e-Macs-not bad/major bad--DETAILS PLEASE!--MacDV Digest #2675

[Ted Langdell]

On Apr 17, 2004, at 5:12 AM, Macintosh Digital Video List wrote:

>
> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:39:47 -0700
> Subject: In defence of attacking eMacs and iBooks...because they 
> deserve
> 	it.
> From: <illovox at comcast.net>
> Message-ID: <BCA5F513.1F23F%illovox at comcast.net>
>
>
>> That's more useful than blanket statements from un-named sources that
>> "eMacs are major bad."
>>
>> I'm QUITE happy with my 1GHz Superdrive eMac and will continue to
>> suggest them as a viable option for someone looking to do as our
>> original poster with the 350MHz machine wanted to do on an $800 or so
>> budget.
>>
>> Ted.
>>
>> Ted Langdell
>> Ted Langdell Creative Broadcast Services
>> Marysville, CA
>
>
> But eMacs ARE major bad.  And leave my blankie alone.
>
> I have checked.  It's not a blanket statement.  And of course not every
> single emac in the world is kaboink.  But enough that it is an issue 
> in our
> repair shop here.  Even worse are the G3 iceBook 12 inchers.  MAJOR 
> BAD.  Do
> not own without a warranty.

I'm NOT trying to start a flame war here... but its not really helpful 
to just say:
> But eMacs ARE major bad.

What are the problems??

If your "mac-head" has such a large number in the shop now, or has had, 
he SHOULD be able to give you some details.

Would you please ask him:

What brought the machines into the shop mentioned?

What the problem(s) were?

How many machines had the problem?

What the fixes were?

What models/age of machines were affected?

That's more useful than blanket statements  that "eMacs are major bad."

It lets people who own or might own an eMac (or any OTHER machine) have 
more complete insight into whether there are significant issues with 
currently produced machines, or what to expect from other vintage 
units.

You'd be really doing readers a service if you and your mac-head would 
provide the details.

Thanks,

Ted