much since I changed it to a higher resolution) but now I seem to have a new issue; after turning on my eMac, the CRT now just suddenly shuts off in use, and not in the manor it does so when shutting down the machine. (there's a bright "flash" consisting of a horizontal line across the middle of a screen which immediately fades to a dot right in the center, then nothing) Restarting does nothing; it sounds as if the CRT is turning on for a moment, but nothing ever appears on the screen, even though I can hear the hard drive clicking away.

I don't know if there's any fixes for this without physically messing with the CRT, or at all for that matter. Furthermore, even if something can be done, how close to death is this monitor?

 

[LOLZpersonok]

I think the ray gun may be toast. Unless you're comfortable with working inside a CRT and you know what you're doing, I'd say that the system is gone. I had a 32" CRT TV a long time ago that did something similar, it would randomly produce a bright horizontal line across the screen randomly, and slapping the TV would return it to its proper state, but it didn't last forever. So, the TV is gone now.

It's an unfortunate fact about the old CRT iMacs and eMacs. If the CRT goes, it's almost always not worth fixing. My iMac G3's PAV board is toast, and even though it is possible to replace, it is in the CRT housing and apparently the hardest part to replace. So, for me, it's not worth fixing.

 

[SkyBell]

I think the ray gun may be toast. Unless you're comfortable with working inside a CRT and you know what you're doing, I'd say that the system is gone. I had a 32" CRT TV a long time ago that did something similar, it would randomly produce a bright horizontal line across the screen randomly, and slapping the TV would return it to its proper state, but it didn't last forever. So, the TV is gone now.

It's an unfortunate fact about the old CRT iMacs and eMacs. If the CRT goes, it's almost always not worth fixing. My iMac G3's PAV board is toast, and even though it is possible to replace, it is in the CRT housing and apparently the hardest part to replace. So, for me, it's not worth fixing.

Yeah, I can barely get any machine back together properly, much less do a whole lot of anything inside them.

 

[jrsx]

It's an unfortunate fact about the old CRT iMacs and eMacs. If the CRT goes, it's almost always not worth fixing. My iMac G3's PAV board is toast, and even though it is possible to replace, it is in the CRT housing and apparently the hardest part to replace. So, for me, it's not worth fixing.

And you can pick an iMac G3 up these days for $30 or less, so why bother?
I guess 1.42 GHz eMacs come at a bit bigger of a price, but almost always under $100, which really isn't much, even cheap PCs are $250+

 

[LOLZpersonok]

Yeah, I can barely get any machine back together properly, much less do a whole lot of anything inside them.

Well, in that case, I'm going to have to say that the system is a write-off unless you can get someone to repair it for you. Working with a CRT is very dangerous, and can be potentially deadly as even when it is powered off, as it can still contain extremely high voltages. Besides, the eMac as it is is very difficult to service.

 

[LOLZpersonok]

And you can pick an iMac G3 up these days for $30 or less, so why bother?
I guess 1.42 GHz eMacs come at a bit bigger of a price, but almost always under $100, which really isn't much, even cheap PCs are $250+

I guess the OP would probably like the eMac because it is a G4 so it is faster than the G3s, and it has a similar iMac G3 feel to it. I'm not a fan of the eMac for the simple reason that it is difficult to service, but other than that, I still think it's an interesting machine. Besides, SkyBell already has an iMac G3.

Cheap PCs that are $250+ are what they are - cheap. Though we're past the days of the netbook, what you can buy brand new for $250 isn't all that exciting. Looking at Futureshop in their inexpensive section, you get a lot of Chromebooks, which in my opinion are not very good, unless you strictly do Internet things, as they rely completely on Internet-based applications.

Those laptops that aren't Chromebooks mostly have less than 200GB of hard disk storage and 2GB of RAM. And they probably aren't capable of becoming modern Hackintoshes, either. Personally, if you're going to get a real PC, get something that is $500 or more. My HP Envy cost me $650 (it was on sale, though) and even though its quad core processor doesn't quite compare to an i7, my HP with its graphics is a great, high performing laptop, good for games. That's just my two cents about cheap PCs though.

 

[SkyBell]

And you can pick an iMac G3 up these days for $30 or less, so why bother?
I guess 1.42 GHz eMacs come at a bit bigger of a price, but almost always under $100, which really isn't much, even cheap PCs are $250+

Well, in that case, I'm going to have to say that the system is a write-off unless you can get someone to repair it for you. Working with a CRT is very dangerous, and can be potentially deadly as even when it is powered off, as it can still contain extremely high voltages. Besides, the eMac as it is is very difficult to service.

As attached as I am to the thing, I know that fixing/replacing the CRT would almost be like just throwing away what little spare money I have... I know I can use an external monitor when it finally goes, but it'll still be a big loss and a sad day.

On that note though... when I was having the flickering issues, I raised the resolution from 1024 x 768 to 1152 x 864, and it did decrease the frequency of the near-constant flickering to a very rare occurrence. Just to see what would happen, I lowered the resolution back to 1024 x 768, and for the first time in a while, the screen is working perfectly; I'm typing this post on it right now, nearly 7 hours after turning it on. (A far cry from the 20-30 minutes it has been working)

I don't know exactly why changing the resolutions has helped me in both instances, but I know whatever it changes is only a temporary fix at best. Still, it cheers me up that I can at least use the old girl again.

 

[LOLZpersonok]

As attached as I am to the thing, I know that fixing/replacing the CRT would almost be like just throwing away what little spare money I have... I know I can use an external monitor when it finally goes, but it'll still be a big loss and a sad day.

On that note though... when I was having the flickering issues, I raised the resolution from 1024 x 768 to 1152 x 864, and it did decrease the frequency of the near-constant flickering to a very rare occurrence. Just to see what would happen, I lowered the resolution back to 1024 x 768, and for the first time in a while, the screen is working perfectly; I'm typing this post on it right now, nearly 7 hours after turning it on. (A far cry from the 20-30 minutes it has been working)

I don't know exactly why changing the resolutions has helped me in both instances, but I know whatever it changes is only a temporary fix at best. Still, it cheers me up that I can at least use the old girl again.

I can't remember properly, but are you able to fiddle around with the screen refresh rate on Mac OS X 10.4.11? This may be causing some problems. Try decreasing it if it starts flickering again, or if it is already low, try increasing it.

 

[gavinstubbs09]

As attached as I am to the thing, I know that fixing/replacing the CRT would almost be like just throwing away what little spare money I have... I know I can use an external monitor when it finally goes, but it'll still be a big loss and a sad day.

On that note though... when I was having the flickering issues, I raised the resolution from 1024 x 768 to 1152 x 864, and it did decrease the frequency of the near-constant flickering to a very rare occurrence. Just to see what would happen, I lowered the resolution back to 1024 x 768, and for the first time in a while, the screen is working perfectly; I'm typing this post on it right now, nearly 7 hours after turning it on. (A far cry from the 20-30 minutes it has been working)

I don't know exactly why changing the resolutions has helped me in both instances, but I know whatever it changes is only a temporary fix at best. Still, it cheers me up that I can at least use the old girl again.

If you had to replace your eMac with another flavor of a G4 desktop, would you get another eMac or a iMac G4 17" or 20"?

 

[SkyBell]

I can't remember properly, but are you able to fiddle around with the screen refresh rate on Mac OS X 10.4.11? This may be causing some problems. Try decreasing it if it starts flickering again, or if it is already low, try increasing it.

I don't think so, there's other refresh rates on a list but all except 89 hertz are greyed out.

If you had to replace your eMac with another flavor of a G4 desktop, would you get another eMac or a iMac G4 17" or 20"?

Between the two? I've always wanted an iMac G4, I'm just not sure: the drop from 1.42 GHz to 1.25 GHz wouldn't be awful I don't think, but I remember my eMac being a small, but noticeable bit faster than my 1.33 GHz iBook. eMacs tend to be a bit cheaper than iMac G4's as well.

However, I'm still hoping such a decision won't be in front of me too soon.

 

[gavinstubbs09]

I don't think so, there's other refresh rates on a list but all except 89 hertz are greyed out.


Between the two? I've always wanted an iMac G4, I'm just not sure: the drop from 1.42 GHz to 1.25 GHz wouldn't be awful I don't think, but I remember my eMac being a small, but noticeable bit faster than my 1.33 GHz iBook. eMacs tend to be a bit cheaper than iMac G4's as well.

However, I'm still hoping such a decision won't be in front of me too soon.

I have yet to own a eMac, but it is a shame the G5s were so problematic. I'd love to own one that is quiet, has no lines down the screen, and the BGA solder that won't break apart. I like the iSights, more appealing than the originals!

 

[SkyBell]

I have yet to own a eMac, but it is a shame the G5s were so problematic. I'd love to own one that is quiet, has no lines down the screen, and the BGA solder that won't break apart. I like the iSights, more appealing than the originals!

Yeah, I know what you mean; an iMac G5 would definitely be what I would purchase as a replacement for my eMac if it weren't for all its numerous issues.

I've been doing some preliminary pricing and research on other PPC models, and honestly I wouldn't mind having a late model QS or MDD PowerMac G4's, if it weren't for the fact that I don't like the "silver and shiny" scheme their cases use. Just out of curiosity, would it require a lot of modification to put QS or MDD internals into a "graphite" PM G4 case? (or even better, a B&W G3? )

 

[Intell]

Yeah, I know what you mean; an iMac G5 would definitely be what I would purchase as a replacement for my eMac if it weren't for all its numerous issues.

I've been doing some preliminary pricing and research on other PPC models, and honestly I wouldn't mind having a late model QS or MDD PowerMac G4's, if it weren't for the fact that I don't like the "silver and shiny" scheme their cases use. Just out of curiosity, would it require a lot of modification to put QS or MDD internals into a "graphite" PM G4 case? (or even better, a B&W G3? )

The Quicksilver innards would have the best chance of fitting. Apple completely redesigned the MDD models' insides. You could always get a Digital Audio. It's basically a Quicksilver in a graphic case.

 

[SkyBell]

The Quicksilver innards would have the best chance of fitting. Apple completely redesigned the MDD models' insides. You could always get a Digital Audio. It's basically a Quicksilver in a graphic case.

Good to know, just in case I suppose. (sorry ) I've just never owned a PowerMac before: I don't think I properly understand what the benefits are of dual processors, or any possible upgrades they could have. It looks like the most powerful Digital Audio would be the dual 533, is that correct? Or would the single processor 667 and/or 733 beat it out in certain performance areas? And how would these stack up against my 1.42 eMac?

Even looking at dual 800 and 1 GHz Quicksilver models, what puts me off them the most is their 1.5 GB memory limit, compared to the 2 GB you could have in the older models. Just a few months back I made the jump from 1.5 to 2 GB in my eMac, and while the gain in performance wasn't exactly night and day, it was definitely noticeable.

Grr. I hate the cases of both the G5 and late-model G4 PowerMacs; the iMac G5 is riddled with defects while the G4 isn't powerful enough; The 1.5 GHz G4 mini would be almost perfect, but that 1 GB memory limit rules it out completely. I'm sure I'm biased because of my attachment to my eMac, but they're dirt cheap compared to most similar spec'd Macs, and their design is one of a kind.

If I had to replace my eMac right now, it would honestly probably just be another one of the same model. But should this one keep kicking along for a couple more years, you'll probably see me put aside my disdain for the case design of the later PowerMac G4's, and replace the ol' eMac with top-of-the-line MDD just to be able to keep using PowerPC.

Too bad I'm not in the market for a laptop, or I'd have my sights locked on to a 1.5 12" PowerBook G4.

 

[Intell]

The stock dual 533Mhz would be faster than its stock 667Mhz or 733Mhz. The dual 533Mhz ranks at about 2/3 as fast as your eMac. The only place where the DA could outperform your eMac is in GPU related tasks with a ATI 9600 XT or better installed and in network throughput. It'd still lag behind in hard drive access speeds, memory bandwidth, wireless networking, and raw computational abilities. You could put in a more powerful G4, but at that cost you'd be better off with a new eMac. I'm rather sad to see your eMac is starting to die. You've always been very attached to it.

 

[gavinstubbs09]

Dual Processors = Amazing! My MDD and G5 are both dual processors. Certainly fast and nice if you happen to be doing anything like 360p YouTube or Photoshop renders.

 

[Altemose]

Dual Processors = Amazing! My MDD and G5 are both dual processors. Certainly fast and nice if you happen to be doing anything like 360p YouTube or Photoshop renders.

Using a single core PPC Mac is painful to me. Even my maxed out PowerBook with a 1.67 GHz G4.

 

[LOLZpersonok]

Good to know, just in case I suppose. (sorry ) I've just never owned a PowerMac before: I don't think I properly understand what the benefits are of dual processors, or any possible upgrades they could have. It looks like the most powerful Digital Audio would be the dual 533, is that correct? Or would the single processor 667 and/or 733 beat it out in certain performance areas? And how would these stack up against my 1.42 eMac?

Even looking at dual 800 and 1 GHz Quicksilver models, what puts me off them the most is their 1.5 GB memory limit, compared to the 2 GB you could have in the older models. Just a few months back I made the jump from 1.5 to 2 GB in my eMac, and while the gain in performance wasn't exactly night and day, it was definitely noticeable.

Grr. I hate the cases of both the G5 and late-model G4 PowerMacs; the iMac G5 is riddled with defects while the G4 isn't powerful enough; The 1.5 GHz G4 mini would be almost perfect, but that 1 GB memory limit rules it out completely. I'm sure I'm biased because of my attachment to my eMac, but they're dirt cheap compared to most similar spec'd Macs, and their design is one of a kind.

If I had to replace my eMac right now, it would honestly probably just be another one of the same model. But should this one keep kicking along for a couple more years, you'll probably see me put aside my disdain for the case design of the later PowerMac G4's, and replace the ol' eMac with top-of-the-line MDD just to be able to keep using PowerPC.

Too bad I'm not in the market for a laptop, or I'd have my sights locked on to a 1.5 12" PowerBook G4.

I have a Power Mac G4 MDD. Though I've never used an eMac with a 1.42GHz processor, I know right off the bat that the Power Mac G4 that I have is going to be significantly more powerful. That, and the added graphics capability and the fact that you can have 4 installed hard drives is something that would make me recommend this one. Try to get an MDD as they are the very most powerful G4s you can find. If I recall properly, they're the ones with the highest clocking processors and the fastest bus speeds. They're also the most recent of the G4 Power Macs and have a 2GB memory limit.

Mine is a dual 1.25GHz model. With 2GB of RAM, it is more than capable of tackling most Internet tasks. It can't watch HD YouTube videos, but that's a PowerPC for you. It is very quick on OS X 10.4 and applications designed for 10.4 run really well, with the exception of SimCity 4, but I think an upgraded GPU may solve that issue.

To answer your question about the performance between a dual 533MHz machine and single 667MHz and 733MHz: The dual 533MHz model will likely be a better performer than the two, especially with programs optimized for dual CPU usage. But, if you really are considering a G4 Power Mac, I would suggest a dual processor G4 in the highest clockspeeds you can find.