Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
iMac Businesses Apple Hardware

Apple Updates iMacs and eMacs 147

Posted by pudge from the wheeeee dept.
applematters writes "Apple has updated the iMacs, they are faster and incorporate AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth. There are two models, the 15-inch and 17-inch. For good measure the eMac has also been updated, and you can get it brand new for under a thousand bucks. Not bad."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Updates iMacs and eMacs More

Apple Updates iMacs and eMacs

Comments Filter:

  • Slight correction (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Codger ( 96717 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:23PM (#5226225)
    The eMacs have not been updated, only reduced in price. I'm not complaining - I may finally break down and order one at the new price

  • End of the G4? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PsiFireWhite ( 640596 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:27PM (#5226268) Homepage

    With the reduced pricing on the G4s lately it makes me wonder if Apple has finally picked a new flagship chip to use coming soon. It makes sense to get rid of as many G4s in stock if this is the case, and with the recent drops on the eMacs it's even more aparent.

    All in all it seems a wise move to start the price dropping now when it is most needed. Hopefully an eMac that's both Classic and OS X bootable for under 1000 will be very appealing to schools. Apple needs to start clawing back it's Educational market share.

    • Re:End of the G4? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:45PM (#5226434)
      With the reduced pricing on the G4s lately it makes me wonder if Apple has finally picked a new flagship chip to use coming soon.

      Uh... no. There is talk about the PowerPC 970, but it's at least 6 months away from being available for testing, much less for production.

      The price cuts are for one reason and one reason only: Apple wants to move more units. Last quarter was more or less a break-even for Apple, and the pace of sales has slowed as the economy has gotten steadily worse over the past two years. So Apple has revised (nearly) every product in the line over the past month, and is cutting prices across the low end to encourage people who were sitting on the fence to buy now.

      • Re:End of the G4? (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by sweetooth ( 21075 )
        Damnit you beat me to the punch by a few seconds ;)

      • Re:End of the G4? (Score:5, Informative)

        by King Babar ( 19862 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @05:59PM (#5227021) Homepage
        Uh... no. There is talk about the PowerPC 970, but it's at least 6 months away from being available for testing, much less for production.

        You're right in that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this chip, but I think you're being a bit pessimistic about the timing of its arrival. This page on the PowerPC 970 [ibm.com] is decently informative and recent. It suggests sampling will start ti happen in the second quarter of 2003, and volume production will begin in the second half of 2003. Has the schedule already slipped this far? My impression was that IBM doesn't like to let these things slide.

        There's no doubt that 2003 could be a pretty tricky year for Apple, but I think I like their roadmap leading to January 2004 *much* better than any other hardware vendor out there. Right now, Apple is basically in a position where they will make a little bit of money, and when their high-end hardware is actually really fast again...I don't think their sales are likely to go down.

      • I believe that it will be available for significant testing within a couple of months. According to some people in the plant there are numerous PowerMac cases there, suggesting that significant testing is going on right now. That says nothing about it coming out in volume, of course. It does sound of late if the August-September date may be a tad optimistic. However I doubt it will ship much later than the Athalon-64. It may even beat AMD.

        No one knows, of course. Anyone who claims to know much beyond the "second half 2003" statement is likely talking out their ass.

      • Actually no. Its available for testing (i.e. motherboard ect..) and has been for several months. It will be produced in low quantities during the 2nd quarter. Somewhere during 3rd quarter it will be commercially sold.

        This all comes from IBM's website.

    • Re:End of the G4? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sweetooth ( 21075 )
      I think it's more likely that they are just trying to show a profit next quarter. The price cuts look more like an attempt to sell more product. Hence we see new products with slightly lower prices, drastic price cuts on the cinema displays, price cuts on the eMac (which was overpriced before) and slight improvments to the iMac.

      Of course I would love to believe that they have a new processor lined up, it just seems too soon for some reason.
      • maybe the last iteration of the Motorola G4? From great white hope to total embarrassment in 3 short years. Oh, the humanity!

    • Re:End of the G4? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @05:32PM (#5226853)
      no. but it sure is a clear sign that its the end of the G3. When the iBook is updated with a G4 later this year - that will be the end of non-AltiVec Macs.

      I wonder how much longer apps/Mac OS X will support non-G4 machines.

      i'm glad i concidered my iBook basically a "use, abuse, throw away" machine when i bought it...

      • Re:End of the G4? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by addaon ( 41825 ) <addaon+slashdot@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @06:41PM (#5227353)
        Um... personally, I wouldn't give up an hour of use on the iBook for altivec. (10W increase in processor usage at equal megahertz would be roughly a 20% decrease in battery life, if you tend to use low screen brightness.) And, of course, the G3 iMac is not only still selling, but still being manufactured. The G3 will end eventually, surely, but there's absolutely no compelling reason to get rid of it in the next year.

  • Post Tramatic Stress! (Score:5, Informative)

    by jptechnical ( 644454 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:36PM (#5226344) Homepage
    I used to sell Apples and now is the time all the stores freak out about overstock. If you are looking for a good deal, and you don't mind being a little behind the curve, hit some of your smaller shops and you can really save some money.
  • can be seen here [macrumors.com]

  • The compulsary... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Soul-Burn666 ( 574119 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:52PM (#5226501) Journal
    eMacs?

    I prefer Vi!

    (Yes, I know what they meant)

  • Not bad? Try really bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by X_Caffeine ( 451624 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @04:59PM (#5226568)
    There was one point in the last decade where more Macintoshes were being sold to Windows users than people who already owned Macs. That was when the iMac was first introduced, at a $1000 price point. For the first time, a low-end Mac cost as much as a low-end PC, and buyers flocked to them.

    Today a low-end PC can be had for ~$500 (less if you're willing to go with Lindows). If Apple really wants "switchers," they need to have a low-end machine for $500. The eMac just isn't affordable enough. (and there's no doubt in my mind that 700mhz G3 iMacs, which are still available for $800, could be sold profitably for about $500)

    btw, the low-end eMacs are still shipping with 128mb RAM. Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb? What's another 128mb SDR cost, $20?
    • I believe the first iMacs were sold for $1299, and the site www.everymac.com confirms it.

      I don't pay any attention to PC prices(after all, I have no intention of ever buying one), but when the price of the complete system goes for less than what the CRT alone used to cost, it just sounds cheap and low quality.

    • Re:Not bad? Try really bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @05:32PM (#5226854)
      If Apple really wants "switchers," they need to have a low-end machine for $500.

      A common fallacy. Apple doesn't build low-end machines. Every machine they ship, for example, includes a built-in AirPort antenna. Hell, I think you can still buy bargain-basement PC's that don't come with Ethernet in them! Although God knows why you'd want to...

      Apple really doesn't care about the low-end market. They care about selling high-end machine for good profit margins.

      Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb?

      You mean Jaguar? Yes. It runs just fine. If you run too many memory-hungry programs at once, you'll start swapping, but that's to be expected.
      • I was just looking thru the apple store. Airport cards are options. You have to pay extra for them. I'm guessing many people have their macs shipped without a wireless card.

        Apple doesnt care about the low-end market? Then why do they market there computers as quality at a low price so much?

        You are correct that apple doesn't build "low end" machines, but they are getting close. A 600 Mhz G3 with 128 MB of ram isn't exactly a screamer.

        • Re:You have some facts wrong.... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by elemental23 ( 322479 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @08:05PM (#5227827) Homepage Journal
          Airport cards are options.

          Yes, but many Apple machines have Airport antennas built in. That's what they mean by "Airport ready". The benefit of this is that the Airport card can be installed internally. This means that a) you don't use up a PCMCIA slot (or a PCI slot, for desktops), and b) you don't have the antenna sticking out of the side the way my Orinoco card sticks out of my Dell laptop (and let me tell you, it's really a pain in the ass).

          Apple doesnt care about the low-end market? Then why do they market there computers as quality at a low price so much?

          Low price != low end quality. If you want the cheapest computer you can buy, go ahead and get one of those $500 thing, but don't expect anything more than marginal (at best) quality. Or pick up a quality Mac for not too much more.
      • Give me a break. Of course they have low-end machines -- the 700mhz iMac is low-end relative to the dual-proc 1.4ghz G4. It's based on a motherboard that hasn't seen a revision in over two years, and a processor that's just a faster version of a processor that's been for sale for 3+ years. The longer motherboards and processors are in production, the cheaper they get to make. The 700mhz iMac could be sold for $500 easy. (and those Airport antennas? it's just a cable whip, it couldn't cost more than a couple bucks)

        But you're right, they do care about selling machines for high profit margins. They gave up on building computers "for the rest of us" a long time ago.

        I find the idea that Jaguar can be effectively run on 128mb, even with only a single app active, laughable. And again, 128mb can be had for under $20, soon they'll be at the bottom of Cracker-Jack boxes. It's ridiculous for them to be shipping machines with 256mb, even on their low end.

        • Re:Not bad? Try really bad (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @11:03PM (#5228648)
          Of course they have low-end machines -- the 700mhz iMac is low-end relative to the dual-proc 1.4ghz G4.

          Yes, the iMac is relatively inferior to the G4. But the iMac is not a low-end computer. It has built-in FireWire, wireless networking, and one of the best flat-panel displays I've ever seen, just to name three things. The most bare-bones, stripped-down computer Apple sells is equivalent to everybody else's mid-range machines.

          and those Airport antennas? it's just a cable whip, it couldn't cost more than a couple bucks

          Then why doesn't anybody else include them?

          It's ridiculous for them to be shipping machines with 256mb, even on their low end.

          Oh, great. Yet another Monday-morning CEO. Tell you what. When you start your computer company, you can ship machines with as much RAM as you like. Until then, kindly hush up.

          (Incidentally, everybody knows that Apple sells computers with only the minimum amount of RAM because everybody buys less expensive third-party RAM to put in them. If Apple sold their machines with more RAM, Monday-morning CEO's like yourself would just bitch that you're being forced to buy overpriced memory. Yawn.)
          • I'm not a Monday-morning CEO, I'm a critic. You, on the other hand, are an apologist.

            I was referring to the $800 CRT iMac (there is no 700mhz flat panel iMac, to the best of my knowledge). It doesn't come with wireless networking, it doesn't have a flat-panel display, and calling it the equivalent of a mid-range PC (which will have a processor that's at least twice as fast, USB 2.0, triple HD capacity, and a GeForce-class video chip), is just absurd. It's a GREAT computer, and it's low-end, period.

            Tell me to hush up? What makes your opinion any more valid than mine?

            *( why doesn't anybody else include airport antennas? because they have their heads up their butts, it has nothing to do with price. )
            • You, on the other hand, are an apologist.

              I don't recall apologizing for anything.

              I was referring to the $800 CRT iMac. It doesn't come with wireless networking

              Yes, it does. You can add the card for $79. The hardware is already built-in.

              it doesn't have a flat-panel display

              True.

              calling it the equivalent of a mid-range PC is just absurd

              Okay, it's absurd. Find me a low-end PC that comes with two built-in FireWire 400 buses-- don't give me any of this USB 2.0 crap; only isochronous FireWire works for DV-- an AirPort antenna, and something equivalent to iLife, and I will admit, here in this public forum, that it's absurd.

              What makes your opinion any more valid than mine?

              I'm not the one who's trying to tell us about everything Apple is doing wrong. I'm telling you to hush up because you obviously don't know any more about running a computer company than the rest of us; if you did, you'd be out there running one. So your criticisms all come from a position of ignorance, making them of questionable value at best.
        • I find the idea that Jaguar can be effectively run on 128mb, even with only a single app active, laughable.

          Well then you're sure to get a chuckle out of this. I'm running Jaguar on a 700MHz iBook with 128 M Ram. Running now are Eudora, Chimera, Terminal, and Finder. I had MS Word running an hour ago. Yeah it swaps and yeah that sucks but until I get more RAM in here it does the trick, and it functions fine for my purposes. It does work, and it's not that funny.

      • Hell, I think you can still buy bargain-basement PC's that don't come with Ethernet in them! Although God knows why you'd want to...

        Er, have you considered some people might not have anything that might *use* that ethernet port ?

        They care about selling high-end machine for good profit margins.

        The trouble is that at the moment they're selling low-end machines for high profit margins and mid-range machines for even higher profit margins.

        Apple don't *have* a high-end machine.

    • Re:Not bad? Try really bad (Score:4, Informative)

      by Alex Thorpe ( 575736 ) <alphax AT mac DOT com> on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @06:39PM (#5227337) Homepage
      Oh, about memory usage. I just downloaded a free utility that monitors memory usage to determine if having more memory would speed things up. I've 320MB, and have opened up my usual programs: Mail, Safari, iTunes(playing), and addtions like Watson and iCal. Not only is there zero disk swapping, but I've got 77MB of extra memory that hasn't been touched. I'm sure that I could push it further with a commercial game, but I'm not going to use any of the others at the same time, save the Mail app. No, I don't have MS-Office, and I don't need it.

      I did used to run OS X with 192MB of memory, but slowdowns were few and far between, mainly when I was viewing dozens of full screen jpegs on a single web page.

      • What free utility utility would that be kind sir?
        • The name of the program is "Do I Need More Memory?". That's the actual name. It's donationware from www.hillmanminx.com ; I happened to spot its listing on VersionTracker yesterday.

          Oh, and I did get low memoy messages with it when I loaded LimeWire, which seemed to expand to take all availible physical memory, and stopped when the disk swapping started. So the program said I needed more memory, but 1MB more.

  • Okay, an iMac is very cool looking, it's got an LCD screen (possibly 17") instead of a (flat 17") CRT, some models have a GeForce4 MX instead of a GeForce2 MX, the CPUs are usually faster (800 MHz or 1 GHz instead of 700 or 800 MHz) ... and, comparing (sorry) apples to apples, it's hundreds of dollars more expensive than a comparable eBook.

    Am I missing something here?
    • If you're comparing the new iMacs with iBooks, you must also consider that the iMac's processor is a G4 chip, while the iBook uses the G3 chip.
  • For a minute there, I thought they'd announced a 17" iBook.

    Dang.
  • you can get it brand new for under a thousand bucks. Not bad.

    Not bad except that I can buy a PC for about $500 with twice the RAM. Slap in a wireless card for another $100 and I'm still $400 below the apple, granted, I won't get the cool new OS, but who has $400 to flush?

    • Re:Not bad? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zelet ( 515452 )
      A PC with the lowest grade hardware you can find. Also you will not have an OS either. Yeah... if you pirate Windows, buy crappy hardware, don't care about noise then yeah... you have yourself a computer.
      When you buy quality you pay a little bit more with the peace of mind that comes with it.

      (recent Mac switcher)

      • Re:Not bad? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Draoi ( 99421 )
        Also you will not have an OS either. Yeah... if you pirate Windows [...]

        Dude, don't tell the BSA, but I know where you can download an OS for free & run it on cheap x86 hardware. Click here [redhat.com] to download. (Our secret, ok?)

        • Wow, I have never heard of free software. And this "red hat" person... is that is hacker handle? He must be a criminal to have a handle.

          I am kidding. Yes I know there is Linux and such for free but if you can show me a Linux box running X11 that is as stable as OS X I will submit and sell my iBook.
          • Yes I know there is Linux and such for free but if you can show me a Linux box running X11 that is as stable as OS X I will submit and sell my iBook.

            Ok, please package up your iBook and mail it on! :-) Right now, I'm typing this up on my TiBook running X.2.3. Every so often, I get a kernel panic. Very rarely, but it *does* happen! Here's one;

            panic(cpu 0): getnewbuf: bp @ 0x109ee030 is LOCKED! (flags 0x60006220)

            Latest stack backtrace for cpu 0:
            Backtrace:
            0x00084E9C 0x000852CC 0x00027F8C 0x000A8EC8 0x000A8098 0x000A7240 0x000A7318 0x1269B7F8
            0x000BD248 0x001EB164 0x001EAFB8 0x0020D8CC 0x00091E90 0x00090009
            Kernel loadable modules in backtrace (with dependencies):
            com.symantec.kext.symfs(7.0.2)@0x12698000
            dependency: com.symantec.kext.symdc(1.3)@0x1283c000
            Proceedin g back via exception chain:
            Exception state (sv=0x12424280)
            PC=0x9000134C; MSR=0x0200F030; DAR=0x000FAA68; DSISR=0x0A000000; LR=0x00022B74; R1=0xBFFFF210; XCP=0x00000030 (0xC00 - System call)

            Kernel version:
            Darwin Kernel Version 6.2:
            Tue Nov 5 22:00:03 PST 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.12.2.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
            Oh look, It's Norton acting up - quelle surprise! I've other panics to show, but you get the idea ...

            I've also got a Linux box running as a web/ssh/mail server on the 'net. Right now, the uptime is over 4 months. Every so often, I just get bored & reboot it but that machine just runs and runs. Yeah, it runs X11 too ...

            Horses for courses and all that!

            • Do you use your server for everyday tasks, like StarOffice, email, and everything else.

              Server software is stable because it has to be. Because Norton crashes your OS X box doesn't mean that OS X is more unstable than Linux - it means that norton sucks (big surprise).

              Yes, if you run Linux as a server it is more stable. If you run it as an every-day machine it is not.
              • Do you use your server for everyday tasks, like StarOffice, email, and everything else.

                You run something like StarOffice, you take yer chances. I've not had a lot of luck running it. It crashes at whim on my box. Equally, there are MacOS X apps that misbehave equally.

                (BTW - my box runs as an tunnelled X server but doesn't run any local client apps)

                Server software is stable because it has to be. Because Norton crashes your OS X box doesn't mean that OS X is more unstable than Linux - it means that norton sucks (big surprise).

                Indeed. I agree totally ....

                Yes, if you run Linux as a server it is more stable. If you run it as an every-day machine it is not.

                "Yes, if you run MacOS X as a server it is more stable. If you run it as an every-day machine it is not [as stable]." My point exactly. Third-party apps and their relative quality. Nothing to do with Linux or MacOS X directly ...

                • Wow... so we agree. Yet you were disagreeing by giving those examples.
            • Apple can hardly be responsible for third party kernel extensions causing havoc. I think Zelet can hold off packing his iBook for now!
              • ... as opposed to Linux, where everything's "third party" :-) . I'm not holding Apple responsible for Symantec's dodgy kext, but merely pointing out that the stability of a machine can be largely down to its usage & the quality of software run upon it.

                Anyone can easily write a bad kext; anyone can easily write a bad kernel module. Same difference.

            • So would you run Norton on your Linux box if you could?
      • Just to avoid retyping all this, I'll direct you here [slashdot.org]
        • Okay, except in my experience of buying PC components - they don't last 3 years. They last 3 months with (my) normal use.

          I have had my mac for well over 3 years and nothing has gone wrong. I built my pc for gaming 1.5 years ago and have replaced most of the components. I bought nVidia, SoundBlaster, Gigabyte Mobo. The best stuff you can for PC. The only thing I still have in there originally is one out of two hard drives and the mother board. Otherwise everything else had to go in for warrenty repair.

          My Dell Laptop has had 4 service calls in the two years I have owned it. One mother board, one hard drive, two keyboards.

          My iBook - nothing in 2 years. My tower? Nothing in 3. So don't tell me about components. Have you ever owned a Mac?

          OS X is more than just a "pretty face." Do you use vim on a Windows box and compile your C++ code using GCC on the command line? no... why? Cause you can't. I use OS X because it is partially free (speech) and because it is the most useful OS on the planet right now. I have run Linux (many flavors) Windows XP and 2000 and they dont' come close. My 2000 box blue screens about once a week. My Linux laptop is unstable if I run X. OS X has never crashed for me.

          Sorry for the long post but there are too many people who don't own Macs but love to criticize.
    • if i had $400 to flush, i'd buy a pc. then i'd buy a mac once i learned my lesson

      pay less, get less.

      you don't always get what you pay for, but you pay for what you get.
    • I don't think it is though:

      A "low end" BMW (325i) is going to cost me $28,000 , and that's for a 185hp rear wheel drive car.

      Instead I could throw down $18,000 for Hyundai Tiburon thats still going to be kind of fun to drive. Or if I really do want a fast car I could instead buy myself a Subaru WRX that's going to cost me $4,000 less and for that I'm getting all wheel drive, 40 more horse power and better acceleration. But if you get into a WRX, and then into a BMW...its not going to be the same experience. You get in WRX, its fast, its cool...but it is not a BMW. A BMW feels like a great car. Its the kind of car you can really fall in love with. Everything looks cool, the controls are all in the right place. The door makes the sweet thud of German engineering.

      Its been said before, and I agree that Apple is really trying to be the BMW of computers (and consumer electronics with the ipod). A mac looks cool. You whip out your tibook and it STILL is going to turn heads. The keyboard feels good. The OS is rock solid. Its the same feeling as a BMW. If you just want a fast computer, sure, get a PC, its going to do the job. But if you want a computer that gives you that apple feeling, and you've got the dough to spend, well you will not be dissapointed.

      Authors note: I drive a WRX and my desktop is a PIV 2.53ghz...but my other computer is a TiBook.
      • That's exactly the point.

        I drive a Mercedes C-Class with 122HP (which is rather low-end for a Mercedes) and would have never even thought about buying a Golf 3 VR6 with 174HP for a third of the price of the C-Class. People constantly tell me how stupid this is, how much faster and cheaper a Golf/Civic/Whatever is, how cheap a turbocharger for even more speed can be built into the Golf/Civic/Whatever and so on and so on.

        It's exactly the same thing with the PC/Mac. Yes, they are slower than the fastest P4/Athlon you can get and yes, they cost more than the average PC, but it isn't the same. I usually don't have built-in Firewire and AirPort antennas, such a great case like the PowerMacs or smooth integration ala "It just works". And most importantly, there is no OS X for PCs.

        After having bought my first Mac a few months ago (a MDD 2x1Ghz), I'd never go back to non-Apple hardware like I'd never buy a non-german car.

        Note: I'm a student too, so please no "Too expensive for a poor student" flames. Thanks
        • If you're a student who drives a Mercedes and has enough money for a new Mac, I highly doubt that you're in the same situation most students are. Those people telling you you're stupid for buyting the Mercedes...they're right. All the Mercedes tells people is that A) I have lots of money! or B) I'm in debt to my eyebrows. If you have the cash to burn, great for you. For those of us who live in the real world, we'll just get by with more preformance for less money and leave looking good to you rich guys.
          • Most students don't even have enough money to buy a PC. Period. Nor have they the money to buy a Golf VR6, let alone new (or any new car for that matter).

            More importantly, nobody can afford to buy something bad. If you don't have the money to buy something good, save up or forgett it.

          • No - I took a semester off and worked full-time for that period. That's enough to get you a very good used Mercedes.
    • ...of ignorant comparisons.

      Lets assume that you get a 40 GB HD with that, just to make things interesting.

      Do you get:

      *A Combo (DVD/CD-RW) drive.
      *10/100 Base-T Ethernet
      *2xFireWire Ports
      *5xUSB Ports
      *17" Flat CRT
      *NVidia GeForce2 MX w/ 32 MB of VRAM
      *Built-in Microphone

      *90-days tech support and a 1-year warranty.
      *MacOS X

      Not even *mentioning* component quality in all of this.
      • *Ahem* allow me to direct your attention to Best Buy [bestbuy.com], hardley bargain shopping. This has a 40GB HD, DVD/CD-RW, 6xUSB ports. You will have to add in a monitor [bestbuy.com], I know these can be had cheaper elsewhere, and you won't have Firewire, WhoopEE! We throw in some more RAM for $20 and a microphone for $5 and we're done for under $700. Granted this is walking into BB with no sales. If you shop around even a little, you can knock off $100 easy. Yes, you don't have OSX. Damn, I want my screen to look pretty too, SKIN IT! Oh, and did I mention that there are about a trillion software packages that will run on this box, some are even free! And if you even bring up component quality, let me ask you how much you'll be using this machine of yours in 3 years when some of my parts just might start showing some wear?

        Please, in a world where people have to look at the bottom line, buying a Mac is like buying a Jaguar delivery vehicle. It's just not neccesary.
        • So what motherboard does this thing have. Are the BIOS settings not too screwed up? It comes with Win XP Home Edition preinstalled (no comment) - does it come with real install CDs, just a restore CD or did they skip even that? And you better add RAM to it, 32 MB is already gone for the onboard GC. Which reminds me, can you even add another graphics card (it's not like that hasn't happened with integrated crap). It also doesn't mention a DVD player app.
  • Not to be too hard on Apple, but the iMac is a painfully underpowered product for the price. Admittedly, OS X's pretty and the digital lifestyle software is easy to use. If that's worth the $700-800 more that an Apple will cost you for a non-upgradeable machine, go for it. In some cases, it will be. I can see my retired parents enjoying this because it's much less complicated than a Windoze box, and the pivoting screen is probably a blessing to the tired-boned elderly.

    However, maybe it's better to wait for later this year or early next when Apple's hardware is slated to enter the 21st century.

    • So, I hate to feed the trolls, but 600-800$ more than a competing machine? Bollocks! The cheapest (old) imac is $799. And that is better than most wintel machines at everything, if you include the free software with the sticker price. If you truly believe what you say about 600-800 $ more than the equivalent PC, then you are talking shit. so there!

  • Interesting Note: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bob Wehadababyitsabo ( 629809 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @06:21PM (#5227196)
    The top-end CRT iMac is $950 for a 600MHz G3 with a CD-ROM. For $50 more, you get the bottom end eMac, which is a 700MHz G4 with a Combo drive (not to mention the 17", 1280x960 display). Why doesn't Apple cut the G3 iMac's price to, say, $500? They'd move more units, and have a good bottom of the line machine for cheap.

  • Not quite. (Score:4, Informative)

    by jht ( 5006 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @07:17PM (#5227583) Homepage Journal
    The only model that was actually _updated_ was the 17" iMac, with a new DDR-based logic board, 1 GHz processor, built-in Bluetooth support, and AirPort Extreme support. The 15" iMac is just a price reduction on the previous Combo drive model (no new features, still SDRAM-based, same speed), and the eMac models were also reduced in price with no new features. That's all.

    Of course, had my story submission about 10 hours ago been taken, the correct info would be up for this story already... (grumble)

    I'm guessing that the new 17" iMac is based on the same logic board/chipset in the new PowerBooks. I wonder if they're using regular form factor DIMMs now for the user-installable slot or if they're still using SO-DIMMs. It'll make a big difference in memory upgrade prices between one and the other.
    • Can someone please define Airport and Airport extreme?

      Is Airport 802.11b?

      • Re:Not quite. (Score:3, Informative)

        by jht ( 5006 )
        AirPort is 802.11b (WiFi), and uses a modified PC Card form factor that attaches to the ATA bus on Macs with AirPort support built-in. Macs that lack AirPort support (older PowerBooks), can still live on AirPort networks using off-the-shelf WiFi cards with Mac drivers.

        AirPort Extreme is the new, pre-standard 802.11g (not accepted yet but supposedly finalized) - it's backwards-compatible with 802.11b, and also supports 54 MBps operation when talking to 802.11g devices. Unlike 802.11a, it works in the 2.4 Gb range.

        AirPort Extreme uses a new, mini-PCI form factor and the two card types are not interchangable. New Mac models introduced since January have the new AirPort Extreme card type, older ones still support AirPort-only. However, AirPort Extreme Macs can live on AirPort networks (albeit at the lower signal rate) and vice-versa.

        Right now, Macs that support AirPort Extreme are:
        PowerMac (all OS-X-only models)
        12" and 17" Powerbooks (AlBooks)
        iMac 17"

        Macs with AirPort-only support are:
        eMac
        iMac G3
        iMac 15"
        iBook (all models)
        PowerBook 15" (the TiBook)
        MacOS 9-capable PowerMacs

        The other thing is that all the AirPort Extreme-capable Macs also support built-in Bluetooth.
        • Very informitive. You can also put 802.11g in any PowerMac with an open PCI slot. I belive that linksys has a compatable one out for 75 bucks.
      • Yes, and AirPort Extreme is 802.11g.
  • My non-computer-literate godmother just bought one of these $800 eMacs for her 10 year old daughter.

    It's perfect for her: It's got MS Office & Claris(?) Office for writing papers, a DVD player for watching movies, and her mom can go out and get some decent educational software at a variety of computer stores.

    They have a DSL connection and one Power Mac already. We went out and bought a LinkSys Cable/DSL router for $50 at CompUSA, came home, fiddled with some ethernet wire, changed some settings, and boom: Two computers, a networked house, & shared printers.

    Running these things on Linux just isn't practical for a 10 year old with an artist Mom. They have better things to do then download and install new libraries to get Gnome2.2 to compile.

    Now that I did the initial setup for them, I'm quite confident that my godmother and godsister can deal with 95% of their computer problems without my help.

    Look, I'm a big Linux fan, and have been using RH & Debian for about 5 years, but throwing any Linux on a cheap PC and expecting my godmother do simple things like hook up her Palm organizer or installing updates is unrealistic.

  • Re: AirPort Extreme (Score:3, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2003 @11:04PM (#5228657) Homepage Journal
    they are faster and incorporate AirPort Extreme

    No, only the 17" incorporates Airport Extreme. The 15" [apple.com] hasn't changed. They have to clear out old inventory first.

Slashdot Top Deals

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli

Close