Emachines 64-bit Athlons Now On Sale

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 :-)"

Bummer

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

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

Sure you can write 64-bit applications for OS X, just like you could write 32-bit applications for Win3.1, but that hardly qualifies it as a 64-bit operating system!

All of the core operating system code is still 32-bit. OS X does NOT give you a flat 64-bit memory space, which is the most obvious sign that it's not a true 64-bit operating system. The kernel, the drivers and just about all of the core operating system is still a plain old 32-bit setup. They did include a few hacks to access more than 4GB of physical memory, but Intel proved that you can do that on a 32-bit processor years ago. The PPro and all follow-up x86 chips can support up to 64GB of physical memory. Like OS X, it does so through the use of ugly hacks.

Apple does also provide some 64-bit math libraries, which make use of the 64-bit integer registers. Nice, but not particularly important. It's fairly rare for most applications to need integers with more range than the 4 billion provided by 32-bit ints. However, when they are needed, being able to use native 64-bit integers is a big bonus. You can hack 64-bit integers together using two 32-bit integers, but that takes at least 3 times as long as with a proper 64-bit int.

As for Longhorn, I don't really know why you're bringing that up, it's years off and has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. WinXP 64-bit edition is just that, the 64-bit version of WinXP, no connection to Longhorn at all except that it comes from the same company. It's available now for the Itanium and scheduled for Q3 of 2004 for AMD64. This will be a true 64-bit operating system, providing a flat 64-bit address space with no ugly hacks or tricks. The kernel will be compiled in 64-bit mode, the memory manager will deal out address space using 64-bit pointers, and if your application wants to allocate 20GB of memory, you'll get it (assuming you've got sufficient physical + virtual memory).

Re:Bummer

Sadly, to most consumers there arn't any other types of "computers" except for windows. What the hell is an... "operating system" ?

The Geek Xmas Connundrum

eMachines are poo.. Athlon64 is good.. eMachines are poo.. Athlon64 is good.. eMachines are poo.. Athlon64 is good..

Re:The Geek Xmas Connundrum

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...

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

They're not so bad

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

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

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.

Re:Caveat Emptor

Athlons don't have any more of a tendency to overheat than Pentiums do now. Back before the AMD cpus had sufficient thermal production checks in various places, this was true. The Athlon 64 has just as much protection as the new Pentiums do, heat plate and all.

Why so quiet?

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?

They must be waiting for the 64 bit XP to come out before they hype it!

Bet you're right

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?

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.

Laptops are cool too

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

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.

A little idea...

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?

The Key to Linux on the Desktop? GAMES!

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.

Slight Typo

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?

Know your market, kimosabe.

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.

Holy cheap desktop

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.

Re:Rendering times are about to go way down

Lets See, the President of Pixar is who again? Hmm.. Right, Steve Jobs.. Yeah.

Imagine what Pixar , etc will be able to do with an array of 64-bit emachines.

I dunno, berate them? Taunt them? Buy expensive targets for nerf fights?

Where is it?

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?

Re:Where is it?

The specs are here, at least, and it was on the front of the desktop section.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=10673 90 092896&skuId=6186156&type=product

Why?

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.

Choice quote

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.

stupid question?

Is it just me, or is it odd that this isn't even on their official site?

I like emachines

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!

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

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.

Why do we make fun of them?

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

Isn't that sorta like a Chevy Vega with a supercharged V8?

This is great!

Because, you know, when I think of 64-bit computing, I think of eMachines!

This IS a big deal!

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

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

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

Lesser known Athlon64 feature

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

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

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

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.

Re:$1299?

tons more?

hmm. applestore has " $1,799.00
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache
256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 4GB SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
Three PCI Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem"

that is barebones. the emachine has "AMD's Athlon 64 3200+", "The $1,299 desktop also comes with 512MB of 400MHz double data rate synchronous dynamic RAM (DDR SDRAM) and a 160GB hard drive with a generous 8MB buffer for data, which helps boost performance." and "Included with the T6000 is an ATI Radeon 9600 graphics card with 128MB of on-board memory, a CD burner, a DVD-ROM drive, an 8-in-1 memory card reader, seven USB (universal serial bus) ports and two IEEE 1394 or FireWire ports."

now, i might be STUPID and IGNORANT and a FOOL, but in my world half the mem, half the harddrive, suckier gfx card.. they don't really count as tons of more. did you even rtfa? or are you just fishing for a mac sympathy +5 insightful/informative? each to it's own and i'd love to have a g5 but it sure as hell doesn't have TONS more of stuff for 'few hundreds more'.

Re:$1299?

Yeah your right! $1299 is to expensive. If you want to burn money, why not burn $2000, and get that exclusive one-button mouse.

Re:$1299?

This thing is practically bare-bones!

Since when is :

Athlon64 3200+ (2.0GHz / 1MB cache)
512MB RAM
Radeon 9600
160GB HD (7200rpm / 8MB cache)
6-channel audio
DVD Drive
CD-RW
10/100 NIC
56K modem
Firewire & USB
Media Card reader
KB &Mouse
Speakers
Windows XP, MS Works, MS Money, Norton AV, Power DVD, etc...

Bare-bones? I mean, it's missing a monitor, that's it. What else exactly are you looking for in a PC?

Re:$1299?

Porn and tons of it!

Re:$1299?

$1299 is cheap?

Compared to Compaq's offering it is. But that's not saying much, I agree.

Until then I'll keep drooling over a G5 (which is only a few hundred dollars more, with TONS more stuff).

Configuring a 1.6GHz G5 to be roughly equivalent to the eMachines system gives a cost of $2070 (upgrade memory, HD, video). And, as best I can tell, offers nothing in excess of what eMachines does. You can talk about XP vs OS X, but if you prefer one or the other then the cost of the system is irrelevant since it's not something you can choose irrelevant of the hardware. The only substantial difference I can see hardware-wise is that the eMachines has two optical drives (one CD-RW, one DVD) while the G5 only has one. Two optical drives have their advantages.

Oh, and the G5 is going to be considerably slower than the Athlon64. The fastest G5 is roughly the same speed as the Athlon64's, but this is the slowest G5, not the fastest.

The G5 is still a sweet system, mind you, it's just not a "few hundred more" (at least, I don't count nearly $800 as that, but "few" is hardly a definitive number ;) ).