These would be a perfect means of getting the three remaing PC's (which we always have problems) out of our production offices.
At these prices who can argue?
At these prices who can argue?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New eMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jxyama said:
As an iMac owner, I think I can speak to why folks are complaining about 32 MB VRAM. From my experience, graphics intensive software generally increases the requirements for graphics cards faster than the requirements for CPUs. For example, my 800mHz iMac easily meets the minimum requirements of most games concerning clock speed, but my GForce 2MX with 32MB VRAM doesn't cut it anymore for most graphics intensive software's minimum requirements.
I still love my iMac because it easily handles surfing, email, and finances but it is becoming less useful for games/iMovie/iTunes/etc. One might argue that I should have known this before buying an un-upgradeable iMac. And that is exactly my point - Apple should make components like graphics cards, system bus speed, ram speed, hard drive controller, firewire/usb ports, etc. as high tech as possible on all-in-one machines in particular because the life of the machine will be limited by its accessories more than its CPU. I would be happy to keep my iMac for several more years if its graphics card was stronger.
Nope didn't mis that little 'e' at all. In fact considering the market that these machines are targetted at, makes them all the more appalling.
Consider that your tax dollars are being spent on a machine like this. Do you really want your tax dollars being spent on a machine that has technology that will be more than three years old by the time it is first used in an institution? Do you really want your tax dollars being spent on hardware that barely meets the requirements of modern software and has little ability to expand to support future software? Remember in an educational environment these machines will be around for a long time.
It is really a question of value and long term usefullness. If a local district where to suggest the purchase of such hardware I would have to object. It would be a bit like going to a store to buy a ham and finding when you took the wrapper off that there was little meat on the bone. In essence Apple is selling a container that is a little thin on meat relative to the demands of the modern world.
thanks
Dave
Consider that your tax dollars are being spent on a machine like this. Do you really want your tax dollars being spent on a machine that has technology that will be more than three years old by the time it is first used in an institution? Do you really want your tax dollars being spent on hardware that barely meets the requirements of modern software and has little ability to expand to support future software? Remember in an educational environment these machines will be around for a long time.
It is really a question of value and long term usefullness. If a local district where to suggest the purchase of such hardware I would have to object. It would be a bit like going to a store to buy a ham and finding when you took the wrapper off that there was little meat on the bone. In essence Apple is selling a container that is a little thin on meat relative to the demands of the modern world.
thanks
Dave
macdong said:
Sped said:
well, apple's stance on it is that if you are going to run software at the forefront that requires better graphics card, you are supposed to get a PowerMac...
modular upgrading would be nice for the users who has outgrown all-in-one package so they would be able to prolong the life of an all-in-one machine, just like you said.
but i guess apple has problem with that, either philosophically or technically or both. it may also be a design issue too. if it was meant to be upgradable, eMac/iMac cases would need to be redesigned as such...
the other problem is, of course, because of smaller installed base, graphics card technologies are slower to advance for Mac. and because many popular programs would be ported from PCs (esp. games) - and many of them takes advantage of better graphics cards available for PCs - they have hard times with Macs...
for most of the target audience of the eMac, 32 MB VRAM is just fine. as long as dells offer budget CDs with integrated graphics, i still don't see how eMac is lacking though. (or perhaps there are no fan forums for dells so we never hear from dell buyers who complain that their $499 budget box doesn't run the latest games..?
)
wizard said:
but the other options are dells and HPs, many with integrated graphics (which cannot be upgraded, just like eMac), if an edu. district looks in the price range of eMac. can those run the latest PC software you are speaking of? outside of games, i don't see "core" educational programs requiring such strong graphics capabilities.
it's one thing if the school is a graphics arts school. but if you insist that eMac's 32 MB VRAM is inadequate for "regular" educational use, please name me some programs that needs more than 32 MB VRAM.
Sped said:
You hit it right on the head there. Think, if Apple put a stronger graphics card from the get-go, then you wouldn't be spending your money sooner. Apple doesn't care how well you can play your games/ watch your movies. They care how much you spend. It's simply good business. By good, I mean evil, of course.
Hi Sped;
Very well stated comment below!! Bravo!!
The problem as I see it is that many responding to the eMac are not looking at the big picture. If they were to do so I would think that they would see this machine for what is and that is a mistake.
Lets face it; Apple is adopting the G5 and is expected to deliver mcuh faster hardware based on this processor in the near future. The newer machines may clock three times faster and that does not include other major improvements that the G5 systems offer. Developers will be targetting these machines and their capabilities not the eMac. I just see the eMac as having a very short life span do to its rather lack luster performance specs.
You also correctly point out the issues with the GPU. Like it or not some software does require substantial GPU resources. This is not normally a case of bad programming as some would like us to believe. What is is a case of software existing because the faster GPU's make it possible.
I should make myself perfectly clear hear - I'm not agianst the all in one concept. What I'm against is this offerring as a new machine. It simply does not reflect the needs of modern software and certainly will not offer very good results in the future as more and more software is developed and targetted for substantially faster machines. The 32 Meg of memory offered for the GPU is just to much of a joke to make a customer out of this guy!
Thanks
Dave
Very well stated comment below!! Bravo!!
The problem as I see it is that many responding to the eMac are not looking at the big picture. If they were to do so I would think that they would see this machine for what is and that is a mistake.
Lets face it; Apple is adopting the G5 and is expected to deliver mcuh faster hardware based on this processor in the near future. The newer machines may clock three times faster and that does not include other major improvements that the G5 systems offer. Developers will be targetting these machines and their capabilities not the eMac. I just see the eMac as having a very short life span do to its rather lack luster performance specs.
You also correctly point out the issues with the GPU. Like it or not some software does require substantial GPU resources. This is not normally a case of bad programming as some would like us to believe. What is is a case of software existing because the faster GPU's make it possible.
I should make myself perfectly clear hear - I'm not agianst the all in one concept. What I'm against is this offerring as a new machine. It simply does not reflect the needs of modern software and certainly will not offer very good results in the future as more and more software is developed and targetted for substantially faster machines. The 32 Meg of memory offered for the GPU is just to much of a joke to make a customer out of this guy!
Thanks
Dave
Sped said:
Laptop != Desktop
Laptops are not desktops. Laptops cost more than desktops. Your comparison makes no sense to me. If the PBs were updated same day or just before the eMac their incremental update will not be that significant. What will you say then? "1-2 THOUSAND dollar difference for bluetooth, airport, a thin screen and an extra .17MHz" (I do NOT believe as many here do that the next PB update will be G5).
As to timing and etc. There is ALWAYS something new coming. You can stress over these things and sit in forums like these in endless speculation, or you can just get on with life and buy what you need when you need it.
I'm new to Mac but I'm 20+ years in I.T. I bought two 12" iBooks in December for my kids and just over a week ago I ordered a 14" iBook for my wife and the 15" superdrive PB for myself.
I won't lose any sleep when these are updated - even though my speculation is that the PB will be updated at WWDC if not sooner.
J
a17inchFuture said:
Laptops are not desktops. Laptops cost more than desktops. Your comparison makes no sense to me. If the PBs were updated same day or just before the eMac their incremental update will not be that significant. What will you say then? "1-2 THOUSAND dollar difference for bluetooth, airport, a thin screen and an extra .17MHz" (I do NOT believe as many here do that the next PB update will be G5).
As to timing and etc. There is ALWAYS something new coming. You can stress over these things and sit in forums like these in endless speculation, or you can just get on with life and buy what you need when you need it.
I'm new to Mac but I'm 20+ years in I.T. I bought two 12" iBooks in December for my kids and just over a week ago I ordered a 14" iBook for my wife and the 15" superdrive PB for myself.
I won't lose any sleep when these are updated - even though my speculation is that the PB will be updated at WWDC if not sooner.
J
wizard said:
again, referring back to similarly priced dells and HPs edu. institutions would consider... they run celeron. P4's been out for quite a while now and intel and AMD are moving on. how's that any different than apple offering G4s even though G5 is clearly the future?
wizard said:
now from where do you gather the information that eMac's technology is 3 years old? from what i know, the processor was updated not long ago. and what software's requirement does eMac barely meet? Maya perhaps? in our school PowerMac G4 800MHz are still used for video editing class with Final Cut Pro. PowerMac G3 B&W is still used for many faculties. myself i still use Photoshop on my PowerBook G3 400MHz (soon to be replaced, i hope) from time to time. now tell me how eMac is barely at the requirement.
wizard said:
if is really where you put your value and how do you consider "long term". i urge you to take a look at the spec and what it comes with again. at $1000 this is an excellent price. i am sure if any high shool or college that wants to buy these eMac will not be disappointed.
Azoblue said:
sigh, how many times do i have to say it? it is an "educational" computer. i have a friend who works in a high school with 41 iMacs in the lab and iBook for every teacher. i don't hear 'em complaining.
wizard said:
in my opinion, you are all talk. you keep bashing in the eMac's performance, yet you have no proofs. have you any benchmarks? have you done any tests? i would think not. graphics card doesn't play an important role in overall computer performance, unless you are playing a game like UT. not even in video editing, no. making such a fuss over a graphics card, over an (again!) "educational" computer is senseless. if a PowerMac were to come with this graphics card, i would've agreed with you.
I don't know if anyone had noticed before but the new eMac has 512K on-chip level 2 cache at full processor speed
Maybe some one could just turn one of these damned eMacs on, give it a good going over and let us know what it can do in the real world. As it is there are a few techno head eMac bashers debating endlessly what the numbers say it might or might not be able to do, saying it is outdated and 3 years late and god knows what other lines of bashing. It comes with iLife and Panther right? On paper my Powerbook with iLife and Panther is slower than an eMac now. Im going to keep my PB happily for another 3 years, and I just cant see why anyone here should doubt that, even judging it on paper, the eMac market sector is going to be any less than very very happy with a new cheap eMac.
jxyama said:well, apple's stance on it is that if you are going to run software at the forefront that requires better graphics card, you are supposed to get a PowerMac...
modular upgrading would be nice for the users who has outgrown all-in-one package so they would be able to prolong the life of an all-in-one machine, just like you said.
but i guess apple has problem with that, either philosophically or technically or both. it may also be a design issue too. if it was meant to be upgradable, eMac/iMac cases would need to be redesigned as such...
the other problem is, of course, because of smaller installed base, graphics card technologies are slower to advance for Mac. and because many popular programs would be ported from PCs (esp. games) - and many of them takes advantage of better graphics cards available for PCs - they have hard times with Macs...
for most of the target audience of the eMac, 32 MB VRAM is just fine. as long as dells offer budget CDs with integrated graphics, i still don't see how eMac is lacking though. (or perhaps there are no fan forums for dells so we never hear from dell buyers who complain that their $499 budget box doesn't run the latest games..?
On the PC side, even if you have integrated graphics, you have an AGP slot if you out grow the intergrated graphics. Not an option
Re Celeron: saying the celeron has been around for a while like the g4 is not accurate. The celeron is simply intels budget processor, it has regular updates and much of the core chip is like its sister chip the pentiums....(a prescot based celeron is due late this year) So it hasn't been around the block the same way the g4 has. These 1.25 g4 chip is like 2 years old!!!!!!
It is a shame that your eMAc purchases today is at the tailend of modern software system requirements, and that is what is ridiculous. so much for adding value, the emac moved up to 2003 system requirements..... what happens in 2005?
2D cannot use more than 32MB of video memory. Think about it. The highest resolution the eMac supports is 1280x960. At a color depth of 32 bits per pixel you get 4,915,200 bytes of video memory required. That is just under 4.7 megs for 2D operation. Even if you double- or triple-buffer within the card (which, as far as I know, you don't), 2D requirements are still far short of the 32 megs that you get. The only reason for having 32 megs of video memory is to hold textures for 3d rendering. The only reason for having more than 32 megs is for high-end games. If the eMac is not for high-end games, the eMac does not need more than 32 megs of VRAM.
jade said:
and how many educational use computers have upgraded graphics cards, taking advantage of those AGP slots? probably very close to zero - because software they use do not require advanced graphic cards.
and how is celeron budget? because it's not cutting edge. the exact details of how old it is, how it's made, etc. are kind of irrelevant - both celeron and G4 are not cutting edge. (and in this regard, PB needs G5. and i believe apple is working on it as hard as it can.)
again, if eMac is mainly tailored to educational and low end consumer markets - i.e. the same segment that buys $500 dells with integrated graphics and celeron processors - please, name me one program that requires anything more than 32 MB VRAM.
the conclusion: there are none, except for games. and educational institutions don't care about games. and if you are hard core gamer, then you are not a low end consumer either.
jxyama said:
But education customers do not necessarily buy the Celeron boxes. If you buy from Dell..who admittedly is getting the bulk of the education customers from Apple, you will ge a pentium 4 at near Celeron prices.
Intel released celeron chips to be the cheap chips. sure it isn't 64 bit, but it has been updated with improved bus speeds and architecture in the past 2 years.....Intel typically cuts the L2 cache to make it cheaper.
Dell doesn't sell Celeron, typically education customers get older p4s (ie when the top p4 is 3.2, they get a 2.5...not a DeCeleron).
Well why else would you buy and Apple besides the basic productivity: imovie (which can use more) and what about tomorrows needs. One key things for schools is longevity.....and this emacs tech specs do not bode well for a 4 year, with upgrades to the latest stuff w/ 32 mb VRAM. Kids games are getting more graphics intensive, as well as the scientific applications schools will run in their labs, and even the basics like powerpoint. This emac would have been an excellent machine last September...but now it is looking pretty lackluster.
jxyama said:
i think 32 mb vram and no AGP slot is enough for the average school
but for our university it wasn't enough they bought extra graphics card (from matrox) for the new computer labs (p4,512 mb dells with 17" TFTs about 150, and P3 compaqs,512 mb ram with 17" TFTs,all optical mouses) because the internal graphics hadn't a DVI connector
even the 'teachers pc' doesn't use the internal graphics for the beamer (every computerlab has one) they bought a expensive splitter thing
and of course they use in the extra built-in gigabit-ethernet adaptor which is university-standard and not the onboard one
and for the users you have it all: emailing biology students,photoshopping arts/design students,physic students making calculations in maple 9, the computer scinece student working on some 3d objects rendering thing, the list goes on and on and everything on hundreds of x86 PCs running win xp pro and redhat 9.0 dualboot (and _3_ G4 PowerMacs in the special equipment room together with those giant plotters, special printers etc.)
bigger education institute like university/colleges have a wide array of things which have to be done on their computers,they can't say 32 mb vram and 17 CRT fits all needs
There is something lacking in even the latest eMac...Doesn't OS X run only moderately well with 256mb of ram?
As I understand it, economy macs have never been meant for expansion...that's what buying a whole new power mac is for. Also, the economy field can and does consist mostly of the casual, non-professional user, right? Let's say that's a given. In the education market, gaming clearly isn't a priority function, and for most purposes, their 32mb card should do just fine. Next question: Do gamers fall into the category of casual, non-professional users? If you find that it is a general yes, then you might question just how applicable the eMacs seem to be, in one of their competitors' fields. Not much gaming capacity; they absolutely have to stick to education. Now let's look at Dell.
Let's say you got a dell box for $499, with integrated graphics and a processor which is easily fast enough to handle just about anything on the market, in both gaming and education. If the integrated graphics can't handle certain things, you could still upgrade it rather easily. Since these economy dells usually have free AGP slots, one can easily buy a basic, ~$50 GeForce FX 5200 card, and be able to handle almost everything available, both now and some time later. Not so with an eMac!
Custom built is even better; a gamer can spend very little cash while getting the benefit of increased personal knowledge of the internals of their computer (if they do it themselves), and they can have everything done their way. Apple has made this entirely impossible. Another special benefit to a self-built computer is, the components very likely won't start breaking within the first year, unlike the economy dell. But what edu would buy Custom built computers!?
Macs are not for gamers; so why does anyone even make games for them? Side-interest only. I don't know of very many people who would buy a mac just to play games. To get a mac capable of handling newer games, one must put out 2-4x what they would otherwise have to pay for a far superior gaming pc. What are they paying for later by initially paying so much more? Why, they're paying extra because they won't spend as much on games, of course, since there aren't 1/10th the number of games available for mac.
And who wants to spend $2,000 on a gaming system, especially one that doesn't even include a monitor?
Mac has no gaming system that is not also a high level, high cost work machine. As for the eMac...Fortunately the e has always stood for Education, because that's what field it belongs in.
As I understand it, economy macs have never been meant for expansion...that's what buying a whole new power mac is for. Also, the economy field can and does consist mostly of the casual, non-professional user, right? Let's say that's a given. In the education market, gaming clearly isn't a priority function, and for most purposes, their 32mb card should do just fine. Next question: Do gamers fall into the category of casual, non-professional users? If you find that it is a general yes, then you might question just how applicable the eMacs seem to be, in one of their competitors' fields. Not much gaming capacity; they absolutely have to stick to education. Now let's look at Dell.
Let's say you got a dell box for $499, with integrated graphics and a processor which is easily fast enough to handle just about anything on the market, in both gaming and education. If the integrated graphics can't handle certain things, you could still upgrade it rather easily. Since these economy dells usually have free AGP slots, one can easily buy a basic, ~$50 GeForce FX 5200 card, and be able to handle almost everything available, both now and some time later. Not so with an eMac!
Custom built is even better; a gamer can spend very little cash while getting the benefit of increased personal knowledge of the internals of their computer (if they do it themselves), and they can have everything done their way. Apple has made this entirely impossible. Another special benefit to a self-built computer is, the components very likely won't start breaking within the first year, unlike the economy dell. But what edu would buy Custom built computers!?
Macs are not for gamers; so why does anyone even make games for them? Side-interest only. I don't know of very many people who would buy a mac just to play games. To get a mac capable of handling newer games, one must put out 2-4x what they would otherwise have to pay for a far superior gaming pc. What are they paying for later by initially paying so much more? Why, they're paying extra because they won't spend as much on games, of course, since there aren't 1/10th the number of games available for mac.
And who wants to spend $2,000 on a gaming system, especially one that doesn't even include a monitor?
Mac has no gaming system that is not also a high level, high cost work machine. As for the eMac...Fortunately the e has always stood for Education, because that's what field it belongs in.
billyboy said:
I just bought a last generation eMac to use as a web kiosk. As long as you upgrade the ram to 256 (128 isn't enough), it's plenty fast enough for web browsing and email. Surprisingly, with Panther installed the OS seems on par with the XP machines we use in the office. Not as sluggish as I expected.
iTunes rips and ecodes CDs at a respectable rate... about half the speed of my dual G5. And while I'm not a computer gamer (I've always felt consoles are for games and computers are for work), I did test some of the included games, and they all seemed to work fine. But really, no one should be buying an eMac just to play games... you'd be better off buying an xbox or PS2.
Haven't tested iMovie, but Garageband works okay (it's sluggish... but it's sluggish on my G5!).
Overall, I am impressed by the performance... it exceeded my expectations. And now that Apple has updated the eMac's speed (25% faster processor, larger cache, and faster ram should net a real world increase of 30% or more), I won't hesitate recommending eMacs to my family and friends. In fact, I intend to buy 6 more for my company this week.
So cheap that in reviews a 1.6GHz Duron processor beats the latest 2.8GHz Celeron. This is because the P4 core loves bandwidth, and because the Celeron has so little cache and FSB bandwidth it is severely crippled.jade said:
Odd, earlier on in this thread I posted a Dell machine using a Celeron to compare the price against the eMac (the eMac won on price).
The real problem with Apple's computer lineup is that there is no mainstream computer product from them. They need a single processor, reasonably expandable, reasonably well featured system at a reasonable price - and no integrated monitors.
Yes, Apple will have to sacrifice a few PowerMac sales if they introduced such a machine. Hopefully the extra sales of that machine would make up for it, and then Apple would have a greater userbase of people who would be buying OS updates, other software, iLife renewals, iPods and tunes ...
The FX 5200 and the 9200 are approximately in the same class. If you consider the 5200 good enough, then the eMac wins out again since it already comes with an equivalent card. No need to upgrade!
Besides, even if kids' games are requiring more resources, they still can't match Unreal Tournament's requirements. A 9200 will be good enough for any k-12 computer for a long time. It might not make sense for a college, but if the college doesn't provide at least one lab that's at least close to the industry standard, then that school is too cheap.
Besides, even if kids' games are requiring more resources, they still can't match Unreal Tournament's requirements. A 9200 will be good enough for any k-12 computer for a long time. It might not make sense for a college, but if the college doesn't provide at least one lab that's at least close to the industry standard, then that school is too cheap.
form said:
Torajima said:
If so, then that is scary. My girlfriend has two Dells, and they are not quiet machines. The desktop rattles and hums like crazy. The laptop isn't quiet, either. Its fan keeps turning on, turning off, turning on...you get the idea...but it also does this when it is supposed to be sleeping!
As far as 32 MB of VRAM, that is enough to support Quartz Extreme, but I do believe that is a little skimpy and will be quickly outdated...if it isn't already. I will be most likely getting one of these machines once I have the money, however. If I really feel bad about the lower VRAM, I'll just make up for it when I have a nice job and can afford to buy a PowerMac with a 128 MB video card.