Yes, if it weren't for the fact that the eMac's processor is half as fast as the Dell system that was posted, the two systems would be very comparable (besides the fact that the OS and software on the Mac is infinitely better, of course!). Actually, the eMac is better in many ways from a hardware perspective because for the price of the Dell plus a 17" CRT (i.e. $1250+), it includes things like the Superdrive, a larger HD, Firewire, and built in antennas for Airport. However, there is, once again, the problem that the processor is much slower (in real terms, not just in terms of clock speed).
If you put a 1.6 Ghz G4 with DDR333 (and a processor FSB that can actually run double pumped), then I would say that the eMac would be very competitive with the Dell from a hardware perspective (and blow it away from a software perspective). But of course the problem is that Motorola isn't producing a G4 with a double pumped FSB, and their highest clocked G4s are sensibly reserved for the Pro towers. Hopefully the arrival of the PPC 970 will change this. In the best case scenario, we would actually see a new "G4" type chip (possibly by IBM) that would support the higher frequencies and a double pumped FSB, and this would be used in the eMac and/or iMac lineup. But even in the suboptimal scenario (i.e. that we must continue to use Motorola G4s because IBM has no replacement chip to bridge the gap between the G3 and the 970), by going with the 970 in PowerMacs, Apple will hopefully be able to put higher clocked G4s with faster bus speeds (but unfortunately still not DDR) into the consumer Macs. That will at least make them remotely competitive (in terms of processor speed...particularly when the MPC 7457 is released later this year) with the $1,000 PCs, even if it not entirely closing the performance gap.
"That's ranty!"
