Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Hardware

Emachines 64-bit Athlons Now On Sale 486

Posted by timothy from the better-emachines-than-packard-bell dept.
tomhudson writes "According to zdnet, emachines, the company geeks like to make fun of, finally has a toy we'd all like to get for Xmas -- an Athlon64 on the cheap :-)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Emachines 64-bit Athlons Now On Sale More

Emachines 64-bit Athlons Now On Sale

Comments Filter:

  • Bummer (Score:5, Funny)

    by shystershep ( 643874 ) * <bdshepherd@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:44PM (#7682584) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft has plans to deliver a 64-bit version of its Windows XP operating system for Athlon 64 desktops. Once that software is available, consumers will be able to make the step up to 64 bits.

    But not until then, apparently. Aw, shucks. Too bad there aren't any 64 bit operating systems out there now . . .

    • Re:Bummer (Score:2, Informative)

      by Artifex ( 18308 )
      Too bad there aren't any 64 bit operating systems out there now . . .


      You missed the part where they said the word "consumer."
      I doubt even Apple's G5/OS X combos are considered "consumer" grade, and there's quite a lot of talk about the latest OS X still not being fully 64 bit, yet. Workstations are flat out of consideration for the label, of course.

      • Re:Bummer (Score:2, Informative)

        by fantastic max ( 690355 )
        Mandrake, Gentoo, SuSe 64bit.

      • Re:Bummer (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hoser McMoose ( 202552 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @05:34PM (#7683845)
        The mainstream media does tend to figure that consumer = Microsoft Windows. I don't know about you, but I'd sure as hell consider Mandrake Linux to be a "consumer" operating system. It's clearly not targeting business users the way that SuSE and Red Hat are, nor is it really a hobbyist OS like Gentoo (not that Gentoo is strictly useful for a hobby, just that the target market is for people who like to tweak their system a lot rather than the "turn it on and go" crowd). I don't know what that leaves other than it being a consumer operating system.

        As for OS X, it definitely isn't a 64-bit operating system. Even the new 10.3 "Panther" version is no more a 64-bit operating system than Win3.1 was a 32-bit operating system. There are a few 64-bit elements (and probably sufficient for most Mac users for the time being), but it's still almost exclusively a 32-bit operating system. WinXP 64-bit for AMD64 will be a full-fledged 64-bit operating system from the ground up. This, unfortunately, means that it needs new drivers, which might be a bit of a problem early on.

        • Re:Bummer (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tim C ( 15259 )
          I don't know about you, but I'd sure as hell consider Mandrake Linux to be a "consumer" operating system.

          I use Mandrake; in fact, it's my preferred Linux distro, and has been for a couple of years now. I do not consider it to be a "consumer" OS, though.

          Why not? Because I can't be sure that any given piece of hardware will work with it. Because I can't go into a shop and buy software for it.

          Yes, I know that that's true of all distros, and I'm aware of the reasons - but it doesn't matter. It won't and can

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:04PM (#7682786)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • *Sigh* (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's called sarcasm, people. Look it up.

  • The Geek Xmas Connundrum (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:44PM (#7682587) Homepage Journal
    eMachines are poo.. Athlon64 is good.. eMachines are poo.. Athlon64 is good.. eMachines are poo.. Athlon64 is good..
    • Actually eMachines aren't too shabby. Recently purchased ones have all name brand parts, etc...not as cheap as they were back in the original days (Celeron 300-era).

    • Re:The Geek Xmas Connundrum (Score:5, Funny)

      by murphyslawyer ( 534449 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:11PM (#7682843) Homepage

      But the eMachine comes with a free Frogurt!

      But the Frogurt is cursed!

      But it comes with your choice of toppings!

    • Not if you are a true geek... (Score:5, Funny)

      by gosand ( 234100 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:17PM (#7682904)
      eMachines are poo.. Athlon64 is good..

      Actually, for geeks this is an easy decision.

      poo = 0
      good = 1

      Therefore, eMachines = 0 and Athlon64 = 1

      Since you are getting both of them, logically you have to AND them.

      (1 AND 0) = 0 = poo

    • no, no, no. You are having it just a leetle wrong. eMachines are goooood...





      for me to poop on.

    • And to muddle us all even more, Apple's finally got refurb G5's in stock at, oh, about $500 below the cost of a new one. (Go to store.apple.com [apple.com] and click on the big red "SAVE" tag.)
      • 1.6GHz/256MB/80GB/SuperDrive - $1499
      • 1.8GHz/512MB/160GB/SuperDrive - $1799
      • DUAL 2GHz/512MB/160GB/SuperDrive - $2499

      Those come with the same warranty as new ones (which can be extended to 3 years, just like on the new ones), and obviously can't possibly be terribly old units.

      So now it becomes:

      64-bit good, but e-machines

    • They're not so bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Theatetus ( 521747 ) * on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @05:07PM (#7683491) Journal

      I'll admit it, I always kind of liked e-machines. For a few hundred bucks you could get a decent mobo and some stock PCI's. I got two "eMonster 800"s for $200 per at CompUSA, added a little memory, and they run SuSE great.

      The way I see it, eMachines are just as crappy as Dell desktops only you don't try to pretend they're good and charge you an arm and a leg like Dell does.

    • Re:The Geek Xmas Connundrum (Score:4, Funny)

      by SpikeSpiff ( 598510 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @05:14PM (#7683575) Journal
      If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel full of crap, you have a barrel full of crap.

      If you add a teaspoon of crap to a barrel full of wine, you have a barrel full of crap.

    • Re:The Geek Xmas Connundrum (Score:5, Informative)

      by fo0bar ( 261207 ) * on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @06:37PM (#7684514)
      A couple months ago, I built myself a nice little cheap desktop for about $400. I'd say I did pretty well. Here are the specs:

      Athlon XP 2000+ proc
      VIA KT266 motherboard with 1 AGP/4 PCI slots, 6 USB ports, onboard S3 ProSavage8 video, 10/100 networking, and the usual motherboard stuff
      256MB RAM
      80GB WD hard drive
      Floppy drive
      16X DVD-ROM drive
      48X CD-RW drive
      Mini-tower case

      Err sorry, when I said "built", I meant "bought an emachines T2082". Emachines USED to be crap, but these days they're using mostly off-the-shelf components. I have yet to find anything proprietary or icky about this computer. Sure I upped the RAM to 512MB and added a decent video card, but everything else is fine.

      As for the Athlon64 system, it appears they released it TOO quietly... their web site doesn't even mention it.

  • Why so quiet? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PurdueGraphicsMan ( 722107 ) * on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:44PM (#7682591) Homepage Journal
    The PC manufacturer and seller, best known for its low-price desktops, this week quietly introduced the T6000, a desktop built around Advanced Micro Devices' 64-bit-capable Athlon 64 processor.

    It seems odd to me that if you were the first company to release an lower-end 64 bit processor you'd be "quiet" about it. Does this hint at the possibility that they're not very proud of this system? If I were a company that produced the first lower-end computer flaunting a 64 bit processor, I'd be screaming at the top of my lungs to get people to take notice.

    Maybe it's just me...

    • Re:Why so quiet? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by trentblase ( 717954 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:46PM (#7682615)
      They must be waiting for the 64 bit XP to come out before they hype it!

      • Bet you're right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:32PM (#7683031) Homepage
        They must be waiting for the 64 bit XP to come out before they hype it!

        In fact, I bet MS insists on it. Let's say I make a system, and I saturation bomb TV with ads for my 64-bit system. Consumers ask, 'what can I run on it to take advantage of the capability?' I respond with 'Windows, eventually,' at which point consumers say 'OK, I'll buy it eventually, if I remember.' Right, that works. Otherwise, I can respond 'You can run linux on it! 64-bit happy!' and MS gets super-pissed and screws me next time my OEM contract is up.

        So there's your problem. If I hype my chip, I have to hype Linux or something like that. Or I can wait for MS to catch up and hype it then, which makes more sense for my company.

    • Re:Why so quiet? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by devphaeton ( 695736 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:56PM (#7683369)
      It seems odd to me that if you were the first company to release an lower-end 64 bit processor you'd be "quiet" about it.

      Actually, Slashdot just advertised it to pretty much everyone on the planet that really truly gives a crap about a 64-bit Capable Athlon, much less knows what "64-bits" really means. I mean, look at Dell and their "Forget all that Gigabytes and Megabytes" stuff. It used to be that most consumers were clueless about computer purchases but *tried* to understand enough to purchase soemthing that will be useful for what they want to do, and remain relavant for the longest time possible (value for the money).

      Lately, i've noticed a lot of people in stores buying computers ('tis the season) who will just assume that any computer is good enough for everything. In a sense, for accomplishing everyday tasks they are probably right, *but* as we all know the $399 off-the-shelf eMachine is a bad choice as far as upgradeability and longevity.

      Down the road, MS will advertise [Longhorn] as "The Premier, new 64-bit OS!" and that's when average-joe consumers will learn about 64-bits. They won't understand it mind you, they'll just know "64-bits are more bits than 32-bits!" and that's it.

    • Re:Why so quiet? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zerocool^ ( 112121 )
      Having previously worked at a best buy, I can tell you with ABSOLUTE certainty that the quality of the computer would NOT have stopped eMachines from advertising it.

      Rather, I'd imagine that their stock is limited to 10,000 units or so, and so they don't want everyone in the world getting pissed off at them for not having it in stock, and best buy issuing 40,000 rain checks.

      Trust me on this one. In fact, I'm fairly confident that 10,000 is probably a pretty close number. Say, they keep 2000 for sales via

  • Laptops are cool too (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by cflorio ( 604840 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:44PM (#7682596) Homepage
    Emachines has a cool laptop as well. Currently it is only available to buy at Best Buy stores. I have one and love it. Widescreen 15.4" and it works great.

  • finally has a toy we'd all like to get for Xmas (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pingular ( 670773 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:46PM (#7682606)
    No. eMachines are TERRIBLE. My dad bought one a while back, it's the cheapest piece of crap ever. You can't upgrade ANYTHING in it (hard-disk, memory, gfx card, processor, NOTHING). It's noisey, the components are cheap, and if this 64bit is the same, I'd hate to have one.
    • The eMachines of today are NOTHING like the eMachines of 2+ years ago. Now they're fast, come with more bang-for-the-buck than comparably-priced Big Name models ($620 nets you an eM w/512MB RAM, 160GB HD, CD-RW and DVD-ROM. $620 from Dell gets you 256MB RAM, 80-120GB HD, and either a CD-RW or DVD-ROM.), and are a breeze to upgrade. They've made great strides in making their offerings compete with everyone else, and they're selling a ton of boxes. The local Costco can't get enough in to supply demand.

    • You can't upgrade ANYTHING in it (hard-disk, memory, gfx card, processor, NOTHING)

      I had a ~3 year old eMachine (which my ex-wife now has. ha!) I put a second hard drive in it and extra memory just fine. There was no AGP slot so the only option for video upgrading was a PCI card. The processor was in a socket, I never did try a faster processor.
    • Emachines changed quite a while back, at least as far back as the 533id2 (was the first new computer i ever had c.2000) The only part i found totally unacceptable was the crystal Audio integrated sound which i replaced within a few months with some I/O magic card for $35 I later upgraded the video from intel 810 onboard to a GF2MX400 for ~$100 and upgraded the RAM from 64 to 256 for some unknown amount for christmas(I assume around $100 since it was pc100) so for $500 upfront with a total upgraded cost of $

  • A little idea... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:46PM (#7682608)
    Wow, they seem to have managed to jack the price for their cheesy PC's up about $300 by slapping a nice big 64-bit label on one... and oh will consumers bite. Seriously, does no one else see this as simply a marketing gimmick, considering the tech-averted nature of their base market?
    • It's still fairly cheap for the specs but you get what you pay for. I'd be worried about the cheap parts. Why not wait a bit, like when there's real software for it and get a good quality machine. The price will probably be about the same for a better machine when that happens.
    • Athlon 64 3200 $399

      Athlon XP 3200 $333

      You're right, all other things being equal, these machines should only cost $66 more.

  • The Key to Linux on the Desktop? GAMES! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ridgelift ( 228977 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:46PM (#7682610)
    Microsoft, which released a beta version of the 64-bit Windows XP for Athlon 64 in September, has promised to ship the final version of the operating system in the first quarter of 2004. AMD has said several other companies are developing 64-bit games and other applications for its chip as well.

    Of course Linux has been able to run on 64-bit platforms for quite some time now. If the Linux community _really_ wants to invade the desktop space, we need some killer games. Games have always been the reason why people spend way too much for a new PC. It's not what the public needs, it's what they want, and games help justify the expense.

    This post may seem a bit off-topic, but I though the quote from the article which mentions Windows 64 and games in the same breath was worth pointing out.
    • Of course Linux has been able to run on 64-bit platforms for quite some time now.

      Kind of off-topic here, but so has Microsoft, at least on the server platform. They've kept it away from the consumer platform up until now for deliberate marketing reasons.

      Incidentally, once you've got Windows 2000 64 bit edition running on your 64 bit server, what killer app are you going to run on it? Why, 64-bit SQL Server [microsoft.com], of course!

  • Slight Typo (Score:5, Funny)

    by fritz1968 ( 569074 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:46PM (#7682612)
    tomhudson writes "According to zdnet, emachines, the company geeks like to make fun of, finally has a toy we'd all like to get for Emacs

    There was a slight typo in the article description. I corrected it.

    Don't the /. editors have a spell check?
    • There was a slight typo in the article description. I corrected it

      And I corrected it further...

      "According to zdnet, emachines, the company geeks like to make fun of, finally has a toy we'd all need to get for Emacs

  • Asbestos underwear? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by markclong ( 575822 )
    I see a Mac versus PC flame fest coming and I'm not sure why!

    But I can get a 64-bit eMachine for a fraction of a new G5!

    Can we all agree to disagree?

  • Know your market, kimosabe. (Score:4, Informative)

    by asdfasdfasdfasdf ( 211581 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:47PM (#7682625)
    A $1200 system with a 64 bit processor and only 512 MB RAM? What gives? With RAM so cheap these days, it seems anybody in the market for such a pricey system would demand 1GB Ram. (Games, 3D, Video all seem like the obvious targets) Companies are silly.
    • What do you get with a $3000 G5?
    • A $1200 system with a 64 bit processor and only 512 MB RAM? What gives?
      Didn't you know: "640kb is enough for everybody"?
      They're giving you a 1000 times as much as you need and you're still complaining. Some people are never satisfied.
    • And only a 1MB cache. Why not put in the extra ($100?) and keep the system from choking? 64-bit doesn't mean faster, just more powerful. all that 64-bit processing is going to choke with only 1MB. Especially since 1MB is the same whether or not the processor itself is 32- or 64-bit. Now it will fill up twice as quickly.
      • No. it will fill up just as fast in 32-bit mode. In 64 bit mode the textsize will be approx. 10-15% bigger. the data size depends on how much pointers you use; not using many pointers and the data size will not increase.

    • Mythical video (Score:3, Informative)

      by poptones ( 653660 )
      Why do so many keep parroting this nonsense about video eating RAM? I have a system with 384MB of RAM and it does just fine. In fact, it's not appreciably faster than it was with 128MB of RAM at doing just video. No machine will be unless you are one of those who insists Adobe makes the only competent video editor and you need all that ram just to provide it with decent "scratch space."

      At full tilt avisynth eats up about 120MB. It'll do that all day, even with a complex filter, because a frame of video is

    • [quote]it seems anybody in the market for such a pricey system would demand 1GB Ram[/quote]

      A better question is why anyone needs a 64 bit processor with less than 4GB RAM.

  • Holy cheap desktop (Score:5, Informative)

    by vasqzr ( 619165 ) <`vasqzr' `at' `netscape.net'> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:47PM (#7682626)

    The Compaq 8000Z, $1,189 after $100 rebate. Mail-order only.

    eMachines have a bad rep, but they're not a bad unit. As a former Best Buy employee, the only problems we seen were the powersupply fans going out after 2 years and making a ton of noise.

    Some of my former co-workers still have some of the first eMachines running as Linux servers to this day.

  • Stupid question, possibly (Score:2, Informative)

    by Hanno ( 11981 )
    What is the difference between Opteron and Athlon64?
    • Athlon64 currently has a single memory channel rather than dual IIRC. It's also about a quarter of the price :)

      It flies running 64bit Linux..
    • the athlon64 fx uses the same pin layout as the opteron and can be used in the same mother board but lacks SMP support, the plain athlon64 is sorta the budget version of the cip if you can call it that, 450$ as aposed to 750$ and does not work with opteron mother boards, there are many other things that would be best to just google for
    • Quote [amd.com] (comparing Athlon 64 FX vs. Opteron, FX is a Athlon64 tweaked for gamers):

      "Additionally, the processors differ in that the AMD Opteron processor features three HyperTransport [amd.com] links, compared to the one HyperTransport link of the AMD Athlon FX processor. They are also tested to different electrical specifications."

  • Where is it? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tim_m ( 27065 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:49PM (#7682637)
    I give up. Looked all over at their website [emachines.com] and can't find the T6000 anywhere. Is it such a quiet release that eMachines doesn't want to give any details about it at all?

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:49PM (#7682638) Journal
    Who is the market for this? If you're one of the few people who has a genuine need for a 64 bit desktop, I can't imagine eMachines' entry is going to satisfy your requirements either. On the other hand, if your concern is that going to 64 bits is going to make your, err, bits twice as large, it seems to me that the bragging rights of a 64 bit Athlon and the shame of being an eMachines owner will cancel out.

    • Pseudo Techie (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bstadil ( 7110 )
      This is for people that want to be Buzz-word complient but have little real understanding of the technology behind it all.

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Coventry ( 3779 ) *
      You seem to forget that an Athlon64 runs 32-bit software Very well - trouncing the p4 in many tests despite it's frequency difference.

      You want a Powerful machine but don't want to spend tons of cash? You buy the emachine - you get the speed you want (or think you need) and you get bragging rights without having to spend so much cash.

      eMachines audience has always been split - people who don't know what they are doing and buy for cheapness, and users who usually know a thing or two and want something on th

    • Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Amnesiac1 ( 195798 )
      Doesn't eMachines use pretty much the same commodity parts everyone else is using? What's the big technical difference between an eMachines system an a Dell or a Gateway that makes the eMachine so shameful?

  • Choice quote (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:51PM (#7682658)
    AMD designed the Athlon 64 to work with 32-bit and 64-bit software, in an effort to bridge the gap between the two applications. The move to 64 bits from 32 bits, which has already begun in servers, promises to boost the performance of PCs, partially by enabling them to use more RAM. But the software that will make the jump possible is still in the developmental stage.

    So servers are starting to switch to 64bit machines now eh? I thought it was 2003 not [google.com] 1993 [google.com].

    Later they say that WindowsXP 64 will be out "later next year" (tm). I don't see the big deal around the 64bit hype. I've been using 64bit machines for years and I only see a difference when dealing with large files (>2gig), which is partly or mostly a software issue or other very large stuff like addressing up to 4 gigs of RAM in one app. I've never had these problems doing "normal" PC computing like email, graphics, music, web surfing.

    Anyway, it looks like 64bit computing is about to become standard. Yeah! Back to work.
  • They are horrible machines, they are. My previous company had bought them, though I don't know why? I guess ppl will anything if it is cheap enough. They had all sorts of problems and never worked properly.
    • They had all sorts of problems and never worked properly.

      And you instantly attribute this to the fact that there is an eMachine label on it? I've heard bad things about these, but know a few people who have them. The first thing I recommended was wiping the harddrive and installing their favorite OS (in their case, Windows XP).

      As far as I know, they haven't had any problems with these machines (besides, maybe, their lack of performance). And as far as performance is concerned, it looks like you know

      • "thing I recommended was wiping the harddrive and installing their favorite OS (in their case, Windows XP)."

        I find that using 40 Grit sandpaper to wipe both sides of each platter in the harddrive removes a problematic OS, and makes it impossible for someone to bedevil the computer with another problematic OS. There's a lot less computer frustration all-around.

        Just make sure to scour all of that coppery-looking residue off.

  • stupid question? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:53PM (#7682674)
    Is it just me, or is it odd that this isn't even on their official site?

  • I like emachines (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:53PM (#7682679) Homepage Journal

    I'm okay with emachines; they make cheap little boxes. May main home machine is a 300 MHz celeron emachine running Linux. (RedHat until last night, when I installed Debian.)

  • never buy emachines! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dummkopf ( 538393 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:53PM (#7682685) Homepage
    i used to have (at work) two emachines. while the machines were stable, the stuff was really poor quality. the big hit comes when you want to do an upgrade: the prices are really hard....

  • Never sell (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:54PM (#7682695)
    This will never sell. Intel, which is the world leader in 64 bit computing, has declared that no one will want to buy a 64 bit desktop for at least another 3 or 4 years, when a cheap Itanium finally goes into production.

  • XP Home? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Lxy ( 80823 )
    I found it on Worstbuy's site Right here [bestbuy.com]. It ships with XP Home installed. Does XP Home even run on a 64 bit processor?

    • Re:XP Home? (Score:3, Informative)

      by StringBlade ( 557322 )
      XP Home doesn't have to run on a 64 bit processor because the Athlon 64 processor will run 32 bit applications as well. That's what's so nice about it. XP Home will just run like it always has -- as good as MS can make it.
      *jams tounge into cheek*

  • Why do we make fun of them? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:56PM (#7682714)
    My father bought 3 emachines for various family members. Within a year, none of them were working. I don't know where they get their parts, but I suspect it's from other companies reject piles. There has got to be a reason why these machines are so cheap -- and quite frankly, my time is too valuable to waste it on flakey hardware.

  • Emachine with 64bit Athlon (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @03:58PM (#7682736)
    Isn't that sorta like a Chevy Vega with a supercharged V8?
  • Here is the link at best buy http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1067390 092896&skuId=6186156&type=product How long will it take for MS to come out the 64bit Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition. The say first quarter next year. But we all know about these timetables how tend to change.
  • I see folks mentioning quality issues with eMachine products. Does anyone have high quality, upgradable, Linux compatible Athlong they can suggest?

  • This is great! (Score:4, Funny)

    by DogIsMyCoprocessor ( 642655 ) <dogismycoprocessor@yah o o . c om> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:01PM (#7682760) Homepage
    Because, you know, when I think of 64-bit computing, I think of eMachines!

  • This IS a big deal! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:06PM (#7682807) Homepage
    I'm not sure that everyone here understands that the Athlon 64 up until now has been mostly limited to lower-end professional workstations (by low-end, I'm talking $2500+; ).

    This is probably the first affordable Athlon 64 PC. $1200 is VERY a very reasonable price to pay when the processor alone costs $475. Considering that, the high-performance RAM, the higher-end hard drive, and the relatively good Graphics card, most people would gladly shell out $1200.

    Of course, I won't because of E-machines' horrible reputation for cheap power supplies and poor service.

    Also, to those who say that there isn't a market for a 64-bit chip without a 64-bit desktop, I tell you to take a look at Apple's G5. Even on a legacy 32-bit OS, it whoops any other processor out there. The Athlon 64 does the same.

  • eMachines tech support given Thumbs Up (Score:3, Informative)

    by rharder ( 218037 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:10PM (#7682831) Homepage
    A recent Seattle Times article [nwsource.com] gives eMachines kudos for good tech support, and no, the argument that crappy products need to have good tech support to back them up is a poor slander: no business could stay in business that way.
    Quote from article: " If you're thinking about giving a new PC, eMachines has top-notch backup. It makes its computers easier to service over an Internet connection, and the CPU unit itself is a snap to open and self-service."

  • Cheaper next week (Score:5, Informative)

    by Groo Wanderer ( 180806 ) <{charlie} {at} {semiaccurate.com}> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:14PM (#7682870) Homepage
    AMD will be introducing the 3000+ A64s next week. I am running off to snap a few pics of them now. All the details will be up on the Inq tomorrow morning, I don't want to scoop myself here though. :)

    What I can say is:
    Lots and lots of them, no shortages here.
    They will be substantially cheaper than the current ~$400
    Available to the public next week.

    -Charlie
  • I'm not sure I understand...

    Go to www.shoprbc.com and you can get a similar system for CAD$1259. Given that they're in my hometown...

    BTW, RB Computing rocks! I ordered an Athlon 2600+ system from them a couple of months ago and it works beautifully.

  • Lesser known Athlon64 feature (Score:5, Informative)

    by -tji ( 139690 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:41PM (#7683161) Journal
    I am in the process of setting up an Athlon64 system. The 64-bit architecture is nice, in a techy coolness kind of way. And, the other architecture improvements, like more general purpose registers, are great.

    But, the thing that pushed me to take the plunge was the "Cool 'n Quiet" feature of the chips.

    The Athlon64 is the first mass-market / desktop chip to offer speed/voltage control that has been offered in laptop chips for quite a while. Based on processor load, CnQ will slow down the processor speed, in 200MHz increments, all the way down to 800MHz.

    So, when you're doing light tasks like WWW browsing, MP3 playback, word processing, etc. the system slows down. When you're compiling, gaming, minidv editing, or other CPU hungry app, it goes up to full speed.

    When the CPU slows down, obviously less power is used, and less heat is created. The system fans slow or stop, and the noise level goes way down.

    Combine this with a fanless video card (e.g. GeForce FX 5200) and a quiet Seagate Barracuda hard drive, and you've got a very quite, but still powerful, system.

  • Emachines build quality (Score:3, Informative)

    by macado ( 114240 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @04:46PM (#7683234)
    I know this is a redundant post, but I thought i'd clarify the issue a bit more. I work as a technician at Best Buy which basically means i'm pretty much a gloried salesperson who installs ram and removes viruses. eMachine computers are actually suprising decent now compared to 3 years ago; they share very little in common with their incompatible predecessors. As far as the people who keep mentionining the power supply issues, this is also a thing of the past. eMachines use normal/standard ATX power supplies and they are not 90 watts. This has been the standard for a while. Most have at least 4 PCI slots and an AGP slot. The only exception to this are the Celeron machines which lack an AGP slot, the rest of the eMachines line is just as upgradeable as your average Dell, HP, or Compaq. On any given day, I see more Compaqs or Gatesway come in for serivce than I ever do eMachines.

    Sorry to burst your Geek bubbles but this machine might actually not be a complete failure for low class workstations. (is that an oxymoron?) I'll have to see it for myself.

  • Just what I want for xmas (Score:4, Funny)

    by blanks ( 108019 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @05:13PM (#7683558) Homepage Journal
    I cheap unreliable computer that will burn it's self out in 6 months. I would perfer getting a sweater I would never wear then getting an emachine and trying to support it/ keep it running.

  • My gripe about AMD64: mobo limits on RAM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by buck68 ( 40037 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @05:20PM (#7683654) Homepage
    I've been reading about the AMD 64 bit processors with great interest. I really like many of the things AMD has done in the x86-64 designs. But the one thing that blows me away is that many of the "desktop" mobos for AMD 64 still only allow a maximum of 2 or 4GB of phyisical RAM. What the hell is the point of a 64bit architecture if you can't use more of the address space than with IA32 processors? Surely not 64bit math?

    I would think that machines with 2-16GB of RAM would be the natural zone where AMD64 starts to really do things that are a pain in the ass on IA32. As far as I can tell, few of the current AMD 64 motherboards fall into that space. Bah.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close