New eMacs

[PRØBE]

LACARS NEURO PACK COMPUTER CORE to announce already common Apple I just has to have one and have it out by next Tuesday, pleaseeeeee!!!! my
6 months old G5 1.8 is just not fast enough any more I need to be plug straight to my brain...

(in case you guys miss the point I'm been sarcastic, I tire of the cry babies)

BTW sky net goes on line next Tuesday too!!! end of the world here I come.

Sacastic about what? What does your post have to do with the thread?

 

[Ensoniq]

Now I'm no computer guru, but only 32 megs of video ram??? Whad up with that?

The first "Pro" PowerBook G4 only came with 8 MB VRAM.
The second "Pro" PowerBook G4 only came with 16 MB VRAM.
The third "Pro" PowerBook G4 only came with 32 MB VRAM.
The first "Pro" PowerMac G4 "Mirrored Drive Doors" came with only 32 MB VRAM.
Apple "Pro" PowerBook 12" TODAY only comes with 32 MB of video RAM.

This obsession with VRAM and "faster" video chips is just more of the MHz myth. If a game REQUIRES 64 MB of RAM to be playable, it's the programmers fault. 32 MB of VRAM is and should be perfectly acceptable for a consumer machine, and a Radeon 9200 is not a "slow" or "bad" video processor. It's not top of the line cutting edge, but game programmers should not expect or require more. That's just sloppy programming, and there is no excuse for it. It's the fact that most of these games are PC ports where they expect 2.5+ GHz Wintel processors to be standard that causes these issues.

Quartz Extreme ONLY requires 32 MB of VRAM for amazing results in compositing and rendering. What does Apple know that these game programmers don't? Apparently, a lot...

 

[wizard]

I don't know about how the rest of you read this but I see nothing but failure on Apples part bringing out equipment like this. Give me a break, 1.25 GHz in a desk top machine, in todays market. Good thing I'm not a stock holder, I'd lead revolt and have the instigators of this machine thrown in jail for parading such a joke in public.

Thanks
Dave

Apple announced new eMacs today.

The new eMacs run at 1.25GHz G4 processors with 333 MHz DDR Memory, faster ATI Radeon Graphics and USB 2.0 connectivity. The Superdrive equiped system now starts at just $999.

 

[johanwelin]

1.25 Ghz processors in the emac's?????

Congratulations, powerbook owners, your computers are now as advanced as the cheapest line apple makes, and only twice to three times as expensive!!!!!!

This is literally a spit in the face of powerbook owners, and is an insult to anyone considering buying a powerbook(so in other words, 15 inch PB superdrive buyers are paying the 1-2 THOUSAND dollar difference for bluetooth, airport, and a thin screen).

Steve, you complete a**hole . . . You and everyone at apple deserve to go belly up for this.

I am new to this forum. Perhaps I should reconsider my membership if this type of outbursts set the standard...

 

[dontmatter]

Just one question-why the hell isn't this gettin a prominent spot on apple's website? Do they not want people to buy it? Because I don't see how any of the other macs are moving right now- even for those who don't read rumor sites and so don't know (much as we actually know anything) that updates are imminent on every product in the line, it's still obvious that nothing has been updated in so long you aren't getting a good deal. The emac could use attention in general, but they refuse to give it. And now, when it's the only marketable product in their line, they refuse to put it in a noticable position on their website for even a week while we wait for the next updates! (well, it had better be a week, or two, perhaps...imac looks crappy now.)

 

[Photorun]

I don't know about how the rest of you read this but I see nothing but failure on Apples part bringing out equipment like this. Give me a break, 1.25 GHz in a desk top machine, in todays market. Good thing I'm not a stock holder, I'd lead revolt and have the instigators of this machine thrown in jail for parading such a joke in public.

Thanks
Dave

Wow, you sir are an tuckushat.

 

[wizard]

I have to take exception to a number of issues raised here.

First 32MB is a minimal configuration for todays software and we are speaking of OS/X here. As you may well know there are programs that demand more. So in effect Apple is marketing a machine that cannot meet the demands of todays user applications nor does it give you much room for future implementations of user software or OS/X features.

While I would agree that much of the game software ported to the Mac is sloppy it is a mistake to label all programs using more than 32 MB of ram as sloppy. There are very real and good uses for that VRAM beyond Quartz Extremes usages. To not have that RAM available is a mistake.

Third the Radeon 9200 is not a competive processors for installation in a new machine and certianly won't be considered fast when video transitions to new technology in a few months.

Frankly anyone looking at a PC purchase would do well to stay away from this machine, if they expect to get a good payback out of their money spent. it is extremely puzzling to figure out why Apple would even bother to release such a machine. One is left with the impression that Apple has only been giving lip service to the expansion of market share.

Thanks
Dave

The first "Pro" PowerBook G4 only came with 8 MB VRAM.
The second "Pro" PowerBook G4 only came with 16 MB VRAM.
The third "Pro" PowerBook G4 only came with 32 MB VRAM.
The first "Pro" PowerMac G4 "Mirrored Drive Doors" came with only 32 MB VRAM.
Apple "Pro" PowerBook 12" TODAY only comes with 32 MB of video RAM.

This obsession with VRAM and "faster" video chips is just more of the MHz myth. If a game REQUIRES 64 MB of RAM to be playable, it's the programmers fault. 32 MB of VRAM is and should be perfectly acceptable for a consumer machine, and a Radeon 9200 is not a "slow" or "bad" video processor. It's not top of the line cutting edge, but game programmers should not expect or require more. That's just sloppy programming, and there is no excuse for it. It's the fact that most of these games are PC ports where they expect 2.5+ GHz Wintel processors to be standard that causes these issues.

Quartz Extreme ONLY requires 32 MB of VRAM for amazing results in compositing and rendering. What does Apple know that these game programmers don't? Apparently, a lot...

 

[wizard]

Maybe they are just to embarassed to admit to the machine!!!!!!


thanks
Dave

Just one question-why the hell isn't this gettin a prominent spot on apple's website? Do they not want people to buy it? Because I don't see how any of the other macs are moving right now- even for those who don't read rumor sites and so don't know (much as we actually know anything) that updates are imminent on every product in the line, it's still obvious that nothing has been updated in so long you aren't getting a good deal. The emac could use attention in general, but they refuse to give it. And now, when it's the only marketable product in their line, they refuse to put it in a noticable position on their website for even a week while we wait for the next updates! (well, it had better be a week, or two, perhaps...imac looks crappy now.)

 

[jimsowden]

I don't know about how the rest of you read this but I see nothing but failure on Apples part bringing out equipment like this. Give me a break, 1.25 GHz in a desk top machine, in todays market. Good thing I'm not a stock holder, I'd lead revolt and have the instigators of this machine thrown in jail for parading such a joke in public.

Thanks
Dave

You fell prey to the MHz myth. Clock speed is only part (and a somewhat insignificant) of the machines overall preformance. Its all about the pipeline stages. The G4's 7 vs Intel's 17 or something? I'll take a large G4 with a side of Apple is better than Intel.

 

[aswitcher]

Just one question-why the hell isn't this gettin a prominent spot on apple's website? Do they not want people to buy it? Because I don't see how any of the other macs are moving right now- even for those who don't read rumor sites and so don't know (much as we actually know anything) that updates are imminent on every product in the line, it's still obvious that nothing has been updated in so long you aren't getting a good deal. The emac could use attention in general, but they refuse to give it. And now, when it's the only marketable product in their line, they refuse to put it in a noticable position on their website for even a week while we wait for the next updates! (well, it had better be a week, or two, perhaps...imac looks crappy now.)

I too would have thought they would be pushing it as an entry level machine to all the PC ipod owners.

 

[Hattig]

I don't know about how the rest of you read this but I see nothing but failure on Apples part bringing out equipment like this. Give me a break, 1.25 GHz in a desk top machine, in todays market. Good thing I'm not a stock holder, I'd lead revolt and have the instigators of this machine thrown in jail for parading such a joke in public.

Have you priced up a cheap Dell system recently?

One with the same software features that MacOS Panther gives you, with iLife as well?

Spec one up.

I got a POS Dell Dimension 2400c with 2.6GHz Celeron (probably weaker than a 1.25GHz G4 in many aspects to be honest, but this was the slowest processor I could spec on this hardware option), crappy integrated graphics (Radeon 9200 + 32MB is way way way better than Intel integrated), XP Pro, Optical mouse, 17" CRT, the cheapest service contract (1 year collect and return), 256MB RAM, 40GB HD, Firewire, CDRW/DVD drive ... and it came out costing MORE than the comparable eMac. The only thing it has over the eMac is a couple of PCI slots. I bet the Apple keyboard is better than the Dell "standard PS/2 keyboard" too. The Dell looks ugly as well.

The eMac is now priced reasonably competitively with similar level PC hardware. Better graphics on the eMac vs. faster processor on the PC. Better OS and software on the eMac vs. ability to catch spyware, viruses and other nasty stuff. I think there is too much of a price difference between the $799 eMac and the $999 eMac though - 8x DVD drives aren't that expensive anymore, and neither are 80GB hard drives.

Of course, the standard response to this is to price up a computer from parts, not from a large OEM ... but that isn't exactly a fair comparison.

 

[rdowns]

Yeah, thats just the thing, the cheapest, lowest line should not be first!!!!!!!!!! And as someone who bought a powerbook a week ago, i DO take personal offense, because its insulting that the update is imminent, but held off so their profit margins are greater. Emacs can only go up, and thats why their being updated. PB's, on the other hand, are doing well, cause people want apple and portable, and dont care about the price/details. So Steve screws people like me and anyone who has recently put their PB's in 6th overall, and highest among comps.

So you shut it, i am right.

What are you, like in third grade? eMacs were ready and Apple released them. I say bravo. First time I can recall not holding something back to prop up another line. What are they supposed to do? Wait until Motorola releases their faster G4s later in the year and have the eMac miss out on school purchases? Schools will be buying computers for next year within the next 8-12 weeks.

 

[kaylee]

I am new to this forum. Perhaps I should reconsider my membership if this type of outbursts set the standard...

this type of outburst is not the standard. it probably doesnt help you are reading/posting in a thread about updates - you will get people who are really happy about the update, some that dont really care, and some that are upset by it that whinge and complain, and are spurred on by people that respond to their whinge/complaint - if you read this thread its been back and forth between a17inchfuture and other people rebutting his comments. personally i think that the emac coming up a lot closer to pb specs in this update just indicates that more updates are on the way soon, and we should all be happy

 

[Hattig]

What are you, like in third grade? eMacs were ready and Apple released them. I say bravo. First time I can recall not holding something back to prop up another line. What are they supposed to do? Wait until Motorola releases their faster G4s later in the year and have the eMac miss out on school purchases? Schools will be buying computers for next year within the next 8-12 weeks.

Agreed totally. I'm sure this update has been on the cards for quite a while.

There's a big difference between a laptop and a desktop. Just because Dell sell cheap desktops doesn't mean that buyers of their expensive laptops should feel put out! The same goes for Apple.

It is quite possible that other product releases have been delayed, and what was to be a standard upgrade to the eMac after PowerMac and possibly other upgrades this year has turned into the first upgrade this year for Apple (neglecting the XServe which still isn't ready).

 

[oingoboingo]

This obsession with VRAM and "faster" video chips is just more of the MHz myth. If a game REQUIRES 64 MB of RAM to be playable, it's the programmers fault. 32 MB of VRAM is and should be perfectly acceptable for a consumer machine, and a Radeon 9200 is not a "slow" or "bad" video processor. It's not top of the line cutting edge, but game programmers should not expect or require more. That's just sloppy programming, and there is no excuse for it. It's the fact that most of these games are PC ports where they expect 2.5+ GHz Wintel processors to be standard that causes these issues.

More detailed textures and improved visual effects require more VRAM and faster GPUs. Gamers want realistic graphics like in Unreal Tournament 2004 and Splinter Cell, not the chunky textures and primitive effects of Doom I and Quake I. End of story. Unless all progress in graphics software technology and improvements in gaming realism halts, more VRAM and faster GPUs are going to continue to be the norm. It has nothing to do with 'a MHz myth' or 'sloppy programming' (BTW, that has to be the most spurious 'MHz myth' connection I've ever seen...what does "the only important indicator of CPU performance is clock speed" have to do with the hand-in-hand improvements in graphics hardware and gaming graphics realism?!?!?!). It's software technology taking advantage of improvements in hardware technology. If you don't like it, run your games at 640x480, low detail textures and all effects turned off...and have it look like a bad PlayStation 1 game. Those settings are there for low end graphics cards.

The fact that Apple hasn't increased standard VRAM past 32MB on some of its 'Pro' lineup for years and years says much about the irritating artificial product stratification and sometimes specification stinginess that Apple is known for, rather than any 'natural' VRAM limit. Try running two high resolution displays off a 32MB video card with plenty of windows open and then tile them with Expose. That slowdown and jerkiness you experience is caused by a lack of VRAM and texture information paging across the AGP bus. If "32MB should be enough for everybody" (shades of Bill Gates there), why does Apple ship 64MB cards as standard on the 15" and 17" PowerBook and across the G5 range, and offer the 128MB Radeon 9800 as an option?

 

[rdowns]

1.25 Ghz processors in the emac's?????

Congratulations, powerbook owners, your computers are now as advanced as the cheapest line apple makes, and only twice to three times as expensive!!!!!!

This is literally a spit in the face of powerbook owners, and is an insult to anyone considering buying a powerbook(so in other words, 15 inch PB superdrive buyers are paying the 1-2 THOUSAND dollar difference for bluetooth, airport, and a thin screen).


Steve, you complete a**hole . . . You and everyone at apple deserve to go belly up for this.

CUPERTINO, CA (4/13/04) Apple Computer announced a new line of messenger bags for the new portabe eMac. Available in 5 colors (to match the mini iPod) for the low price of $59. Free "FU PowerBook owners" embroidery will be available until June 28, 2004.

 

[jade]

You fell prey to the MHz myth. Clock speed is only part (and a somewhat insignificant) of the machines overall preformance. Its all about the pipeline stages. The G4's 7 vs Intel's 17 or something? I'll take a large G4 with a side of Apple is better than Intel.

But this was true when we were looking at a 2:1 or so ratio of Apple to intel...these days Intel is approaching 3x the clockspeed of the g4 chips. And the 1.25 g4 is slower than just about every current shipping chip on the PC side. Most PCs are starting at about 2.7 or 2.8 ghz... these chips are faster for day to day use.

There are some tasks where the g4 is much faster than the PC hardware (mainly imovie, quicktime encoding, and video transitions) But for just about everything else the PCs are faster.

If we compare this years emac with lassy years early year p4s, the speed would be comparable.... but Intel has made significant progress since then, compared with the negligable gains in g4 performance.

This emac architecture update is long overdue, since Apple moved all of the other products to USB 2.0 and DDR RAM last year. I am disappointed it took so long for such a minor revision.


In Apple pricinland the emacs are a much better deal than before and a down right bargain. But looking at the PC competition... the wintel offerings are more futureproof. Shipping the emac w/ 32 mb VRAM is a travesty. (Even if you get shared video on the cheapest PCs, you typically have an AGP slot to use if your needs change)

 

[wizard]

I'm responding to everyone that seems to take exception to my posts regarding the new machine.

There are a number of reasons why I'm not happy with this new machine, but frankly to claim that I've fallen prey to the MHz myth is a bit of a stretch. The issue is that the eMac has not been updated in a very long time the percentage increase is miniscule considering that.

As far as clock rates go, when your talking about the same class processor, clock rate is very important consideration. Frankly Intel has nothing to do with this discussion. The discussion is about the usfullness of the machine in light of where software technolgies will be taking us in the future. This eMac will not have a long life span, there are simply to many built in limitations.

Besides the clock rate on the CPU you have a huge limitation with respect to the graphics chip. Lets face it it has a minimal RAM installation for OS/X'es Quartz Extreme. Not much future proofing there.

This may very well be the ideal machine to sit in place with one or two aplications that are expected to run for a few years. It is a very poor machine to buy if you expect to be able to continue to upgrade and install new software that will place more demands on the system.

Lets face it Apple delivered this machine now because they know full well that newer machines are coming out that will completely over shadow this machine. If you want to fall for this marketing practice and go out and buy one, then go ahead. Just don't come back to this forum a month or two from now when the rest of the new hardware is out and your eMac is looking pretty sad complaining that you wish you had waited.


Thanks
Dave

You fell prey to the MHz myth. Clock speed is only part (and a somewhat insignificant) of the machines overall preformance. Its all about the pipeline stages. The G4's 7 vs Intel's 17 or something? I'll take a large G4 with a side of Apple is better than Intel.

 

[invaLPsion]

Sorry that this is off topic but, everytime i try to open appleinsider.com or it says timed out....is this just me?

I'm getting that too.

 

[Geetar]

I don't know about ....the rest of you.... but ..... I'm.. a joke ............

Thanks
Dave

Selectively, anything can be rendered comical (q.v. your own post above). Don't make it so easy next time.


On an entirely more realistic note, the new machines offer fair value. They may be best measured by their performance in the tasks to which they are well-suited, not by a simple-minded list of their components.

As a further illustration you, young Sir, are probably only worth several Dollars in raw materials..... but I doubt your mummy views you in this light

 

[invaLPsion]

I am new to this forum. Perhaps I should reconsider my membership if this type of outbursts set the standard...

Nah, don't blame the guy.

I know a17inchfuture has been waiting a LONG time for the updates.

I personally agree with the guy 100%. Apple's pro line of computers is in DREADFUL need of an update.

 

[Trowaman]

ya know, I just realised . . .

This is the first speed bumps apple has released since I joined these forums. This is unless you count G5 Xserves. . .

Cool beans for me I guess . . .

 

[Nermal]

All I want to know is why Apple NZ is listing the prices in Aussie dollars

But they're cheap

Combo eMac:
USA Price: US$799 (+GST) = NZ$1380
NZ Price: AU$1299 (inc GST) = NZ$1500

SuperDrive eMac:
USA US$999 (+GST) = NZ$1725
NZ AU$1599 (inc GST) = NZ$1845

We're only paying NZ$120 (US$78) for "international tax" this time around

 

[Hattig]

More detailed textures and improved visual effects require more VRAM and faster GPUs. Gamers want realistic graphics like in Unreal Tournament 2004 and Splinter Cell, not the chunky textures and primitive effects of Doom I and Quake I. End of story.

Anyone buying an eMac to play UT2004 on in a serious way needs their head checked out.

A gamer will buy a system that plays games well. Typically the graphics card will cost around one third to half the price of a new eMac on its own!

You won't be running two displays off of an eMac for a start unless you want to mirror displays, or find a hack to disable the artificial limitation in the hardware/software driver.

32MB will be enough for what the average eMac user will use the system for. 64MB would have been a nice option, but maybe that would have increased the cost of the hardware so that Apple couldn't make a $799 / £549 price point.

A 1280x960 32-bit display takes up 4.7MB of memory. Assume that MacOS X double buffers the display - that is 9.4MB. Each window is effectively a texture mapped onto a polygon under Quartz (this is stuff that Microsoft is having problems implementing!) so you are only left with enough graphics memory for four full screen applications [before any texture compression, doubtful for a realtime desktop]. AGP 4x bandwidth is a mere 1GBps (system has 166MHz processor bus, and PC2700 memory, so there is plenty of spare memory bandwidth for AGP to use) which means that 10 full screen applications (47MB) would take 1/20th of a second to transfer over the AGP bus from main memory to graphics card memory. As Expose is animated, this would limit the animation to 20 frames per second before other overheads. OH NO!!!! Teh Horror! 20fps for a brief desktop animation that involves all application windows updating in real time. Even at 10 fps that would be impressive.

If a person has 10 full screen's worth of applications running then I doubt that an eMac was the best option for them anyway ... yet it will still manage fine with the graphical load. Might be an idea to get more main memory for the system though.

 

[Mencius]

vram

The thing that really gets me about most of Apple's hardware offerings is the lack of flexibility in vram. I love using Apple machines and I do play more than my fair share of games. Unfortunately, these two things seem to be becoming more and more incompatible for someone who doesn't want to buy a pro workstation (the only Apple machine you can put an almost top of the line graphics card in). I'll settle for the limited ports of games to Apple's OS if I can please, please, please, turn the textures and the resolution up.

I wouldn't mind mid-level Apple machines selling with basic (32MB) vram if they had the capacity to upgrade to better cards. Using Dell machine's integrated graphics as a counterexample is a little deceptive. If you're careful, know what you're doing, and if you build your own machine, you can get a PC for AUS $1000-2000 that has a nice graphics card and can play games in good resolutions and with the textures up.

Is it that putting an AGP 8x slot in mac machines makes them much more expensive to produce? I genuinely don't know, but I wish Apple machines could be upgraded to 128mb of vram, at a lower level than the "pro" offerings.