eMachines.. deal or rip-off?

July 27, 2005 10:00 PM

Why are eMachines so cheap?

I hate using the word cheap there. When I think of eMachines, I think of cheap. When I think of an HP computer with the same configuration and close to the same price, I think what a deal. So what I want is a deal, but are my conceptions of eMachines misguided?

I was shopping around and found on HP if you customize a computer you can, for 449$, get a AMD Athlon 64 3200+, 512 ram, 80 gig hdd with a 15" lcd. This would be a customized model, which does not qualify for free shipping (99$), and needs to be "built" which can take a week or more. Then, I came across this which a friend of mine recently purchased for $450 after a $100 mail in rebate.

I have built computers in the past, and looked into building one quite similiar to the eMachines model and the price of the processor alone is close to $200. How on earth do they make computers so much cheaper than everyone else? I know they must cut corners somewhere, but where? Its not like its a budget processor. Or is that the only quality component?

BTW, I'm not saying HP is great, but their support is unreal :)

posted by phox to computers & internet (18 comments total)

Your conception is not misguided IMHO, but I only have anecdotal evidence to back it up. My own personal experience with eMachines is the pos my parents bought 4 years ago. It was newer than my pc by a good three years, but it always dragged through routine tasks such as internet surfing and word processing, despite having a decent processor (maybe 800 mhz) and adequate ram. I still can't figure out if it was a slow harddrive, or a terrible motherboard or what, but I hated that thing. They've sucked for years and years, by the way. I worked at a Mac store 10 years ago and eMachines was making Mac clones - worst item on the market.
posted by Happydaz at 10:07 PM on July 27, 2005

I heard once that eMachines didn't design their systems, they put them together out of available parts. They'd acquire a couple of boxcars full of hard drives, a storage shed full of mobos, keyboards left over from the last model run, etc., and that would be their new model. Since they weren't looking for particular parts, they could use the cheapest thing available.
posted by forrest at 10:14 PM on July 27, 2005

I've had excellent experience with two emachines I purchased awhile back. In fact, one of them was my mail and web server for a long time.

eMachines was bought out by Gateway also, so they are probably sharing components to have increased buying power. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some gateways were just emachines in different cases and vice versa.
posted by AaRdVarK at 10:16 PM on July 27, 2005

i've heard in the past 2-3 years that emachines are more reliable than other bargain-basement brands. i don't have anything to add, but am looking for more info.
posted by puke & cry at 10:31 PM on July 27, 2005

Seriously, the largest expense in a new PC today is .... tech support.

Second comes the Windows XP license. The processor is usually third -- remember that OEMs buy them in bulk. eMachines are a value in the same way as a large popcorn and soda at the movies. Ways they save money include giving you slow hard drives and video cards, less RAM, fewer expansion slots (and extra power to run them), and a lot less bundled software. Certainly they don't customize. The really big savings, though? Support. Without checking I'm pretty sure their support sucks compared with Gateway's.

eMachines used to really earn the opprobrium. Yet even before they merged with Gateway, their quality was improving, and by the time they got inside Best Buy they were more than passable. I'd say they're not a bad choice if you really need to save money.

The thing is, the competition isn't that much more expensive -- this is a commodity game. If you can afford the extra $50 or so for a more reputable model, it's probably worth more than that in the long run.
posted by dhartung at 10:46 PM on July 27, 2005

Computers are cheap these days to the point where if it breaks in any way, it's almost cheaper to just buy a new one than have someone fix it. That being said, your computer choice isn't worth agonizing over.

eMachines used to be weird. They used to combine parts like the video card and the hard drive controller and other weird things onto specialized boards that they'd have custom-built in bulk, which means if that board broke -- you had to come back to eMachines for support or replacement. No one else had their drivers, and no one could make their computers work. A while back, that stopped when that started to become more expensive to do than just building a computer out of off-the-shelf parts, which is what -everyone- does these days. (And no, you don't save time or hassle by building it yourself, although I still do because I'm a complete nerd.)

Just pick one you like and feel good about. They've all got the same core stuff in them anyway; you need to care more about AMD vs Intel and Radeon vs. GeForce more than you should worry about Gateway or eMachines or HP vs whomever.
posted by SpecialK at 1:10 AM on July 28, 2005

You're not really comparing apples to apples if you include a mail in rebate. The actual cost of the machine is still $549. Only if you manage to get the rebate does the price equal $449. This means that you must:

- save the receipt
- print out the proper form
- include all the necessary materials (UPC etc)
- remember to send it in the mail on time
- not have it "lost" in the mail
- not have it rejected for one of the above reasons or just because they feel like it

My point is that the total number of people that actually receive the rebate is very much less than the total number that buy the product. Even if they do, the person issuing the rebate gets a nice 3 or 4 month loan on that $100.

Or in other words, rebates are a tool that manufacturers use to make the price look artificially low.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:12 AM on July 28, 2005

Emachines has cleaned up its act in the last 1-2 years.

My friends who have had emachines for 3-4 own POSes, while my friends who own emachines after the gateway takeover have pretty solid bang for the buck machines.

Coincidence? I think not.
posted by petah at 1:15 AM on July 28, 2005

I like eMachines. I've had mine for about three years now and haven't had any problems with it. The only upgrade that I've done is to add some memory and it's chugging along wonderfully. HP, however, scares me. JMHO.
posted by amandaudoff at 6:06 AM on July 28, 2005

My last two computers (including my present one) have been emachines. I use them mainly for surfing and email from home, no big-deal games or anything, so I'm definitely not a power user, but they have served my purposes well. The only reason I ditched my old one was it was outdated--I had it for 4 years, many, many generations in computer-age.

But, yes, you gotta send in those rebate certificates. I didn't the first time, but I did the second (well, actually, my wife did). I think it ended up being something like $350 back in my pocket.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:13 AM on July 28, 2005

I warily bought an eMachine when they first came out, in 1999, because I needed a Linux server for my tech startup. For five years, this thing chugged along as a fairly-busy mail and webserver. It never choked once, and the only change that I ever made to it was popping in a bit more RAM. I finally took it out of commission, a year ago, not because there was anything wrong with it, or for lack of performance, but because I figured I was really pushing my luck.

I've never used one since, or used one for any other purpose. I was pretty impressed.
posted by waldo at 7:22 AM on July 28, 2005

The first computer I had was an emachines. If it were any more a piece of crap it would have been literally a piece of crap. The power supply failed twice; the modem quit working twice; and the CD player as well. This was just typical useage I was putting it through--spreadsheets, some HTML editing, the occasional videogame--nothing spectacular. Shutting it down at night, because it was noisy. The machine was also extremely slow (you could watch it draw the screen after you logged on); after about a year of frustration with it I uninstalled Windows, reformatted the hard drive, and installed a minimal Linux. Still slow. The box is sitting in my garage now; I'd love to give it away but I'd feel guilty for it. I'm not even using the hard drive; I'm not sure any of the parts are worth a damn. I will never buy another emachines.
posted by Tuwa at 7:30 AM on July 28, 2005

I should add: that emachines in my garage, I bought it in late 1998 or early 1999, and any time it needed work I had to pack it up in the box it came in and send the tower back. That was a lame, frustrating, time-consuming and expensive solution.

Some people are saying eMachines has cleaned up since Gateway bought them. If so, great. Still, I've had enough experience with them, I think.
posted by Tuwa at 7:34 AM on July 28, 2005

we have two emachine laptops at home that are 2-3 years old. They are used mostly for word processing and web/email stuff. Never had a problem with them.
posted by jabberwock at 8:59 AM on July 28, 2005

I recall PC Magazine once observing that eMachines' computers were always the slowest of any group with identical processors that they tested.

On the other hand, two years ago my brother bought a refurb desktop made by them, and he has been pleased with it.
posted by pmurray63 at 9:47 AM on July 28, 2005

My eMachine has been in continuous service since May, 2002 with no problems whatsoever. It is a little noisy, though.
posted by Daddio at 10:46 AM on July 28, 2005

Funny you mention HP as a counterpoint. I have never had anything but horrible experience with HP computers. My baseline is Dell but I only ever use their support for hardware; I have no idea if they can answer a more complicated/subtle problem question.
posted by phearlez at 12:26 PM on July 28, 2005

you need to care more about AMD vs Intel and Radeon vs. GeForce more than you should worry about Gateway or eMachines or HP vs whomever.

No, you don't.
posted by angry modem at 6:48 PM on July 28, 2005