Apple Revises eMac 223
RadRafe writes "Today Apple revised the eMac. It now sports a 1.25 GHz G4 processor, DDR RAM, and Radeon 9200 graphics. The Combo Drive model has twice as much RAM as before, and the SuperDrive model now costs just a grand. This is the first consumer Mac update in five months."
Worth buying? (Score:5, Interesting)
-psy
Re:Worth buying? (Score:5, Informative)
And yes, you'll want to up the RAM to as much as you can afford [OSX likes to use RAM as cache].
Enjoy!
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
Thanks for the comments....I think I'll go buy one!
-psy
Re:Worth buying? (Score:5, Informative)
Get the stand for the eMac, if you do buy one; I think they're about $60, and it really makes re-positioning the eMac a lot easier. W/o, the eMac is just so much of a 70# boat anchor.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip.
-psy
Re:Worth buying? (Score:5, Informative)
It is, however, wider, higher, heavier, and a pain to move around. Good machines though, and the CRT is flat which makes it pleasant to work at.
Oliver.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a bit confused by your comment. One of the very reasons for having (lots of) RAM is for it to act as a cache. I help lots of first-time Linux users who express disappointment that the free command keeps showing that 95% of RAM is being used ("but I just bought 512MB more, and it's full again!!?!").
Are you suggesting that using RAM as cache is somehow unusual? What are you saving it for?
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
Not at all. Merely stating fact. OSX [like all Unix(like) machines] use as much RAM as cache as it can. Where in my previous post do you find a suggestion that it is unusual? If I stated something like "unlike most OSs, OS X uses RAM as cache", that suggests something [and also happens to be false]. Stating "OSX likes to use RAM as cache" is just a fact that the OP may not be aware of.
breathe.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
It's all good. I would also like to apologise for the possibly-perceived-as-flame-ish reply.
As for the binaries being larger. I am not an authority on the subject, but if you are comparing binaries from X86 to those of PPC, the reason for the % increase in size is usually due to the architecture RISC processor. Back when "Fat" binaries were all the rage, a stripped 68k binary was often [always??] smaller than the stripped PPC binary. Donnow about the
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Worth buying? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a flat CRT, not a regular CRT. I'm staring at mine now, and to the left of it is a standard CRT I got from Gateway. It's running dual display (not mirroring). Compared to my old Gateway CRT, the eMac FLAT CRT is incredible.
My graphic design professor said flat CRTs are better for design work than LCD or regular CRTs. Having worked with all three, I can attest to that.
As far as the "too bad it isn't just a box," I guess that is personal opinion. I don't need the extra PCI slots, since everything I interface with is USB / firewire. The monitor is great, and the only thing I'd ever want to upgrade is the internal HDD (difficult) and RAM (easy). But I look at it this way: My eMac is roughly the same dimensions as just the older Apple CRTs for PowerMacs, and I don't have to find a place to store the box. But, hey, to each his own.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, not to mention an LCD takes up much less space on my desk and produces far less heat. Both properties are also very very important to me.
But as you said, to each his own. Perhaps a CRT suits your needs better if you are a hardcore designer. CRTs do have better colour contrast than LCDs, but the average person would not be able to notice I doubt.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Worth buying? (Score:3, Informative)
Attached monitors are silly. If apple made the eMac just a box, I assure you more people would buy it.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
I hope my next machine (the one that will make me a switcher so to speak) will be a powerbook.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
You can afford to spend $1K just to save yourself from plugging in your laptop? You've weathered the downturn better than most of us!
Systems are always sold without quite enough RAM. Anything to get the price past whatever sweet spot they're trying for.
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
As for the downturn, I was lucky enough not to have to work through most of it....I think I might have had to do a Joe-job if I did! Things seem to be picking up here in Toronto, and I work in the financial sector these days doing some rather specialist stuff, so I'm lucky.
-psy
Re:Worth buying? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always thought they should just pass the RAM at market prices and double or triple the RAM in base systems
Surely the positive reviews would be worth very slight drop in the revenue stream.
After all I love OS X but it sure ain't fluxbox!
Emacs NOT worth buying (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Emacs NOT worth buying (Score:2, Funny)
-psy
Re:Worth buying? (Score:2)
I have to admit I always disliked computers with built-in CRTs, but the eMac is pretty slick. If I'm ever on a budget in the future and can only afford an intro model, I probably wouldn't rule out the eMac. It appears to have a goofy form factor when viewed on -line, but in person it looks pretty attractive. I'll second the other folks' recommendations about the swive
We really need eMacs... (Score:5, Funny)
The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
When I wanted to try out OS X, I did so with a $1800 Powerbook Ti G4 at 400Mhz, 256k RAM, 20GB HD, and a CD/DVD reader. I found that system well equiped to flex the power of then OS 10.1. Panther and Jaguar are both responsive on my 400Mhz PB and I can only imagine that on the $800 eMac, especially if the 256k is upgraded, it would be a great low cost Mac.
This eMac system is well equiped for experimenting with iMovie, iPhoto, iTunesMusicStore, and GarageBand - all which come with it. For just $200 more you get a DVD burning SuperDrive and twice the drive space.
But like I say, for $800, this is a great system for those who don't want to make the investment in a G5 inorder to give OS X a try.
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:4, Informative)
Panther, actually.
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2, Funny)
See? 640k would be MORE than enough for you... And everybody makes fun of Billy-G for that comment...
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
I had hoped that when people started to make IBM PPC 970 reference boards that something like the idea would resurge.
But giving the whole thing a little more thought, there is no-way Apple would allow something to run Apple's OS at a lower cost that any of their offerings. Perhaps something will come out that requires mad soldering and live BIOS swapping, but not something someone not willing to sacrifice a goat would attempt. Which is too bad. I really think if they produced some at a Mail Station price point that would really increase their market share.
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2)
The problem with the 970 reference boards is that they are just that. Reference boards. Designed and priced for prototyping. A 1.6GHz reference board alone costs more than a complete dual 2GHz G5.
The machine I would like to see is a relaunched cube, with eMac specs, and a slightly sub-eMac price (or maybe the same price, with the lack of monitor being made up for by an AGP slot and mayb
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2)
The next logical step would be a headless eMac. I would vote for one with a DVD drive, so IT people can boot from a CD/DVD to configure Netboot, and run hardware troubleshooting discs.
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but that's consumerism for you. There's a high-productivity video production studio downstairs from me, and they bought an eMac just to develop interfaces and do preliminary graphics work, plus After Effects rendering on the side.
Considering a lot of power users in the video trades are still using their tricked-out early G4's (it ain't broke, don't fix it--I even know an audio project-studio still doing their main reco
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2, Insightful)
Pay for quality. Or don't.
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:3, Interesting)
PB logic boad failures.
PB LCD spoting/failures.
I sure as hell hope the quality at Costco is better than apples RECENT build quality.
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:3, Interesting)
Which the Costco brand wouldn't be.
Just because you happen to have heard of problems with Apple hardware doesn't mean that it's worse than other vendors'. My (personal, anecdotal, and non-scientific) experience with Apple hardware is superb. All the data I've seen seem to support that contention.
What kind of track record does your Costco vendor have? What, you've never heard of them?
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2)
What kind of track record does your Costco vendor have? What, you've never heard of them? Hmm...imagine.
I just wanted to point out that Costco is probably the worst place to buy computer parts and/or complete systems. Sure you get it all at once, and that's great, and you get it while you're grocery shopping. But I have yet to price a piece of hardware at Costco that I couldn't get at 3 other places for cheaper, and the margins are quite noticeable (120GB HD = $150 at Costco, $120 at PC Club, $110 at Fr
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2)
Countless virus and worms that exploit them.
Exploding DELL notebooks.
Display hinges breaking because DELL is too cheap to use a second screw (even though the hole is there)
Eternaly stuck ghosts of Windows stuck on DELL displays.
Generally crapy hardware all over PC land.
If you think that only Apple has a problem or that is in fact anywhere as large as on the PC front, you have a problem.
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2, Interesting)
Did the Windows box come with:
- combo drive (DVD R, CD RW)
No, it had one DVD (not R) and one CD-RW, but it was my understanding that the eMac with a superdrive was $1000, not $800.
- wireless and bluetooth support
XP natively supports wireless (although I don't know why you'd need it for a desktop, in general), and SP2 will natively support bluetooth. The eMac in question does not come with the hardware for these features at the price we were discussing.
- Photo, movie, dvd, and music edi
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
I fully disagree that one can simply exclude the cachet of Mac/OS X ownership and the benefits of such by saying "well it comes with XP so that is the same".
That is exactly what is NOT the same. Otherwise, why would people buy Macs, because the cases look cool?
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:3, Informative)
Although personal experience doesn't negate your point, this: " I understand Costco has a kick ass return policy" is very true.
I believe it is ONE YEAR (!!!) with NO restock fee! If it was me, I'd want it to break after 9 months (and if the proc is going to fail, it's likely to happen in the first year).
For a cheap compute
Re:The first ever "bargain" Mac (Score:2)
iPod killer (Score:5, Funny)
Plus it comes with Garageband and iTMS BUILT IN!!!
Re:iPod killer (Score:2, Funny)
Re:iPod killer (Score:2)
Re:iPod killer (Score:2)
Not to mention the cost of multiple hernia operations ...
Edu pricing is pretty good (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Edu pricing is pretty good (Score:3, Funny)
Ahh, these are the kids who want to become Doctor Who, I take it. ;-)
The cache of owning an Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The cache of owning an Apple? (Score:2)
A lot of Americans speak foreign. Y'all ever been to New Yawk? Them people talk funny.
Nice little system (Score:5, Informative)
For a laugh earlier I configured a system on Dells site with similar features. This was a 2.6GHz Celeron 2400C system. It came out higher priced than the eMac (eMac 549, Dell 580) for as close a match of specification as possible (and I made sure that warranties, etc, were minimal on the Dell, I'm not an Apple owner so I won't cheat like that!). Certainly not a bad deal in my opinion, especially with iLife and Panther included (after a year of using XP, I realise how much I loathe it). The Dell looked like a turd as well, if that matters to you!
Re:Nice little system (Score:3, Insightful)
So I wind up giving my money to KLM rather than Apple.
Disclaimer: Part of this is caused by the Dollar Euro conversion rate and the fact that I Still have US dollars.
Re:Nice little system (Score:3, Informative)
It's a bit more than just a processor speed bump. Yes, the G4 now runs at 1.25GHz instead of 1GHz. It also runs on a 167MHz FSB (instead of 133MHz), and also has 512K of L2 cache (instead of 256KB). The memory subsystem is now DDR333 based instead of PC133 SDR. The graphics chip is now a Radeon 9200 instead of a Radeon 7500. The USB ports are now USB 2 compliant instead of 1.1. The SuperDrive is now 8x instead of 2x. I
Fast DVD burner, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW); writes DVD-R discs at up to 8x speed, reads DVDs at up to 10x speed, writes CD-R discs at up to 24x speed, writes CD-RW discs at up to 10x speed, reads CDs at up to 32x speed
8X DVD-R speed, that's twice what they're putting in the G5s! Bonus points for that. It's nice that it's not a bare-bones low end model.
Re:Fast DVD burner, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, making the second-cheapest computer have a faster drive than the top of the line PowerMac? And making this new eMac better or equal to the iMac in every way at a significantly cheaper price? This can't stand for long. Either LCDs are so expensive that they're not making much of a profit off the iMacs, or the iMac is about to be updated.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if everything else but the iBook gets an update within two weeks. (This also signals to me that the iMac will either receive a noticeable speed bump, or go G5.)
Re:Fast DVD burner, too! (Score:2)
Don't tease me like that, i've had my eye on a 12" powerbook for the past few months. I'm sure there will be no revision in the next couple weeks, because I'm not going to buy one until another month or so, THAT is when they'll release the new line, 2 weeks to a month after I finally crack down and buy my powerbook.
-
I just hope (Score:2)
Re:I just hope (Score:2)
Yes, the fan noise of the early eMac is my *only* complaint about the thing. Hell, even the speakers aren't *completely* sucky. I agree with you that the fanless iMacs were incredibly nice...but they weren't silent unless you got one with a hard drive much quieter than the one I have. I'm guessing this one will be very similar in noise proper
Re:I just hope (Score:2)
And which were they? I've taken apart both flavours of iMac and they both have a fan in. The fan in the CRT iMac is in the bottom, just behind the CD-ROM drive. The fan in the LCD iMac is right at the top, pointing up toward the monitor stalk.
Re:I just hope (Score:2)
There were a lot more than two flavours of the iMac, the CRT iMacs alone had a dozen of revisions [everymac.com]. The earlier versions had a fan, but I believe all versions between 350mhz and the LCD iMacs didn't. In any case, the 350mhz [macworld.com] and the 500mhz [macaddict.com] were fanless.
Too long a wait? (Score:4, Funny)
What are they up to? Where is my dual G5 PowerBook anyway?
Re:Too long a wait? (Score:5, Funny)
It's scheduled to be released immediately after your purchase of a G4 powerbook.
-matt
Re:Too long a wait? (Score:2)
Oh well any day now then I'm sure! I hope that when they revise the powerbook line the 12"ers get backlit keyboards too.
Will this eMac support monitor spanning? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.rutemoeller.com/mp/ibook/ibook_e.html [rutemoeller.com]
It tells about how you can use an nvramrc to change graphic-options on your mac to enable monitor spanning (as apposed to monitor mirroring). It works on Radeon 7500 eMacs [rutemoeller.com] but it is unclear yet whether this trick will work on these new eMacs. Let's hope so....
And it's not dual-boot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately there are many applications (including a few decent games) that don't boot, or run buggy from X running "classic." My faithful laser printer doesn't print from X running "classic." I can understand why it wouldn't work with a G5, but how difficult would it really be to allow dual-boot with the remaining G4
Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (Score:2, Informative)
This website has a test that relates to your question: Apple vs. Mac Benchmark (Barefeats.com) [barefeats.com]
Although it doesn't show a direct comparison of the systems you mentioned, you'll notice that the P4 3.0 GHz just barely loses to a G4 1.42 (MP!) system in most of the tests and beats a G5 at 1.8 MHz in about half the tests.
This speaks well of Apple for processor cycle efficiency, but I would wager that a Pentium 3.2 would outperform a G4 1.25 by quite a lot.
Note that cross-system/OS comparisons must alway
Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mac-versus-PC performance debate has always been kind of pointless. People buy Macs because they like them, or because they think they're more usable, not because they care about the architectural superiority of the PowerPC chip. People buy PCs because they're cheaper, or because they need low-level compatibility, not because they have a misguided love of Intel technology.
The issue is particularly irrelevent for people who aren't performance conscious. A 1Ghz PC may have a lot less computing power than a 1Ghz Mac, but it still has a lot more than most people need.
Re:Really how fast is this 1.25GHz machine (Score:4, Informative)
The 1.25Ghz G4 fares extremely well - It costs a lot less!
While the P4 3.2 costs between $300 and $400 just fo rthe chip, this $800 unit includes the 1.25 G4, Combo drive, 40GB hd, 256K Ram, CRT built in custom housing, video, networking, USB 2, Firewire800, Airport Extreme upgrade path, Bluetooth upgrade path, OS X Jaguar, iLife (Garageband, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes) and the cache of owning an Apple.
You can check out this [aceshardware.com] review of the 1.25 Ghz G4 when it first came out and this [hwextreme.com] review of the P4 3.2Ghz vs. an Athlon
Correction (Score:2, Informative)
1.25 Ghz G4 faster than Intel's 3.2 Ghz (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of people I know bought a Mac because of OS X, it didn't matter if it was "slower" than a comparable Intel processor in certain functions. Show me an Intel processor than can run OS X (not just Darwin) then we can start talking about speed comparisons.
Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (Score:5, Funny)
Dell Dimension 4600...nine hundred ninty eight dollars....
Saving a buck of two for an inferrior user experience....priceless
There are somethings money can't buy....for everything else, there's Microsoft.
$679? What kind of crack did Dell give you? (Score:2, Insightful)
$679 will get you XP Home instead of Pro, no office suite, no movie software, no firewire & no optical mouse.
Add all that stuff and you are looking at $898 now. Your Dell is a whopping $100 cheaper, which will be quickly eaten up by your Anti Virus & Firewall software you'll have to buy and you still don't have anything close to iDVD or Garage Band. Add Adobe Photo Album to make up for your lack of iPhoto and your Dell becomes $925
I'd bet that a h
Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Answer this instead.. (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to run some special windows only app, buy Virtual PC for OS X
If you want to get work done in an efficient, user friendly, secure, stable, virus-free, low stress manner, buy a Mac
Re:Answer this instead.. (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet $5 he already has a TV. And a $180 PS2 will set you back almost as far as a decent videocard... oh and you don't have to pray your game starts whenever you want to play it either.
Stable. Check. I last saw a bluescreen crash about 18 months ago - due to a network card that failed. Yes, a hardware problem.
Windows
Re:Answer this instead.. (Score:2)
Re:Answer this instead.. (Score:3, Funny)
1) Start with a fresh install of Windows.
2) Plug in monitor, power, keyboard, mouse.
3) Stop.
So long as you follow these three steps EXACTLY, you will not have a single virus on your computer.
DISCLAIMER: I cannot make any promises if you attempt any other actions with the PC.
Re:Answer this instead.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since people stopped caring about how much a large cache improves performance.
Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:4, Interesting)
I tend to think that people who write in CAPS are trolls, but since I can't mod you down, I guess I'll have to answer:
Yes, OS X (10.3 at least) is a very, very good operating system -- I own an iBook G4 -- but only if you agree with the design philosophy. OS X was designed for completely different people who want to do completely different things with computers than, say, Linux users. Lots of people in these discussions don't realize this and get their panties in a knot about which system is "better". This is sort of like asking if a bread knife is better than a scalpel.
Apple provides you with a flashy, very consistent, closed, minimal-options operating system that starts with the idea that choice is bad and will confuse the user. Steve Jobs tells you what you can and can't do, and in return, you don't have to deal with the computer as such: You just plug things in, and they work (or they don't). It is ideal for people who just want to listen to music, surf, do some email, and chat -- that is, 90 percent of the population. If this is all you want from a computer, by all means, go buy a Mac. It is what I recommend to my computer-illiterate colleagues when they complain about the latest Microsoft virus or crashing Windows.
However, some people think choice is good, and want to be able to decide for themselves just where they want to be in the big computer trade-off of ease-of-use and efficiency. To take the cliche example, one mouse button is not confusing, but when you do lots and lots of cut-and-paste, three buttons kick ass all over the place. One single desktop is not confusing, but virtual desktops give you more room to move without having to invent flashy tricks like Expose. A mail program without TLS support is one less option for the user, but if your provider happens to require that extra layer of security, you're screwed.
This is the reason why I will be installing Linux with KDE 3.2 on my iBook: I like choice, I am willing to learn things so that I can be more efficient, and the cozy, closed world of OS X is just too limited for what I want (and like) to do. Does this mean that I hate OS X or dispise it? No, it is just the wrong tool for the job in my case. No need for flames (or caps), just a rational assessment of my needs vs. those that OS X provides. Go forth and be happy with OS X, just realize that it is not the uberOS of the Gods. And please stop shouting.
As for the "best of Unix": Apple did the right thing from a business point of view. They realized that they could make all kinds of money without having to give anything in return by using BSD, and then even get to charge premium for a glossy GUI pasted over that. Basically, this is another case where the BSD people are helping a major corporation get richer (remember Micorosoft and the TCP stack?) while getting peanuts in return. If Apple had used Linux for the base system, they would have been forced to be part of the community and give full value in return instead of getting away with dropping a bone here and there. And they still could have sold that flashy GUI on top, made lots of money, made their users happy, whatever.
It is Apple's job (no pun intended) to be greedy: They are bound to shareholder value just like Microsoft. I just wonder if it should be our job to give them a free ride -- for any meaning of "free".
Not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, what source doesn't Apple share already, that a GNU license would force them to? Darwin is totally open. You can download the source here [apple.com].
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:4, Informative)
Uh. I run PostgreSQL and Apache on my eMac, as well as an IMAP server. Same thing I would do if this was a Linux box. I keep a terminal in my dock. GIMP is there too.
There's tons of choice in OS X. Install Fink and pretend it's a Linux box.
There is a difference though, I can do (almost) all of my Linux stuff PLUS have iTunes and GarageBand -- Ardour+LADSPA+Jack-rack+Hydrogen are amusing but horrible hacks in comparison.
Oh yeah and I can't run Wine. Is that a bad thing?
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:2, Interesting)
Multiple button mouse. Yep, these exist for Macs. That option is available.
Virtual desktops. Not in Aqua, although you can kind of simulate it by creating multiple users & doing fast user switching. But I agree, that's not really the same thing. Or you can run X11 in fullscreen mode & have as many X desktops as you want
And yep, Mail.app doesn't do TLS
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:2)
Or just run Desktop Manager [sourceforge.net]. OSS and very very good.
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:2)
Ugh, this again. For some reason there's a common meme that a computer platform can be user-friendly or powerful, but not both. Perhaps this just comes from looking at Unix and Windows, but it's not a law of nature. What choices do you lose when you run OS X? You can fire up a terminal and build Linux apps, run an X server, even dispense with Aq
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:2)
Darwin is *useless* without Aqua. Aqua is what "makes" OS X. 99 out of 100 Mac users don't know what kernel OS X's on and don't care. They just want Aqua. Darwin by itself won't run anything I can't run faster elsewhere, and it's slow, crashy, badly designed, and is basically out there in the open due to a licensing agreement and so that the Apple Zeal
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:2)
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:3, Informative)
Giving back Darwin is fine. I'm sure it's helped half a dozen people who've made the choice to
Re:Depends on your philosophy, doesn't it (Score:2)
Welcome to open source. I'm sure Apple's happy you fixed it for them.
I have to laugh every time I see someone ranting about how Apple "stole" the BSD source without opening up everything they ever wrote. What a bunch of nonsense!
You're responding to me? Strange. I never sai
Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you continue to base your opinions on a copy of Windows 3.1 you once used ten years ago - OS 9 was arguably even worse
I didn't post above, but I currently use both XP and 2000 daily. Make your own decisions but I also use OS X daily and it's far and away the most pleasant working environment I've encountered to date. That doesn't mean it's perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but that's not the point now, is it.
As for "OS 9," um, who's talking about OS 9?
If you want Unix, install Linux... FreeBSD... SuSE... Debian... Lycoris... Lindows... There are choices in the Windows world.
Well, by the time I've finished clicking through the (Continue) buttons in an OS X install I've managed to install both the entire GUI environment and the entire Unix OS. I can also install other Unix systems on Mac hardware, but frankly I've got everything I need right here.
I don't need to install anything else except Logic Pro 6 [emagic.de], Ableton Live [ableton.com], MetaSynth [uisoftware.com], ArtMatic Pro [artmatic.com], MetaTrack [uisoftware.com], Voyager [uisoftware.com], VTrack [uisoftware.com], Absynth [nativeinstruments.de], OmniGraffle [omnigroup.com], OmniOutliner [omnigroup.com], OmniDiskSweeper [omnigroup.com], Studiometry [oranged.net], FileMakerPro [filemakerpro.com], Adobe Creative Suite [adobe.com], LaunchBar [obdev.at], MySQL [mysql.com], Perl 5.8.3 [perl.com], Fink, Plone [plone.org], Keynote [apple.com], BBEdit [barebones.com], FastTrack Schedule Pro [aecsoft.com], Sonasphere [sonasphere.com], Toast 6 [roxio.com], ZBrush [pixologic.com], and a few more but I'll get to those tomorrow.
I run all these (plus my email, internet, contacts management, calendaring, etc) in the same operating environment; not an emulation shell, not after dual-booting, but in the very same operating system and simultaneously.
To top it all off OS X comes with a full set of developer tools, documentation and optimization utilities, plus [apple.com] Cocoa [apple.com]+Obj-C [faqs.org] is a match made in heaven.
There's no need to pay Apple for a decent Unix experience.
Well, I believe there is. I enjoy the ability to support quality whether it's a film, a restaurant, a music venue, a book, clothing, my neighborhood, an artist, etc. every single day.
The hardware is just a hunk of material until you've discovered/designed an interface with which to use it. Solely on a base consumer level, I'm very happy to pay Apple for what is, in daily practice, a superior computer operating system. From the level of both a technology consultant and a media creator, the solution is very simple.
OS X is a very impressive "Holy Grail" for all my current activities. Strap me in because I'm ready to get to work.
Re:Still way outdated, Apple fanatics please read. (Score:2)
Pssst. Linux isn't Windows. Just thought you should know.
Re:mod parent up (Score:2)
Speaking of which, Apple's sales are flat, their marketshare is declining... As a Macintosh fan I'm as disgusted with Apple's luxury pricing as all the PC users out there. I want the Mac platform to be around a long time, and pretending the eMac is a good low-end value is not the way to do it. They should either price the machine correctly, or give a G5 and position it at the
Re:mod parent up (Score:2)
Apple has never been the cheapest computer you can buy, in any sense of "cheapest." For many of us, this is a feature. Apple has never tried to compete with the cheapest machines on the market, either. But smart consumers know that there's a lot more to t
Re:mod parent up (Score:2)
Frankly, with a G4, the machine is Dead End. It's 2004 now, not 2001. You might be able to squeak by and play Halo, but next year's game / video app is going to require more oomph. It's a word processor, not a home computer.
Think of all those people who bought iMacs 5 years ago -- that machine was price and speed competitive with PCs and
Re:So I'm stupid... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple released the eMac as a more durable, less expensive alternative to the LCD iMac. Schools wanted it.
except, now it's 'everyone'... (Score:3, Informative)
Think of it as the VW bug of the Mac line... the sad thing is it's now 30% or so faster than the original iMac that I spent a cool grand more on a couple of years back... that's tech for ya.
Actually, it's $59 US. (Score:3, Informative)
Note to readers: that's 95 Canadian dollars, or 59 US dollars. US$95 would indeed be a lot, but US$59 seems reasonable for a well designed accessory that does its job well and adds certain convenience. Feel free to skip it and buy an aftermarket stand, or make your own, or use an old text book.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Wouldn't that ruin the 'design' that apple spend so much time on? But this is apple so when they nickle and dime you to death it is a Good Thing!
Just Damn.
Re:EMac / IMac WO Monitor (Score:3, Informative)
They do have cards that can upgrade a cube to an 800Mhz G4, but you're still going to be hampered by the rest of the hardware. It runs OS X just fine though.
Apple probably won't make something like it for a long long time.