Stop Microsoft

Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: bling on 10 March 2003, 04:18

Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 10 March 2003, 04:18: whats the point of eMacs? I have a limited budget and I saw a 700 mhz emac on ebay for 700$. Just wondering if its a piece of crap. Also, can you put a modem in them?
Title: eMacs?
Post by: rtgwbmsr on 10 March 2003, 04:32: They all have modems (lately anyway)...
If the unit does not have a modem, you can't put one there.

See this thread also:
http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000273 (http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000273)
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 17 March 2003, 19:56: I'm just using this thread so I wont have to clutter up the boards with another one.

Does anyone know (roughly) how 800mhz eMac translates if it were, say, an Athlon? Do you think 800 mhz eMac = around 1500 mhz Athlon? Also, does anyone here actually own an eMac?

edit: lastly, can you upgrade an eMac's processor?

[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: MacBling ]
Title: eMacs?
Post by: Calum on 17 March 2003, 21:11: i don't own one but the performance comparison to an *86 chip will be approximate at best, meaningless at worst depending on what you want to do with that chip. remember that if the system you are running draws half the resources as the one you would have run on the *86 chip, that comes into consideration, or if one chip is better at floating point than the other, then some types of programs will be faster than on the other chip. a lot of it actually comes down to how well the programs have been written that are being used for the benchmark.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 17 March 2003, 21:14: Ok, so in a comparison test with photoshop 7, how fast is it compared to 1600 athlon? And can you upgrade the vid card? (sorry about all the questions, I know nuthin about macs)
Title: eMacs?
Post by: Pissed_Macman on 18 March 2003, 03:15: Don't go with an eMac for home use. They're designed to run Reader Rabbit for kids in schools . Hence the "e" on the front. I don't know why everyone wants one.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 18 March 2003, 03:32: well thats pretty much all I can afford (and dont reccomend a apple loan, I cant do that for numerous reasons)
Title: eMacs?
Post by: rtgwbmsr on 18 March 2003, 03:51: From xlr8yourmac.com
(http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4CARDS/OWC_mercury/pshop55tests.gif)

It only goes up to a 1 GHz P3, but it kinda shows what you want.

From a totally different site:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html (http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html)
They compared a bunch of Macs to a bunch of PCs (1600+ athlons, and 2 GHz P4's). These results are not comparable to the chart above, BTW.

quote:
Originally posted by MacBling:
well thats pretty much all I can afford (and dont reccomend a apple loan, I cant do that for numerous reasons)

You'd be amazed as to how much you can get with so little/bad credit.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 18 March 2003, 04:02: I cant do apple loan, its not my decision and my dad is an adament anti-loan guy.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: rtgwbmsr on 18 March 2003, 06:25: quote:
Originally posted by MacBling:
I cant do apple loan, its not my decision and my dad is an adament anti-loan guy.

Aha! You are < 18!

That's OK. Many people on this site are.

If I were you, I would:
1) Work (or get a job), get $300 and buy an iMac
2) Get the eMac if I really wanted it...it's got a nice processor, display and video card, so why the hell not? Maybe a little RAM upgrade from transintl.com would be good.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 18 March 2003, 06:33: iMac isn't really for me, for these reasons:
1. I have heard lots -and lots- about their active-matrix displays going bad. Dead pixel = not cool. And I dont need that anyway. They look cool, but in my opinion, eMacs look just as cool.
2. Aren't eMacs and iMacs the same with just different looks? On many performance tests they seem to be only around 1-2 seconds apart. (The only difference I can see is that the iMac has a geforce 4 mx, but its still 32 mb of vid memory- just like the eMac).

I dunno. eMac really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I do have a job- well, a quasi-job. I just got 60$ for repairing my dad's truck's clutch, and i'm about to get some more for installing some electric fence system. Right now I got around 700.

Pretty much all I need it to do is basic computer stuff, a VERY small amount of gaming, and some gimp/dv editing. (F&#K Adobe and their 300$ crap) As long as it does it DECENT too. I dont need filters being done in 2 seconds or a whole movie compiled in 10 minutes. As long as its not unbearable or anything worse than my athlon 1600+ that I'm using right now.

Also, i'll be shipping off to college in 2 years and I can get me a dandy dual powermac then.

[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: MacBling ]

[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: MacBling ]
Title: eMacs?
Post by: rtgwbmsr on 18 March 2003, 06:46: You'd be suprised how well Macs can play games. I play Warcraft III on my iBook (16MB VRAM, Radeon 7500 Mobility) all the time.

The iMac G3's suck ass...stay away from them at all costs.

If that's all you need it for, the eMac should be fine for you...
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 18 March 2003, 07:39: I never said I wanted a g3- beleive me I dont. But I just found out that my war3 disk broke and that sucks totaly. I'll have to ebay me another one *sigh*. Damn cyclic redundancy check.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: Pissed_Macman on 18 March 2003, 21:21: quote:
Originally posted by The Muffin Man:
You'd be suprised how well Macs can play games. I play Warcraft III on my iBook (16MB VRAM, Radeon 7500 Mobility) all the time.

The iMac G3's suck ass...stay away from them at all costs.

If that's all you need it for, the eMac should be fine for you...

You play on bnet? What's your account?
Title: eMacs?
Post by: slave on 18 March 2003, 21:26: I don't know about him, but I always go by the name ColinQuinn. (us east)
Title: eMacs?
Post by: Kintaro on 18 March 2003, 12:11: wishin away as you goooooo
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 18 March 2003, 22:12: quote:
wishin away as you goooooo

what?
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 19 March 2003, 06:50: Hah I found a COMPUSA store that is a few hours away, but it has eMacs in it for display/testing. So I'll actually get to try a mac and osx before I buy one.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: Kintaro on 19 March 2003, 15:08: quote:
Originally posted by MacBling:

what?

Blue by system of a down I think.
Title: eMacs?
Post by: bling on 19 March 2003, 18:12: that must be on their first album because I have toxicity and steal this album
Title: eMacs?
Post by: hm_murdock on 24 March 2003, 12:56: hey! I've got a G3 iMac, and it doesn't "suck ass".

the G3 has more life in it than the assmaster G4. All that the G4 has going for it is AltiVec. IBM offered to put that in the PPC 750fx, but Apple wouldn't have that.

The whole G3 vs G4 thing is as much about marketing as it is about anything. Apple Marketing sold the G4 to be the greatest thing since color screens, when really, it's only *margnially* better. Moto stumbled upon altivec and tossed it in there, unfortunately for us.

That made Apple's marketing department think that Moto is run by gods, and while IBM kept improving the G3 to be better than the G4, 'ol Stevie kept right on shoving the G4 down our throats.

I've got a G4 867, and it's really nice, but even with QE, it's not much faster than my iMac 500. It only really shines in graphics. Aqua never slows down, but the apps are just as sluggish (although nothing's really that slow on either box).

The G4 is a marketing ploy.

Anything from IBM is better than the moto shit, and always will be. The 601 was from IBM, the 603 was from Moto, and the 604 was from IBM.

The 601 and 604 were better. The G3 was from IBM and it was significantly better than the 604. The G4 was from Moto, and it was *marginally* better than the G3.