eMac Processor confuses me...

I was just wondering why Apple has a 1.5 and 1.67 GHz notebook line but they wont even up the eMac (a desktop) to 1.5 or higher? That seems strange to me...

Because thats not what an eMac is. eMacs are budget machines will a "all you need to get it done" kind of attitude. If you buy an eMac, you wont get things done all that fast or efficantly, but you will get them done.

there are upgrades coming to the emac very soon, but keep in mind that the emac is a lower end mac, educationally priced, and aimed at students, who are often ok with 1 ghz or so processor.

I agree, it is a bit confusing. I wouldn't expect them to be up with a powerbook or iMac but I would still expect them to be clocked higher than the budget notebooks(iBook).

WireFire said:

Because thats not what an eMac is. eMacs are budget machines will a "all you need to get it done" kind of attitude. If you buy an eMac, you wont get things done all that fast or efficantly, but you will get them done.

Click to expand...

I will have to disagree with that. I am fast and efficient on my eMac. I have had no problems with it whatsoever. In fact, it handles GargageBand and Photoshop better than my iBook does. Plus, I can still play games like UT and Jedi Academy with little or no lag.
:black:

Yeah! I too have an emac and it hauls butt! Seriously I do some serious photoshop and flash stuff and it handles it fine. Oh and just because a new piece of hardware comes out doesn't mean the one you just bought is crap, thats an idiotic way to look at things. If you love your computer now something coming out tomorrow shouldn't make it crappy. Now if its years old and the programs you want no longer run on it... well thats a different story.

The iBooks are only running at 1.2GHz. The PowerBooks are at 1.6 but they are pro so you would expect that. The emac is intended for lowbudget and schools [hense the e like education]. I also hear that they havent been selling well at all so soon i suspect they will be killed off or updated but im more leaning tward killed off.

i agree, emacs are overpriced and out of date. They dont have anything that makes people want to choose them, no special features. An emac with an lcd screen would be a different story.

Mr Sprout said:

emacs are overpriced and out of date. They dont have anything that makes people want to choose them, no special features. An emac with an lcd screen would be a different story.

Click to expand...

Especially now that the mac minis are out. For the price of a base eMac you can buy a mac mini with apple keyboard and mouse, then have $240 left over to get a decent LCD. IMO thats more appealing, I hate CRTs.

Mr Sprout said:

i agree, emacs are overpriced and out of date. They dont have anything that makes people want to choose them, no special features. An emac with an lcd screen would be a different story.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree. The eMac is indeed due for an update, but it isn't intended to be flashy or gimmicky. The idea behind the eMac (which was originally designed for the classroom environment (hence the "e") is to have a simple, rugged, all-in-one platform that is reasonably powerful and inexpensive. The eMac fills this role nicely, and I think that people unfortunately often dismiss it as "outdated" simply because of its CRT display, which is actually quite a good one.

The mini is certainly the least expensive Mac available, but keep in mind that Apple's margins on the mini are undoubtedly significantly lower than on most of their other machines, but this doesn't mean that all other Mac's are over-priced. The "magic" sub-$500 figure was important for the company to achieve with the mini, especially when one considers that a primary goal for the machine is attract Windows users who are often accustomed to inexpensive PC hardware.

Both the eMac and mini are wonderful machines, but they aren't really designed to fill the same roles. As one final note, I should also point out that in recent testing done by MACWORLD, the eMac outperformed the mini in a number of tests, and even bested the higher-clocked 1.42 GHz mini in certain areas. This, in my opinion, is hardly indicative of an out-dated machine.

Padawan said:

...The eMac fills this role nicely, and I think that people unfortunately often dismiss it as "outdated" simply because of its CRT display, which is actually quite a good one.

Click to expand...

I agree. I personally prefer a CRT, as I feel that it has better picture quality. I know there are high end LCDs that have some very high quality display capabilities, but I still prefer a CRT. I think some tend to put too much focus on a system's specs. Thinking that an eMac which obiviosly has lesser specs than a G5, is just plain "outdated" or "inferior". They have likely never used one and automatically assume that "it sucks".

An emac with an lcd screen would be a different story.

Click to expand...

...yes, it would be an iMac then
When I got my eMac, I could have purchased an iMac, but there really was no major difference between the two at that time, save for the CRT vs. LCD. I figured I would save the $400 bucks difference between the two and get the eMac.

Yes, my eMac is somewhat outdated now, as it only has SDRAM and it doesn't have USB 2.0, but I can still compete with a newer system.
But it really depends on the user, and not the system. I still use my PowerBook G3s and they don't seem to be depriving me of anything. Hey, look at Macman, he is still using a Cube. It doesn't seem to hold him back one bit either.