eMachines bores us to tears, burns our eyes with cheap new desktops

Let's get one thing straight, we're huge fans of budget-priced gear. Yes, even bargain bin PCs that are done right. But eMachines' latest trio is just downright embarrassing. Still, those that don't mind covering their tower in a brown paper bag may find just what they need in the $299.99 T3656, $399.99 T5254 or $498 W3653 kit (pictured). Specs wise, you'll find Intel's Celeron / Pentium dual-core processors, a DVD burner, six USB ports, 1GB to 2GB of RAM, a 160GB or 320GB hard drive, 15-in-1 multicard reader and an equally hideous 17-inch LCD monitor bundled in with just the latter. Oh, and eMachines actually expects you to run Vista on these things and not rip every last hair from your noggin. Enjoy!

[Via DigitalBurn]

[Mehdi Cheddadi @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:03AM]

emachine left a sour taste in my mouth in 1998. I still got my etower 533i

[Ryan Trevisol @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:09AM]

10 Years later, and it looks like they still have the same crappy baby speakers.
http://www.pcworld.com.cn/product/pc/mirror/247.158.233/web/content_center/images_center/GSPS_Project_6/upload/2007-04-18/U18DT20070418162325.jpg

[bohsocks @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:15AM]

This PC is clearly marketed towards people looking to dip their tow into the computing world, or upgrade their previously horrible computer equivalent they got in like 2002. (eg:YOUR PARENTS.)

So if it's people upgrading their ugly tower for an ugly tower because the price is right... they don't care, and nor should eMachines. No, it probably can't play Doom (to your satisfaction, anyway) but that isn't the intent of the users, who want to check their e-mail and get the newest pictures of their grandkids......

THANK YOU FOR SERVING YOUR PURPOSE, EMACHINES.

You, I, and about 98% of the readership of this site wouldn't touch it with a 50-foot pole. Products aren't created and marketed solely in search of the approval of Engadget.com.... and if they fail to get said approval, it doesn't mean their product is inferior... it just means it doesn't fit into the demographic.

If the same product is made by ASUS, Engadget would be blaming their erections on the pleats in their pants.

[bohsocks @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:55PM]

lol... dip their tow?

pleats IN THE PANTS?!

What kind of idiot wrote the previous comment?

[Jay @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:42PM]

Don't all PCs suck? MAC all the way.
The only people I know that argue with that are one's that haven't used a MAC since the days of elementary school, playing Oregon Trail and Math Crunchers.

[RC @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:12AM]

Vista will run fine on them. More reliable than your opinion!

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:21AM]

vista on 1gb or 2 gb and intergrated graphics. WTF are you smoking

[Matt Keller @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:37AM]

2 GB of RAM and Integrated Graphics are enough to run Vista comfortably. My Acer Laptop has the integrated chipset, with 2 GB of RAM and it runs just fine. That's with a 1.5 GHZ Dual Core Pentium too. Do you actually run Vista or what?

[Neoprimal @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:38AM]

Hmm. I don't buy them but I have dealt with them. And I've seen at least 3 go bad in JUST over a year. By go bad I mean the mainboard or oboard video knocks out. Not emachines fault I suppose, but suspect nevertheless. The only PC I'd actually recommend a warranty on.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:45AM]

yeah I run vista ultimate 64 bit instead of agrueing let me ask if you have areo or any of the eyecandy vista has cause with that 2gb isn't enough. With out it I'll take you word for seeing as the only other machine I could test it on at the moment is my 2g surf eeepc and yes it might it but it would rather not :^D

[kal326 @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:12AM]

Dell 1501 Laptop with an AMD Sempron 3500+, 1GB DDR2, and a 80GB drive runs Vista desently even with the R200 chipset graphics eating 128MB of ram. A dual core Pentium with 2GB should be perfectly fine.

Oh and Darren, your anti-Microsoft is showing....you might want to cover that up with something.....like a 3G iPhone or something else wrapped in white plastic.....

[rock99rock @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:13AM]

@DefPo3t

I also run Vista 64bit on 3 separate machines. My htpc has only 2gb of ram, and runs the areo interface (along with all the other "candy") just fine. Don't act like vista is such a huge resource hog that 2gb of ram isn't enough. It is enough for the perfectly average consumer and then some.

I run 1080p graphics on the integrated video on the htpc as well, no issues there. Visualizations, MKV's, COD4, all run great!

If you read into it, the $299 machine comes with Vista Basic, so no need to dog on that one either.

[r3loaded @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:17AM]

@DefPo3t

What is it with you and constantly repeating that line? Besides, Vista runs fine on my Jan 2003 desktop with 1Gb of RAM.

To summarise: WTF are YOU smoking that you have the urge to post so much on a fairly boring article?

[Daza @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:44AM]

x64 also utilises more ram than 32-bit version if I'm not mistaken. Vista and Aero will run fine on even 1GB. My brothers ageing x2 3800+ with Home Premium can still play the latest games on his 8600GT with medium settings. Just 1GB of RAM does the trick. He's had it installed for well over 1 year and hasn't needed to reformat for any reason. Couldn't say the same about XP though! Vista FTW.

[Citrico @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:56PM]

You don't need more than 2GB of RAM to run Vista comfortably. It's all I've got, and I've never ran into problems running anything I've wanted to. I could see 1GB getting difficult, but 2 is all you really need, especially if you're getting a boring low-end PC.

[perfectionist @ Jul 2nd 2008 4:10PM]

1GB RAM is fine for Vista without Aero.
@kal: Apple doesn't just make things in white plastic anymore. MacBook, AirPort, and iPhone 3G are the only white plastic products if I'm not mistaken. The rest are anodized aluminum.

[John B @ Jul 2nd 2008 5:41PM]

@RC: Exactly. These machines are not and never were meant to be gaming machines that need tons of GPU power and RAM. These are meant to be basic, simple desktop machines and nothing more.

I bought an eMachine PC several months ago because it actually cost less than building my own, even with the most basic configuration (AMD X2 4000+, 160 GB hard drive, and DVD burner) + a legitimate Vista license. It's sole purpose is a podcasting workstation to do the recording, editing, and encoding. In that sigle capacity, the PC works fine, even though I did need to bump the RAM to 2 GB because Vista by itself takes up SIX HUNDRED F**KING MB OF RAM!!!! (WTF, Microsoft??!!!)

Everyone who condemns eMachines for being low-end PCs needs to just shut the hell up. It's like condemning a chihuahua for being small. eMachines are meant to be low end machines, and as far as I'm concerned they do the job well.

Expecting gaming-quality speed and power out of an eMachines PC is like expecting 200 miles per hour out of a Geo Metro. It's not going to happen out of the box, so stop complaining about it.

[Jordan @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:04PM]

John B,

Vista will always appear to use a lot of RAM because SuperFetch is constantly loading and unloading programs in the background based on when and how often you use them. As soon as you launch a program SuperFetch dumps whatever is not being used and allocates memory where it's needed.

My system almost always uses a gigabyte of memory at any given time, whether it's idling or running 18 Firefox tabs, WMP, and WoW all at the same time.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:13AM]

dell should be taking out back and shot for making this style of desktop machine standard

[Mike @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:13AM]

You need to realize that the majority of people out there don't need more than 2 gigs of ram for Vista to browse the internet, listen to music, and open Word files. And at that point, the ram speed means nothing. I've built quite a few computers in my day, but when you're going for cheap and low-end, people don't care...they're looking at the dollar. Neither do they need the graphics power found in an 8600 series....a 6600 maybe (which would probably come close to the lowest-end chip in the 8 series), but honestly these all-in-one packages are all that people need.

They want a flatscreen to conserve desk space (they dont care about dvi or how crappy the bezel is), they want speakers to listen to music and youtube, they want a cd burner (they dont even care if it burns dvds...watching dvds is useful though, so a dvd burner is the cheapest choice), some front USB ports for their ipod, bla bla bla something dual core, and "alot" of harddrive space (for the average person, 160gb is alot, even if they still use limewire and havent found torrents yet).

1gig is what makes these computers cheap...it saves emachines another 20$. And it also leaves an opportunity for them to sell more ram when someone calls in saying their machine is slow.

Just because you'd like to take Engadget's side, mr lapdog, doesn't mean either of you are right, or even have the faintest clue as to what a normal consumer will be purchasing nowadays. Your comments are out of touch, and every one of them is ranked low. Go lurk moar.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:27AM]

I was talking bout the casing. And I I don't get low ranked often with today being an exception my profile is public just go and look

[HAI 2 U @ Jul 2nd 2008 1:45PM]

@ defpoet
I'd slap you around a bit, but judging from all the low ranked comments you have, not just here but on every other article I see you spamming, I think I'll just let you slide with another down vote.

[Ignatius @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:14AM]

I still have my gutted-out old eMachines, it ran well for a $500 machine back in 2002.

I still am happy with my purchase. But I've moved onto bigger and better things.

[tekdroid @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:14AM]

What is wrong with those specs and running Vista? absolutely nothing.

160GB HD is certainly enough to hold vista with plenty of room to spare. 1GB ram is OK to run it acceptably for 97% of users, IMO. Any lowest-end currently-selling CPU is enough to run it acceptably, as are those from several years back.

Case-wise, I've seen 'elite' computers designed far worse than this, including a recent voodoo model I've seen on these pages. I see nothing wrong here. Tho faux silver and black need to be eradicated (IMO), I see nothing particularly objectionable here, in the scheme of things versus other rmanufacturers.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:18AM]

vista on 1gb ram and intergrated graphics runs fine ?? What kinds stuff are you smoking

[Lein @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:24AM]

@DEFPO3T

As long as you don't have a resource-hog integrated graphics chipset that constantly takes up 128MB+ regardless of load (I'm looking at you, ATI,) then you should be good.

[initialxy @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:28AM]

@DefPo3t, 1GB of RAM + integrated GPU will be OK but not fine. my friend has Vista running on Intel GMA 945.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:31AM]

ok I'll give the agreement on the graphcs but 1 or 2 gb of ddr2 ram which I presume are ddr2 6400 or less really isn't enough ram for vista 3gb for 32 bit vista and 4 gb for 64 bit and it runs fine but defintly not at 1gb and 2gb( which is fine if you don't mind slow downs often)

[tekdroid @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:54AM]

DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:18AM

vista on 1gb ram and intergrated graphics runs fine ?? What kinds stuff are you smoking
---------
I'm assuming you are an enthusiast out of touch with how Joe and Jane average use their computers.

As long as the shared graphics ram is not too huge, such a machine would have no problem running everyday things acceptably. By that I mean internet while playing music, antivirus in background, the odd videos, DVDs, and online games, voip & webcam, etc.

Assuming no great "all-in-one" security apps hogging all the ram in the background...I'd have no problem using such a machine.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:57AM]

ok you expose me for what I am. But I have one last thing to say
no machine should have to run the horid hog that is norton

[Reid Sorenson @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:58AM]

Problem is, most engadget readers and all engadget writers fall well within that 3% that remains. Machines like this just don't get an enthusiast's juices flowing.

[Fenway Beer Man @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:22PM]

My laptop is running on 1 GB of RAM and integrated graphics with a low-end dual core Pentium, and it runs Windows on Aero without a stutter. I don't expect to play games on it, and that's just fine with me considering I'm a casual gamer who only plays games on his Xbox360 once in a while. These specs are enough not only to run Windows with all the eye candy, but it also does everything fast.

[AC @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:15AM]

an emachine was the first computer I ever bought with my own money, sometime back around 2001. Worked good for what I needed at the time, and for millions of people that just need a computer for internet, email and simple word processing. These will fit the bill.

the only problem is the resource hog that is vista.

[martianaurora @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:21AM]

You had Vista in 2001?

[xcrunk @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:17AM]

You guys sometimes forget, these PC's are fine for 97% of the population.

Plus, their DIRT cheap.

I would buy one, then format it, and reload XP or Vista for a super squeaky clean build.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:25AM]

and 97% of computers run vista like crap , how hard would it be for these of makers to put 4 gb or at least 3 gb of ram in there and many even an 8600 or similar graphics card. The CPU and rest are fine for vista

[ngamer007 @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:51AM]

@DefPo3t

Are you really that oblivious? Or are these joke posts? While Vista does run slow on 1GB of RAM, it runs perfectly fine on 2GB of RAM. Even with a ton of stuff running, Vista is very intellegent about memory usage and page file, so it's rare to see memory usage go above 55-65% on 2GB of RAM. 3GB and up with Vista is just future-proofing it against what's around the corner app wise.

And there's a reason why these computers don't have an 8600 graphics card, faster processor, and more memory. It's because the general public sees a computer that costs more than $600 as "too expensive". Joe Shmo doesn't care how long it takes to load something, even if it takes a minute to open open, the public just wants to get the absolute cheapest computer they can possibly find. That's reality.

[tekdroid @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:03AM]

DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:25AM
and 97% of computers run vista like crap , how hard would it be for these of makers to put 4 gb or at least 3 gb of ram in there and many even an 8600 or similar graphics card. The CPU and rest are fine for vista
------------
Not hard at all. It's just that they can do that, but 99% of their customers would not make use of the extra ram (or the graphics card) and assuming they even sell 200,000 of the systems, they would lose millions by adding things to your required specs and keeping the price the same. Superfluous things that their customers *have no use for*, nor are *willing to pay for*.

I think we can agree you are an enthusiast. Nothing wrong with that. But there's a far, far bigger market out there that doesn't have your requirements, and packages like this cater to their needs just fine.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:41AM]

ok I am wrong I admit I feel ashamed that I'm part of the reason this normal boring post by the writer has so many comments : (

[xcrunk @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:14PM]

d3fpo3t....douchebag says, what?

[Danakin @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:18AM]

screw that...

[nanobis @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:22AM]

i dont see much wrong with it, if you want a better case you can always buy one.

[nanobis @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:24AM]

well that us for a basic pc, as long as it plays Doom.

[Salsa Shark @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:28AM]

Darren, obviously you're bitter that this isn't the "Hello Kitty" edition you were hoping for. But this is hardly an eye-burning, hair-tearing offering. If you're going to editorialize to the point of drowing out the facts, then at least make some sense.

[tojfs7931 @ Jul 2nd 2008 10:35AM]

Its a computer. What do you want it to do sing the star spangled banner every time you turn it on?

[DefPo3t @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:05AM]

"This is the Borg you will be assimilated"
imagine if that was the first thing you heard on a new computer

[Yor1001 @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:00AM]

WTF, I got vista ultimate running on 1 gig of ram pentium 4 3.4ghz, and its runs just fine, boots up fast and even runs in aero on an ati x300. vista aint that much of a system hog running by itself, well not untill you boot into something processor intensive.

[Matt @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:26AM]

I have a very similar set-up. I have an AMD X2 5000+ with an x300 integrated video card, 1gb of ram and Vista Ultimate with all the effects turned on. I've been hearing A LOT of people over the past couple of days scoffing at 1gb of ram for Vista, when in fact it runs just fine. Of course if you load tons of applications or some memory intensive applications its going to slow down, but for typical web surfing or any other casual tasks it works perfectly fine.

I don't think these people have ever used Vista with 1gb of ram.

[kal326 @ Jul 2nd 2008 2:24PM]

Vista Business on a P4 3.2HT, 2GB DDR 2700, Nvidia 6200 AGP, and a 250GB SATA drive. The core of the system (mobo, ram, and CPU) is probably 4+ years old and I got it for free. Case, optical drive, AGP graphics card, and a free HD I had sitting around and you have a $115 dollar machine that runs Vista perfectly.

[Daniel @ Jul 2nd 2008 11:09AM]

I'm also of the opinion that there's nothing wrong at all with eMachines.

I suggested one to my mom a year or so ago, who went ahead and bought a similar package to this one (which I put XP on). She just uses it to store photos, use the web, and type up stuff and Word. And guess what? It's more than adequate for that. Hell, my little brother plays WoW on it, and it runs smoothly. It does everything it needs to for everyone in the house, and does so for less than five hundred bucks. Can't complain there.