Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

asmack · 05:10 PM

Interesting review in August 2003 issue of MacAddict:

http://www.macaddict.com/issues/0308/rev.emac1ghz.html

Sosa · Jul 9, 2003, 09:56 PM

They seem to imply the results may have been caused by some type of HD malfunction on the iMac. Has anyone else done this type of comparison? It would be nice to get this result corraborated.

I'm saving to pay for Panther around Christmas and I thought it better to just purchase an eMac and use its OS X.3 CD on my macs. Of course by then the eMac configuration will probably change but this article supports my belief that the eMac is a great value product.

If anyone tells you Apple doesn't make cheap computers, tell them about $750 eMac (with student discount).

asmack · Jul 9, 2003, 10:50 PM

Apparently, Macworld magazine recently did a similar comparison and got the same results.

Anyway, I think most people here will still choose an iMac. It's lighter, it has an LCD display, it consumes less power and will probably have a better resale value than the eMac. The iMac's also better looking, but that's in the eye of the beholder.

Bottom line is that they're great consumer Macs, and I hope I did't inadvertently start an iMac vs. eMac flame war...

the_glassman · Jul 10, 2003, 07:14 PM

Faster, Cheaper, Outstanding Value!!!
It's really a shame that apple doesn't offer a headless eMac for a $100-$200 less, it would be a great price point for cheap PC users to pick one up or mess around with.

macmad · Jul 14, 2003, 01:50 AM

It's really a shame that apple doesn't offer a headless eMac for a $100-$200 less

How often does this come up?? They almost did, it was called a Cube, cost the Earth, and didn't sell!

the_glassman · Jul 14, 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by macmad:
How often does this come up?? They almost did, it was called a Cube, cost the Earth, and didn't sell!

It didn't sell because of it's price. The point is, most PC users don't give a f*ck what their computer looks like, if they can make an eMac that does everything as good as the iMac, but $500.00 cheaper, what makes you think they couldn't offer a monitorless eMac for even less money?
It's simple scale of economics, PC users are use to paying for $400-$800 Wintel boxes, and price is still the most important issue for most consumers. Especially in a sour economy.
To most the Cube was nothing more then an overpriced, underpowered toy with problems.

jxflyer · Jul 14, 2003, 02:15 PM

You don't need magazine tests to show you the difference. Go to an Apple store and play with both machines. You'll definitely tell the difference. The eMac is just a little faster.

Of course, it's not a looker, either.

Apple, wake up! Your price points are again too high. It's time to drop the price of the iMac $100 - $200 and you'll see some remarkable sales increase. Starting with me.

Eug · Jul 15, 2003, 08:21 AM

The eMac tested probably just has a faster HD.

ApeInTheShell · Jul 15, 2003, 10:30 AM

what is the point of offering a headless mac for $100-$200 so the potential mac user could build it up to something better than the iMac/eMac.

That kills the product matrix.

Low-end macs are used for $200+ Obviously pc users are not that good of bargain hunters.

Also regarding this article by Macworld.
Have they considered the problems with both the iMac and eMac. This can effect a person's purchase.

Besides, i thought mac users used their computers for more than mathematical calculations and benchmark tests..or am i wrong?

dfbennett · Jul 15, 2003, 04:39 PM

When you refer to problems with the emac I assume you're referring to the raster shift and other CRT issues? What are the iMac issues though? As i said, I think I'm close to biting the bullet and getting a 17" 1ghz and I wanna know if there are any major issues.

Simon · Jul 16, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by dfbennett:
What are the iMac issues though? As i said, I think I'm close to biting the bullet and getting a 17" 1ghz and I wanna know if there are any major issues.

I have had a 1GHz 17" iMac since about half a year and I don't think there are any "issues". It has a nice big screen (although the contrast is better on the 17" Apple Studio Display), it's fast, the SuperDrive is neat and the machine is absolutely whisper-quiet.

I think the only negative thing to mention is that it comes with only one DIMM slot, so if you want 1GB of RAM you have to get Apple to take out the lower 256MB DIMM and install a 512MB DIMM right when you buy it. If you take the stock lower 256MB DIMM and you're not a hardware crack you'll be stuck with max. 768MB RAM - however that's already enough for many users.

You can read many experience reports in this thread about the 1GHz iMac. I was raving when I got mine and I still am. This is certainly one of the best consumer Macs Apple has ever made.

I'd strongly recommend one.

dfbennett · Jul 17, 2003, 08:56 PM

I think I'm gonna go ahead and get a 17" iMac when I get paid next (29th I think is). My Sawtooth is still doing great but it's starting to show it's age in more day to day stuff now(beachballs with multiple safari windows open etc) and I'm looking at the iMac for the bigger LCD as my current 17" CRT is a bit smallish.

Eriamjh · Jul 18, 2003, 06:04 AM

I believe it. I doubt there is some kind of HD malfunction that explains it being slightly slower.

What HD malfunction causes it to run slightly slower? Either a LOT slower or not at all. They did fresh reinstalls, etc. and it kept popping up. Obviously, something is slightly different.

Too bad the emac is ugly.

MrK · Jul 24, 2003, 08:52 PM

I actually have a 15" iMac and an eMac Combo both sitting right here, setting both of them up for other people. And guess what? The eMac is putting the noticable smackdown on the iMac. BUT I can't stand the screen on the eMac. 10 minutes and I have a headache. Yuck. I have used Powerbooks for so long now I had forgotten how BAD cheap CRT monitor's are. And this is one CHEAP CRT.

So, there you have it. If youcan hang with a bad display, the eMac will rip it up for you. But for the price, 1ghz Powermac's are available in a few p[laces for $999. That wins hands down if you have a monitor already.

megasad · Jul 25, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by MrK:
I actually have a 15" iMac and an eMac Combo both sitting right here, setting both of them up for other people. And guess what? The eMac is putting the noticable smackdown on the iMac. BUT I can't stand the screen on the eMac. 10 minutes and I have a headache. Yuck. I have used Powerbooks for so long now I had forgotten how BAD cheap CRT monitor's are. And this is one CHEAP CRT.

So, there you have it. If youcan hang with a bad display, the eMac will rip it up for you. But for the price, 1ghz Powermac's are available in a few p[laces for $999. That wins hands down if you have a monitor already.

What resolution was the eMac running at? As I undestand it, anything over 1024x768 can not be 85MHz or above, hence the headache. Or is there something else about the display that makes it so bad? As I've said elsewhere, I want an eMac, but not until the maximum resolution can be at 85MHz or above.