G5 in an iMac 89
babbage writes "I recently bought a Power Mac G5, and when I registered it with Apple, I was offered a free subscription to MacWorld. When signing up for the subscription, one of the questions you're asked is which Apple product you purchased most recently, and one of the items on the list was 'iMac G5.' Does the MacWorld marketing department know something that the rest of us don't?" Maybe they had seen the page that incognito writes about: "Over at AppleFritter, there's an awesome mod that changes an ordinary iMac into a mini version of the aluminum G5 tower. There were lots of details in the creator's work that leads to a very polished final product."
Or maybe.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This being said, are there any technical reasons a G5 could not be stuffed into an iMac console?
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:5, Funny)
So, what you are saying is that you can cram G5 hardware into an iMac case. However, you should put metal trays below it to catch the rivulets of melting plastic so they don't damage the finish on your desk.
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While they do run warm (and certainly warmer than the G4s used in iMacs, eMacs and PowerBooks), they are still run cooler than most x86 chips, such as the Athlon XP and Pentium 4. The large heatsinks and elaborate cooling system in the PowerMac G5 are more to do with keeping the system cool quietly rather than trying to deal with some non-existent nuclear furnace CPU trapped inside the aluminium case. Remember, any kid with a screwdriver and $30 can keep a raging 3.6GHz Pentium 4 throwing out 100W of heat cool enough to run stably. However, it sounds like a cyclone.
The challenge with the G5 was not keeping it cool...that's easy. It was keeping it cool and quiet. That is the origin of the G5's elaborate cooling system. Don't misattribute it.
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:5, Informative)
G5 is cooler than a P4 (Score:4, Informative)
The reason we don't have the G5s in everything is that it takes a lot of time to design, fab, and test motherboards for Apple's designs. Also, the 970FX is coming soon, and it's much cooler than the straight 970, so there's no rush to move to the current series of CPU.
Re:G5 is cooler than a P4 (Score:2)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose given the jet engine sound my G5 at work makes, it would be possible to fit all of that in a similar form factor but the sound would kill the mood.
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:2)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:2)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:1)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:3, Funny)
You ought to be smacked!
And yes.. watercooling is inherantly quieter - but requires annoying and expensive pH tests and monthly chlorine flushes.
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:2)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:4, Informative)
The current (official) name for the iMac is "iMac G4", to differentiate from the original G3-based iMac, so the typo probably happened with that number right next to the 4.
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:1, Redundant)
Yeah. That's it. [slashdot.org].
I don't know what's going on here, but there's more to it than a simple typo. This was done deliberately; whether it was thought-through or accurate is a different matter, but it wasn't done on accident.
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The form was a dropdown list, the HTML source for which was:
This doesn't seem to have been a typo.
I'd post the URL, but I can't tell if they have my information encoded in it, so I'd rather not.
As a substitute, I'll leave up a screenshot [homeip.net] for a little while. Astute readers will pick up on the fact that the URL is on a buysub.com server -- I have no idea who they are, but that's the URL that Apple's subscription invitation sent me to, and it seems to be legit.
(Now, i'm trying to be generous here, but please don't melt my puny server. If the load gets too bad I'll have to shut it down, so if there's interest in seeing that screenshot, mirrors would be welcome.)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:3, Interesting)
A good observation, but one I'm not sure how to interpret. They want it to appear on the form, but they aren't actually gathering the data if you select that. I'm not sure why they would do that...
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Notice what's missing from that list? What if I wanted to choose a PowerMac G5?
Anonymous Joe
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:2)
The only thing I have in support of this is that the value for Other is the same, so they wouldn't know which you chose.
Stupidity filter (Score:1)
Caller: My printer won't work.
Help Desk: I see you have an iMac G5; have you taken the computer out of the box yet?
Caller: What? What box? It's in a box?
Help Desk: Let me transfer you to someone who specializes in printer issues.
Re:Or maybe.... (Score:1)
I Call Shennanigans (Score:3, Insightful)
This story might be relevant as a Macrumors page 2 article.
Re:I Call Shennanigans (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I Call Shennanigans (Score:2)
It's not that there is a G5 iMac now... (Score:5, Insightful)
WWDC should be interesting, since the G5 boxes are overdue for a speedbump, and the iLamp, er, iMac LCD, is also overdue for a refresh. However, since the current iMac's motherboard is based on the powerbook's, I'm not 100% positive that there will be a G5 iMac announced in San Francisco.
Re:It's not that there is a G5 iMac now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'll be happy enough to see iMac G4 with 128 MB Radeon 9700 available in current crop of high-end powerbooks. Lame video card always kept me from buying an iMac G4 (32 MB GeForce MX? And that's supposed to be a $1300 home computer?). The current powerbook upgrade was more a GPU rather than CPU upgrade and as for me, I'm happy with that. I'd rather have a 1.5 GHz G4 with 128 MB Radeon 9700 than 2 GHz G5 with el cheapo video card.
Re:It's not that there is a G5 iMac now... (Score:2)
Re:It's not that there is a G5 iMac now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably True (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/05/20040510
well we know... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:well we know... (Score:1, Redundant)
Yeah. That's it. [slashdot.org].
I don't know what's going on here, but there's more to it than a simple typo...
it's a typo (Score:5, Informative)
G5 iMac will happen sooner or later, perhaps WWDC next month. but there's nothing here... it's simply a typo.
Re:it's a typo (Score:4, Informative)
It was posted on January 9th 2004, I noticed it on the macworld site a few Months prior to that but most rumor sites picked it up in January when MacRumors did.
It's pretty simple (Score:3, Informative)
No.
Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cube (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly the type of product Apple needs a scaled down version of the PowerMac G5. The full size machines should all be dual processor and the PowerMac G5 mini should be single processor.
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet the dismal sales figures say... not so much.
Some people want a Cube, obviously, but not enough of them to make it worth Apple's while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, they had a few well-publicized flaws that made them unappealing... A hair-trigger on/off switch and a lucite case prone to cracks.
Apple could do well to make a low-end "cube", a cheap and portable desktop without the screen. Include iLife and a Superdrive and it could be sold as a multi-purpose media box, a component of the home entertainment system.
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy it. The whole G4 series and the currently shipping monitors have these. (Well, the G4s have the same mechanical power switches the G5's have, but the monitors have touch-sensitive switches, and when the monitor's plugged it, its switch controls the sleep/wake behavior of the computer, just like the mechanical switch on the computer itself does.)
Apple could do well to make a low-end "cube", a cheap and portable desktop without the screen.
Don't buy that, either. Remember, in order to be successful, Apple has to sell hundreds of thousands of units a month of whatever products they're making. The demand for the kind of niche box you describe just isn't there.
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:2)
Have you actually used a Cube? The button was on top, larger and more conspicuous... Waving your hand past it would shut the machine down.
Don't
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:3, Interesting)
The button on a monitor is right there, glowing invitingly. And it's also very sensitive, just like a Cube's. Maybe it's slightly less sensitive, but not in practical terms.
How is an iMac or eMac without a screen a "niche box"?
We're going around in circles here. Apple floated the idea: it failed. Why would they float it again? What in the marketplace has changed?
Lo
Rise & Fall (& Rise?) of the Cube (Score:4, Insightful)
It was kewl with the Cube your didn't even need to touch the darn thing. Then it got confusing. Then oftentimes annoying. (Note to Ives: Don't put proximity switches close to the CD slot...)
As to why the Cube tanked there were actually two reasons, or at least, one depending on the other. Yeah, bang-for-buck it was lacking, unless you took your stylin' bang real seriously. The other was that it was a machine ahead of it's time, or more clearly, ahead of it's OS.
The Cube was built to run MacOS X. And it didn't have it. Clearly it was meant to be the next-gen machine with the next-gen OS. Power switch? Why would you turn off a MacOS X box? At most you'd put it to sleep. Big empty box? That's so... "Wintel". Small, sleek, clever design, that's a unix workstation.
So yeah, it sucked that the Cube didn't have the OS it was designed for. Apple's hardware got ahead of their software. Or, more accurately, their OS development took a lot longer then they'd anticipated. So the Cube was half of a shiny pairing that never happened.
Of course there were lessons learned too. Yeah, high price point and no expandability aren't a good combination. But look at the desire the Cube still creates in folks! There's still no PC design that inspires such comment or techno-lust. Clearly Apple was onto something, something they've since assiduously applied across all of their lines. Not just stand-out-from-the-crowd looks, but smooth, sleek, glossy vs matte, "high end". Technology as sculpture.
Would a Cube Jr. make it in today's market? Possibly. Actually I'd more expect an eCube: small workstations schools and the like could use, booting off an X-Serve. Nothing terribly exciting feature-wise but field-maintainable, cheap, and very robust. Plug any junk monitor the school has sitting around, keep that investment, but replace the PC "big box" with something paperback book sized, quiet, and secured.
There's probably a good market there. Same as the eMac; if it takes off it could be made a consumer product too. Heck, even an enterprise product paired with XServes (thin client, anyone?). Build for an assured market: .edu. If others demand it sell it to 'em too. As long as it pays back it's R&D, manufacturing capital, and doesn't seriously cannibalize other sales, yeah, go for it.
(Expandability? Put support for peripherals being virtualized in MacOS. USB & FireWire ports redirected across the network so only a few well-cared-for devices are needed per room, or even per site. Not terribly hard but very impressive.)
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:4, Interesting)
The "cracks" were a myth. A few people who bought cubes decided that mold lines (which are present on just about all plastic products) were cracks - and the rumor spread.
That rumor IS what caused the cube to fail in the market, though. They were selling like crazy at the Apple dealer where I work until that story broke, then sales dropped to almost nothing.
I also think you're underestimating the market for a cheap headless Mac. If Apple were to ship something in the $500 range (with a useable configuration below $700) I think Apple could take a significant share of the home market. Many people want to pay nearly nothing for a computer, and Apple has no offering in that market segment - even though they've got the best value in the high end of the market.
I think a $500 box with a G4 (or even a slow G5 - if you underclock them, they're cooler and cheaper than a G4) would sell well - the only problem for Apple would be capacity to build enough of them.
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:2)
Excuse me? What about the eMac? It is DAMN cheap to me an Apple, and here it stands out like the really, really, really good computer alternative in the sub 10 000 NOK (=1500 USD approx.) class. Weighing in at 1084,82 USD, that's not bad compared to the alternatives. Crappy Wintel boxes from no-name manufacturers or the low level Del
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying it isn't near the price range that a headless cheap mac would need to be in, but it isn't quite there. I've sold several of them, but the problems with the eMac are:
1. it's not headless. If there's a screen/analog board failure, the entire computer goes down. And screen/analog board failures are not nearly rare enough on eMacs. It's one of the most common warranty repairs we do at the Apple dealer where I work.
2. it's not headless. the screen adds to the cost of the system, and some people like to be able to upgrade components without having to replace an entire computer.
3. it has NO internal expansion capability. This isn't a problem for some users, but it would be nice for others to be able to add one or two PCI cards, and maybe a second hard drive.
4. it's not easily serviceable. I've been inside enough of them to know this firsthand.
5. it's just not cheap enough. Dell offers a configuration at $499 - yeah, it's garbage, but it's there. Apple REALLY needs to have something at that price point, even if it's a G3 with a CD-ROM drive and 17" external CRT.
Apple's biggest problem at this point is marketshare - to get developers to the platform.
You don't have to tell me about the lower TCO - I've seen it firsthand, I won't sell wintel, and I don't like having to service it. (I won't touch wintel if I'm not already in a location to work on a Mac.) But many people don't look at TCO, they just see the lower initial price on the low-end hardware and won't buy Macintosh.
apple juice? (Score:2)
I'm sorry... Apple should make a what?
a cheap and portable desktop
What was that first part?
cheap
Expensive?
cheee -ap
Ex-pensive?
Joking aside, I really liked the Cube, but I don't think the expense (or the cracks - which I've never actually seen in real life Cube) was the whole story. I think people took one look at the Cube and just thought 'there is no way that is a powerful computer. It looks
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem was that the combination of a cube and an LCD screen was prohibitively expensive (at least in education); and buying a cube with a CRT monitor defeated the purpose.
At the end of its lifespan, when the price of cube+LCD became more attractive, we bought (or at least ordered, I don't recall if we ordered them in time) several of them.
Nowadays, the people who would have purchased a cube purchase an iMac. Not because the iMac is cheaper than the tower, but because it has a small footprint and looks nice on the desktop and isn't overly expensive compared to the tower.
I'm not sure who in our area would want a headless iMac. The clients who want headless computers also want easy access to RAM, they want PCI cards, they want a tower.
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:4, Interesting)
As a form factor, the Cube was good (although I hope any replacement would have room for a decent dized AGP card).
However, they were stupidly priced, which is why they weren't very popular.
People want small powerful computers but not the attached LCD screens in the iMacs.
I think one of the smartest things Apple could do would be to make the iMac screen detacheable and simultaneously revamp their display lineup. The engineering behind making a single LCD screen that can either attach to an iMac or a base with ADC, DVI and VGA inputs (and a USB hub) should be trivial. Added to that, doing so would simultaneously reduce their overall production costs and widen their product line to fill a niche.
Re:Popularity of miniATX is validation for the Cub (Score:1)
Won't work. (Score:2, Interesting)
But then they would have to design a base and sell it separately. And worry ab
Re:Won't work. (Score:3, Interesting)
They have to do this for their desktop LCDs anyway.
[...] and making it forward compatible to future LCDs
Apple have never been particularly bothered with forward, backward or cross compatibility in the past - I can't imagine why you think they'd suddenly have to if they did this.
The LCD mount on an iMac is very sturdy, and has to be since people manhandle it all day.
Doing a mod (Score:5, Funny)
I used 2mm and 1mm thick Polystyrene plastic sheets. I got them in sizes of 2x1 metres from a local reseller and I use it to build accessories for my model planes and dioramas
I'm not geeky enough
Certainly a typo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Certainly a typo (Score:2, Funny)
- iSee Express, 'Blind even got blinder.'
- iSee Pro, 'I see dead people'
- i, i, i, And a bottle of iRum.
- iFuckedup (Microsoft simulator)
- iSpy (voluntary spyware for the Mac)
- iGuess (If you really must run Microsoft Office)
- iWon't (i386)
- iCan (because I...)
- iCowboyNeal
It's a G3 in a Powermac (Score:5, Informative)
It's been there a long time (Score:3, Informative)
Reminds of a Dave Barry column... (Score:4, Funny)
iMac G5 "im Anflug" ?!? (Score:2)
Perhaps there is a code breaker out there who can decypher it.
Re:iMac G5 "im Anflug" ?!? (Score:5, Informative)
According to Babelfish, it just seems to be a tech news site parroting a rumor. Here's the Babelfish version of the article [altavista.com], with mild corrections where I can [in brackets]:
So, nothing to see here, no "codes" to break... :-/
iMac G5 a certainty (Score:4, Interesting)
The G5 is a less expensive chip, easy to cool if you underclock it, and should be a good choice for the iMac and eMac very soon.
(think about it - it's quite possibly costing Apple more money for the iMac processor chips than the G5 tower chips. that alone is a good reason to switch chips.)
Re:iMac G5 a certainty (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably yes.
Doesn't everyone have an iMac G5? (Score:1, Funny)
the site has been screwed up for a while (Score:2, Informative)
More Like... (Score:2)