G5 iMac?

[MacRumors]

Despite the seeming lull in product releases in the past few months, according to sources, Apple has been hard at work on upcoming releases...

Most specifically, sources report that a PowerPC G5 based iMac is in the works and should represent the next iMac revision.

As with many of Apple's revisions, sources are unable to provide a specific timeframe for release, but iMacs are due for a revision. The iMac was last updated in November 2003.

[365]

Despite the seeming lull in product releases in the past few months, according to sources, Apple has been hard at work on upcoming releases...

Most specifically, sources report that a PowerPC G5 based iMac is in the works and should represent the next iMac revision.

As with many of Apple's revisions, sources are unable to provide a specific timeframe for release, but iMacs are due for a revision. The iMac was last updated in November 2003.


Stick me down for one of those :D

[mj_1903]

Hmm, so it seems this might be the update cycle:
WWDC 2003 - PowerMac G5
WWDC 2004 - iMac G5
WWDC 2005 - PowerBook G5
WWDC 2006 - iBook G5

Hey, why not? ;)

[LimeLite]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

[Belly-laughs]

iMac G5 1.8 with 20" LCD at $2,199.00 would be highly appreciated.

[Frisco]

I think Apple knows the iMac is dead without a G5 in it. The sooner Apple goes G5 the better. I don't think they should wait for the Powerbooks to have the G5 first even though the iMac is a consumer machine, because the main distinction between the 2 is portability.

The two other questions are:

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

[MacsRgr8]

Not a Page 2 rumor?

Hmmm....

[wrldwzrd89]

This is a pleasant surprise... I was expecting the 1.5 GHz G4 to be put in the iMac before the G5s made it there. (Yes, I am an iMac owner - but I'm not annoyed by iMac updates. After all, they're inevitable - unless Apple goes out of business). Of course, these G5 iMacs would be single-processor since they're consumer-level machines. I'm also not expecting these to appear until after WWDC, assuming the PowerMacs get updated then.

[Veldek]

Hmm, imagine this at WWDC 2004:

Power Mac G5 DP 2.2GHz, DP 2.6GHz, DP 3.0GHZ

iMac G5 SP 2.2GHz, SP 2.6GHz, SP 3.0GHz

Yummy! I know, it’s just a dream and won’t happen but Apple would finally be competitive again.

[BornAgainMac]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

Desktops are usually faster than laptops. The DVD Burners are slower on the powerbooks compared to the iMac except for the last update. The iMac is too expensive to be consumer anymore. Currently, it's like a semi-pro system with less than semi-pro specs. TThe eMac is the real consumer Mac.

The powerbook could be considered pro simply by it's weight, formfactor, design and not it's CPU.

[KC9AIC]

I think this would make PowerMac updates inevitable and inject life into the stagnant iMac line. Good.

[Ambrose Chapel]

wasn't there a quote from a few weeks ago by some Apple VP about WWDC 2004 having announcements on par with last year's? this would sure fit...

[Knox]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

Wait a minute here, you're complaining that Apple are going to put a faster processor in one of their products? That must be a first ;)

It makes perfect sense to me - it's much easier to do as you said, and IIRC the iMac isn't selling as well as they thought so needs a boost. What doesn't make sense is to delay the G5 iMac just because an unrelated product - the Powerbook, which is in no way competiting with the iMac - doesn't have the same processor.

[Nermal]

A G5 iMac will make my Power Mac G4 look even worse :(

I don't understand how the current eMac and the current Power Mac G4 can have almost identical specs, yet the Power Mac is about NZ$1000 more.

On the other hand, any advance is an improvement :)

[punkmac]

I have posted my ideas on this in the past.

The new iMac will have to be something worth the effort, or it will be DOA.

I thought G5 but now that Powerbooks received 1.5s, i'm thinking that's what they will get. Knowing Apple's track record.

The powerbook has been more a portible IMAC more than a POWERMAC!

It will be nice to be shocked.

I.

[oldpismo]

At last, something to make the iMac appealing. Hopefully it will be at least a 1.8, though anything would be good.

I'll take one as soon as they reach the UK (though I'd much rather pay US prices - any reason a US one wouldn't work over here?)

[Knox]

I don't understand how the current eMac and the current Power Mac G4 can have almost identical specs, yet the Power Mac is about NZ$1000 more.

Multiple/larger monitors, PCI cards, multiple hard drives, more RAM (i think), internal ZIP drive. Plus a different target market. :)

[paxtonandrew]

I think Apple knows the iMac is dead without a G5 in it. The sooner Apple goes G5 the better. I don't think they should wait for the Powerbooks to have the G5 first even though the iMac is a consumer machine, because the main distinction between the 2 is portability.

The two other questions are:

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.


The reason that Apple is still running as a company, is the fact of the all-in-one style of the iMac. The sheer invebtivness of the iMac saved Apple from closure, and the look is a classic one. A headless iMac will never be a REAL iMac, but some PMG(4,5) for consumer use, Apple will never stand for this, but a new computer, with the consumer marketability of a PC (Computer in one box, monitor seperate, and a PC competing price (consumer level) will do well)

[rdowns]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

Maybe Apple is finally taking its head out of its ass with regard to marketing. Holding back one line for another is ridiculous. If they can get the G5 working in an iMac before a PB, then you do it and sell it. For the prices Apple charges for these machines, "consumers" (a whole different argument, these are hardly consumer machines, they are high end boxes with high end prices) deserve high end hardware. I say slap the fastest G5 you can in there and watch the sales skyrocket. Count me in for one and one for my parents as well.

[garybUK]

I think they may remove the SP 1.6 Powermac G5 from the line and put the 1.6 and 1.8 in the iMac's, 1.6 15", 1.8 17" and 1.8 20" Also maybe they may update the Graphics to the 9700 like the powerbook? this is obviously available for embedding in their fab plants.

As it stands the current 1.6ghz G5 Powermac is a real attractive deal its £1,399 + say £100 for a 19" CRT Monitor and youve got yourself a cheaper computer than the imac.

Hopefully they may drop the prices a little on the imac. Also provide a Line In for use with garageband ?? :)

Ooh its like waiting for xmas day with apple's events, which other company generates such hype? i love it.

[aswitcher]

I think Apple knows the iMac is dead without a G5 in it. The sooner Apple goes G5 the better. I don't think they should wait for the Powerbooks to have the G5 first even though the iMac is a consumer machine, because the main distinction between the 2 is portability.

I agree, the iMac with a 1.5Ghz G4 is not really going to cut it. Maybe a year ago but now for a Pro-Sumer machine they need to do something pretty significant to adderss what has been a year + of sliding sales.
G5 is the answer. A 1.6 even would be fine, because it fixes the problem of the slow bus, allows for 4 sticks of faster ram, beefs up the processor etc etc.

But knowing Apple a little, I do wonder if they will ignore consumers and bring out a lame duck iMac upgrade to cover the rest of the year until they can bring out the PB G5 at the same time. That would be a huge waste in my mind for some sort of tidy minded thinking about the requirements of the power line.



The two other questions are:

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.


Headless...I would be happy to see it but I doubt it. They might do some magical re-engineering and bring out a detachable normal mac screen on the imac arm...which would serve both the standard market and those looking for a headless unit...


Upgradable...thats a tougher call. I very much doubt it. Of course they would always allow access to the ram slots, possibly the graphics card?, hard disk? and a pci slot or two, but it would be a big change for the imac line...

[BakedBeans]

At last, something to make the iMac appealing. Hopefully it will be at least a 1.8, though anything would be good.

I'll take one as soon as they reach the UK (though I'd much rather pay US prices - any reason a US one wouldn't work over here?)


no reason hy it wouldnt work

its just gettin it over to the uk

i might snap one up if they make a 17inch superdrive 1.8 G5 for £1250

[aswitcher]

I say slap the fastest G5 you can in there and watch the sales skyrocket. Count me in for one and one for my parents as well.


I agree, if they take the approach of maxing the iMac out as much as possible for the new form factor, then I would be very happy to see a form factor that allowed them to basically put a maxed out single processor G5PB into the new iMac. To keep this unit smaller though I doubt it will have any readily accessibly parts, expansion slots etc

My parents are also on hold to switch to macs, pending what happens to the iMac...

[tom.96]

I've been wondering whether we would see a 1.5ghz G4 (maybe with a price cut) or a G5 imac. I think that a G5 imac would be excellent, and would like to see other impressive features to match, such as a 128mb graphics chip in the 20".

I know people are saying that the imac was updated in Nov (I think) but processor speeds haven't been updated for longer - was it September? Can't remember.

Anyway, G5 imac = good thing. :)

[Windowlicker]

sounds good.. when they release g5 imacs there has to be pm g5 announcements too :)

[rdowns]

I agree, if they take the approach of maxing the iMac out as much as possible for the new form factor, then I would be very happy to see a form factor that allowed them to basically put a maxed out single processor G5PB into the new iMac. To keep this unit smaller though I doubt it will have any readily accessibly parts, expansion slots etc

My parents are also on hold to switch to macs, pending what happens to the iMac...

Talk about timing. My parents were at my house yesterday for Mother's Day along with my brother and his kids. Took a ton of digital pics of the kids and then we all huddled around my Mac. Plugged in the camera, clicked import and then publish to a .Mac site. All were in awe. My father then asked when I was upgrading and giving him my computer (as I have promised) so he could do stuff like this. His Performa with 32MB and OS 8.6 just isn't cutting it. I replied, when Apple finally releases a G5 iMac, he'll have my computer within a week. I showed them some cool OS X stuff also. After talking about what a G5 iMac would likely be, he told me to order him one when I order mine.

Please let this rumor be true.

[rdowns]

I know people are saying that the imac was updated in Nov (I think) but processor speeds haven't been updated for longer - was it September? Can't remember.

Anyway, G5 imac = good thing. :)

Slapping a 20" LCD on an exisitng CPU is hardly an upgrade in my book. Regardless of the last CPU speed bump, the new eMac makes the current line look anemic.

[appleface]

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

is the headless imac wonderful because you don't need to buy an expense apple lcd to go with your computer or because you don't need to buy an expensive apple lcd to go with you computer and the computer is beautifully designed? if the former is true, it seems like you could get a refurb, last gen, pm. the low ends (1.6 with dvd-burner) are $1400 right now through apple. (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71301/wo/gO7aNspOGAN02vlKCmbvq3sjsVN/0.0.7.1.0.5.13.0.3.0.0.0.0.3.1.1.0?117,21). if the latter is true, then i'm with you; a headless imac would be appreciated.

maybe steve still has nightmares about the cube.

[chasingapple]

Bring it on! Good for the future buyers of iMacs!

[Abstract]

The next iMac upgrade won't be completely to the G5. It'll be:

17" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with combo drive
17" G4 1.5 Ghz iMac with superdrive.
20" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with superdrive.
20" G5 1.6 GHz iMac with superdrive.

[virividox]

i hope they release the pm g5, imac g5, and pbg5 in quick succession, maybe the pb g5 1 month after

[aswitcher]

The next iMac upgrade won't be completely to the G5. It'll be:

17" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with combo drive
17" G4 1.5 Ghz iMac with superdrive.
20" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with superdrive.
20" G5 1.6 GHz iMac with superdrive.


They can't possibly fit a G5 in the current form factor from what people have said about cooling and motherboard issues. Which begs the question, why keep the G4?

I take it this is a guess on your part?

[aswitcher]

After talking about what a G5 iMac would likely be, he told me to order him one when I order mine.

Please let this rumor be true.


:D Yeah, a maxed out G5iMac will be pretty sweet

[reyesmac]

I think Apple knows the iMac is dead without a G5 in it.
1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?
2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?
These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

I think if you expect Apple to do those things you are in for a disappointment. The G5 iMac will probably be a 1.6 G5. So it will only be an average speed-bump. If they put a 2ghz G5 inside it will only be on the $2,000+ model so no big deal there. The iMac will always be a year or two behind in speed compared to the Powermac.
A headless iMac would be introduced as a completely different computer line. The upgradability will be the same with the exception of ram.
When the G5 iMac will come out it will be a nice deal. But it will soon become no big deal because they wont keep updating it, just like the current iMac is. The price should still be the same for it, even if it was a hundred less it wont matter after about 4 months.
All of this may sound like I hate the iMac but I think if Apple just advertises the thing more and shows what a decent computer it is it would sell more. But they don't bother so I wont either.

[centauratlas]

They'll be out on Tuesday. (Not necessarily THIS Tuesday of course).

[thatwendigo]

I knew I'd have to do this before WWDC...

To answer some of the common questions, from a commons sense standpoint, as well as a bit of reading:

The G5 chip and support systems:
At current design and performance, the G5 1.6 adds far more heat than the G4, but without an appreciable rise in performance. Even the 970FX doesn't do much to fix this, nor does using a G5 1.8ghz.
The redesign would still be space-constrained, meaning it's extremely unlikely that more than two RAM slots would be available, and that kills a huge part of the advantage of the 64-bit processor.
PCI, PCI-X, or an atual AGP slot would mean a much bigger enclosure, largely killing the small form factor and elegance.
Heat to performance, the G4 is more efficient. 1.5Gh at 12-14 watts, versus 1.6ghz at 18-20w, with the 7447A basically keeping up. Until 64-bit math becomes common in consumer machines, this is a pointless and somewhat backwards decision.
Increasing the RAM speed, graphics card, and other systems on top of the chip means even more heat... Good luck getting rid of it.

Headlessness/Upgradability:
There's little point to this, unless Apple is planning on just making a minitower case, because expandability would be so limited. If they're going to make a consumer minitower, they might as well kill the iMac outright and do it right.
The form factor in current use would have to be severely altered to allow it to be upgraded, resulting in a complete redesign, rather than just a motherboard change. This is assuming that they come up with a way to remove the heat without significantly raising the noise level.

Price:
Short of a manufacturing miracle, there isn't going to be a cheaper iMac. They're going to be using newer parts, and while the G5 supposedly costs less per unit than the G4, the other aspects will certainly make up for that.
A removable display will be ridiculously expensive, barring another miracle. LCDs are already somewhat expensive when compared to regular monitors, but such a custom one will almost certainly be even more. Also... Just how are you expecting there to be a cordless LCD? Cheap?

[MhzDoesMatter]

A G5 in an iMac would have nothing to do with marketing. Potential customers don't know the difference between a g5 and a g4. They don't know that a g4 is considered a lesser chip to the macworld. Because no one knows anything about technology besides what they are told. And since what little marketing Apple does says the iMac is still good, then thats all they know.

Stop thinking the general (dare i say normal) public follows the development of a microprocessor like their mortgage interest rates. The rest of the world doesn't think like MacRumors readers. And no one buys a mac for its processor.

-Hertz

[Skypat]

Anyway, the next generation iMac (G5) will have to be different : news design, cooler looks (the current line is too cold); as attractive as the first generation was and less expensive than today's iMacs.

G5 1.6 and 1.8 Ghz, with 17 ou 20" (no more 15" because 15" monitors are too expensive to produce). :p

[BakedBeans]

I knew I'd have to do this before WWDC...

To answer some of the common questions, from a commons sense standpoint, as well as a bit of reading:

The G5 chip and support systems:
At current design and performance, the G5 1.6 adds far more heat than the G4, but without an appreciable rise in performance. Even the 970FX doesn't do much to fix this, nor does using a G5 1.8ghz.
The redesign would still be space-constrained, meaning it's extremely unlikely that more than two RAM slots would be available, and that kills a huge part of the advantage of the 64-bit processor.
PCI, PCI-X, or an atual AGP slot would mean a much bigger enclosure, largely killing the small form factor and elegance.
Heat to performance, the G4 is more efficient. 1.5Gh at 12-14 watts, versus 1.6ghz at 18-20w, with the 7447A basically keeping up. Until 64-bit math becomes common in consumer machines, this is a pointless and somewhat backwards decision.
Increasing the RAM speed, graphics card, and other systems on top of the chip means even more heat... Good luck getting rid of it.

Headlessness/Upgradability:
There's little point to this, unless Apple is planning on just making a minitower case, because expandability would be so limited. If they're going to make a consumer minitower, they might as well kill the iMac outright and do it right.
The form factor in current use would have to be severely altered to allow it to be upgraded, resulting in a complete redesign, rather than just a motherboard change. This is assuming that they come up with a way to remove the heat without significantly raising the noise level.

Price:
Short of a manufacturing miracle, there isn't going to be a cheaper iMac. They're going to be using newer parts, and while the G5 supposedly costs less per unit than the G4, the other aspects will certainly make up for that.
A removable display will be ridiculously expensive, barring another miracle. LCDs are already somewhat expensive when compared to regular monitors, but such a custom one will almost certainly be even more. Also... Just how are you expecting there to be a cordless LCD? Cheap?

As you have answer to EVERYTHING what do you think will happen

i think there will be a imac g5 at 1.6 1.8 and 2.0

if apple want to sell any then they better had put a g5 in there.. cos alot of people wont bother upgrading for a 1.5 g4

[DIO]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.
Couldn't agree more

[cube]

What's the point if you cannot install more than 4 GiB of memory?
Should use faster G4.

[rdowns]

I knew I'd have to do this before WWDC...

To answer some of the common questions, from a commons sense standpoint, as well as a bit of reading:

The G5 chip and support systems:
At current design and performance, the G5 1.6 adds far more heat than the G4, but without an appreciable rise in performance. Even the 970FX doesn't do much to fix this, nor does using a G5 1.8ghz.
The redesign would still be space-constrained, meaning it's extremely unlikely that more than two RAM slots would be available, and that kills a huge part of the advantage of the 64-bit processor.
PCI, PCI-X, or an atual AGP slot would mean a much bigger enclosure, largely killing the small form factor and elegance.
Heat to performance, the G4 is more efficient. 1.5Gh at 12-14 watts, versus 1.6ghz at 18-20w, with the 7447A basically keeping up. Until 64-bit math becomes common in consumer machines, this is a pointless and somewhat backwards decision.
Increasing the RAM speed, graphics card, and other systems on top of the chip means even more heat... Good luck getting rid of it.

Headlessness/Upgradability:
There's little point to this, unless Apple is planning on just making a minitower case, because expandability would be so limited. If they're going to make a consumer minitower, they might as well kill the iMac outright and do it right.
The form factor in current use would have to be severely altered to allow it to be upgraded, resulting in a complete redesign, rather than just a motherboard change. This is assuming that they come up with a way to remove the heat without significantly raising the noise level.

Price:
Short of a manufacturing miracle, there isn't going to be a cheaper iMac. They're going to be using newer parts, and while the G5 supposedly costs less per unit than the G4, the other aspects will certainly make up for that.
A removable display will be ridiculously expensive, barring another miracle. LCDs are already somewhat expensive when compared to regular monitors, but such a custom one will almost certainly be even more. Also... Just how are you expecting there to be a cordless LCD? Cheap?

Is there any subject you don't fancy yourself an "expert".

You have no idea what is/has been going on in Apple labs and for how long they have been working on putting a G5 in an iMac. We have all read the supposed problems with heat dissipation, FSB, memory controller ad nauseum. It wouldn't shock us if Apple has worked through these problems.

Would love to stick around and watch you parse every post but I have a plane to catch.

[aswitcher]

I knew I'd have to do this before WWDC...

To answer some of the common questions, from a commons sense standpoint, as well as a bit of reading:

The G5 chip and support systems:
At current design and performance, the G5 1.6 adds far more heat than the G4, but without an appreciable rise in performance. Even the 970FX doesn't do much to fix this, nor does using a G5 1.8ghz.
The redesign would still be space-constrained, meaning it's extremely unlikely that more than two RAM slots would be available, and that kills a huge part of the advantage of the 64-bit processor.
PCI, PCI-X, or an atual AGP slot would mean a much bigger enclosure, largely killing the small form factor and elegance.
Heat to performance, the G4 is more efficient. 1.5Gh at 12-14 watts, versus 1.6ghz at 18-20w, with the 7447A basically keeping up. Until 64-bit math becomes common in consumer machines, this is a pointless and somewhat backwards decision.
Increasing the RAM speed, graphics card, and other systems on top of the chip means even more heat... Good luck getting rid of it.



- I think they can cool it. New elegant form factor with clever use of convection and quite fans should do the trick
- I think only 2 RAM slots would be a waste for a prosumer machine. Dual channel is what helps the G5 go fast.

They will go G5...its inevitable. The fact they haven't done anything really with the iMac for so long bodes well to see G5 the next time round.

[Zaty]

I do belive that we'll see new iMacs pretty soon, I'm actually surprised that Apple hasn't released new iMacs yet. After the recent updates, the iMac is in desperate need of a speed bump. While I'm still not convinced the next revision will already have G5s, I'd say the more time passes without updates, the greater chances get that the next revision will have G5s. As for the argument, Apple wouldn't put a G5 into an iMac before the announcement of a PB G5, normally they wouldn't, but there are many pieces of information suggesting PBs G5 are a long way off. So if technically feasible, I really don't think Apple can't afford to keep G5s from the iMac just because it's a consumer line. If they did, it would be incredibly stupid.

[LaMerVipere]

If it came out at WWDC, I might buy one of those and not a PowerBook. I would definitely be at the computer a lot less if I was back using a desktop again as opposed to my current iBook G4, it's truly a curse when it comes to productivity, all I do is surf the web (and can do so all the time and anywhere) and avoid doing work!

That being said, a G5 iMac, I would love. Bring it on Apple!

[Mr. Anderson]

Regardless of what speed G5 the iMac gets, it will be a significant improvement and something that will sell quite well. I'd imagine there would be a huge delay in shipping :D

I'll be getting one for my wife and another for my mother-in-law....both are needing new machines and I've been making them wait until the G5 iMac comes out.

D

[freddiecable]

I have the same doubts...look at the PM G5 and all the fans and space...what happens when putting that cpu in the iMac - it's going to be "glowing" with heat :rolleyes:

They can't possibly fit a G5 in the current form factor from what people have said about cooling and motherboard issues. Which begs the question, why keep the G4?

I take it this is a guess on your part?

[AppleJustWorks]

I have the same doubts...look at the PM G5 and all the fans and space...what happens when putting that cpu in the iMac - it's going to be "glowing" with heat :rolleyes:

I agree with your statement...to some degree. When you look at the PM G5, you are looking at a processor, design and housing that is 9 months old...Needless to say, alot can happen in 9 months.....It may be technically feasible to put a G5 in an iMacs housing at this point in time.

[365]

Headless...I would be happy to see it but I doubt it. They might do some magical re-engineering and bring out a detachable normal mac screen on the imac arm...which would serve both the standard market and those looking for a headless unit...

Do you know I have thought this many times, the iMac monitor could have quite easily been attached via a VESA ( is that the right term? ) mounting. You then produce a desktop stand and hey presto you have monitor interchangeability and upgradeabilty for and between the tower and iMac ranges. I know this sounds simplistic but it is very viable.

[aswitcher]

Do you know I have thought this many times, the iMac monitor could have quite easily been attached via a VESA ( is that the right term? ) mounting. You then produce a desktop stand and hey presto you have monitor interchangeability and upgradeabilty for and between the tower and iMac ranges. I know this sounds simplistic but it is very viable.


If they were putting the new form factor/performance lcd screens on the imac then that would be another reason to delay until WWDC...

[x86isslow]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

ever heard of phil zimbardo's prison experiment? you are an example of what it proved: people take up roles that they are given and play them out. I assume you think of yourself as somekind of Pro-User. Apple's classification of iMac at some unfortunate point in its history as consumer model has now led to people claiming that Apple should cripple a computer so Powerbook can get a rush out of being 'Pro' with special access to Apple tech.

Oh, and Apple long since made iMac something other than consumer- the top of the line now costs 2200.

[Savage Henry]

I have fears that G5 will not find it's way into an iMac until 8 months after the G5 Powerbook. I don't think the 90nm G5 chip is small enough to fit in the current model and be properly vented.

Nor do I think they will make a detachable head. Such an concept would be, here is an all-in-one design with a substandard screen which you may want to change at a later date.

My prediction: G4 iMac 1.5ghz, and watch the share price tumble.

[365]

Nor do I think they will make a detachable head. Such an concept would be, here is an all-in-one design with a substandard screen which you may want to change at a later date.

My prediction: G4 iMac 1.5ghz, and watch the share price tumble.


I'd have to respectfully disagree, I think that having a detachable screen would send one message only which would be choice and upgradeability, it would also reduce significantly Apple's iMac inventory headache, rather than the current scenario where they have to produce a 15", 17" and 20" iMac, they could simply stock a one size fits all iMac box and ship your monitor of choice seperately.

I also think if we were going to see a 1.5Ghz iMac we would have already seen it by now. Hey but I've been wrong many times, I guess we'll have to watch this space, something we've all become very adept at.

[tny]

I have the same doubts...look at the PM G5 and all the fans and space...what happens when putting that cpu in the iMac - it's going to be "glowing" with heat :rolleyes:

Have you looked at the XServe form factor? 1U. With a G5. They've already made a lot of progress on the cooling issues.

I would expect a 17" iMac, a 20" iMac (both G5), and two iMac cubes with a single ADC or mini-DVI (with ADC > VGA extractor or mini-DVI/VGA connector; maybe G4, unless a very cheap 1.6 or 1.8 G5 were available), and on the cube a FireWire 800, a FireWire 400, four USB 2, ethernet, Airport Extreme, bluetooth, and priced 999/1299 (cubes), 1799/2199 (iMacs). No 15" iMac.

[oldpismo]

Surely if they were going to update the iMac with a G4 they would have done it at the same time they updated the eMac?

My guess would be a new form factor, with the light effect walls that were patented a couple of years ago.

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/12/20021227191929.shtml

[aswitcher]

I'd have to respectfully disagree, I think that having a detachable screen would send one message only which would be choice and upgradeability, it would also reduce significantly Apple's iMac inventory headache, rather than the current scenario where they have to produce a 15", 17" and 20" iMac, they could simply stock a one size fits all iMac box and ship your monitor of choice seperately.




I agree this would allow them to simplify their line.

Trick woould be getting an arm that could be adjusted to handle the 17, 20, and possibly even the 23...

[aswitcher]

Surely if they were going to update the iMac with a G4 they would have done it at the same time they updated the eMac?

My guess would be a new form factor, with the light effect walls that were patented a couple of years ago.

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/12/20021227191929.shtml


That would be pretty interesting if they managed that. I wonder though if they will go detachable/replaceable coloured hard shells like the mini ipods, much like shells you get for phones, to allow personalisation, but still leave plain white for those who like a more basic look...

[CmdrLaForge]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

I have a completly different opinion about that. In the end what counts for Apple are sales figures. Someone who needs a portable will get the Powerbook either way if a G5 iMac is available or not. But the current iMac sales have dropped significantly. Apple must do something here.

Getting a G5 iMac out is absolutly the right decision, get it out now ! It will use the same 970 processor thats currently used in the G5 PowerMac, so no yield issue here at IBM. I guess whats holding them is more the fact that currently no new PowerMacs are out.

Cheers

[365]

I agree this would allow them to simplify their line.

Trick woould be getting an arm that could be adjusted to handle the 17, 20, and possibly even the 23...

Yeah but I think that this would be a relatively simple task, it would have already been done in the PC world but for Apple, elegance of design will dictate whether it is ever brought to market.

[aswitcher]

Yeah but I think that this would be a relatively simple task, it would have already been done in the PC world but for Apple, elegance of design will dictate whether it is ever brought to market.


Maybe, but I just look at the 20" being ~10kg over the 17" and think they need to do it better than that next time. I imagine the base will have to be broader to accomodate these larger screens without going nutz on the ballast

[Savage Henry]

I agree this would allow them to simplify their line.

Trick woould be getting an arm that could be adjusted to handle the 17, 20, and possibly even the 23...


Certainly you and 365 may be onto something, as the all-in-one is a rather out of date concept that was good back in 98, but rather showing it's age as a tired idea.

But I really just can't see Apple abandoning that idea for a couple more years. I'd love to see a new form iMac (though I love my current one) if it meant better kit. But I still don't think the G5 will be involved in the next release, and hence neither will a screen-based form change. It's the pessimist in me.

However, if they actually do blow my socks, hat and any other loose apparel off with a new form iMac G5, then you'd struggle to keep my credit card in my wallet.

[macFanDave]

differentiate the iMac from the eMac. The differences between the two machines internally is so minute that the consumer decision to spend the extra $500 or so comes down to whether you like the floating screen that much better than the good ol' CRT iMac form.

Of course, with the eMac they've screwed up the nice 2x2 matrix (but they were willing to do that for the Cube), but I don't believe that the answer to the confused, mish-mosh of products that were available in the late 90's is an absolutely rigid matrix.

[wrldwzrd89]

I agree this would allow them to simplify their line.

Trick woould be getting an arm that could be adjusted to handle the 17, 20, and possibly even the 23...
I highly doubt Apple will try to put a 23" LCD on the iMac anytime soon. I also don't see the 15" iMac going away in the next update (what's all this nonsense about 15" screens being too costly to produce? After all, Apple needs them for the PowerBooks). In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple decides to put the faster G4s in the iMacs for the next revision and holds off on G5 processors until the revision after that (unless cooling and other issues have been sorted out - in that case, go ahead and put a G5 in there).

[Mr. Anderson]

In terms of heat - run a 90 nm G5 below 2 GHz and it will be cooler.

A 1.6/1.8 G5 in an iMac would be fantastic - I really don't see them getting a 3.0 GHz G5 in an iMac anytime soon....

D

[the_mole1314]

I heard that only the top modle will have a G5 in it, the 17" high end and the 20". And also from what I hear, don't expect 2.0ghz iMacs, instead the iMacs will get 1.6ghz procs.

[dongmin]

The move to G5 doesn't excite me that much. It just means that Apple is positioning the iMac as a high-end all-in-one, for the same target market as the now defunct Cube. I just don't see Apple selling a whole of these. They might as well bring back the Cube--I think it's a more boutique-y design than the current lampstand design.

You can argue that the eMac does well enough in the true consumer, all-in-one market. But the design of it is quite stale; it's basically unchanged from when the iMac was first launched in 1998. It's time for something to shake up the industry again, time to introduce another radical new design in the consumer market. The flat-panel iMac doesn't do it for me, and I doubt it's done much for Apple's bottom line after the initial launch.

[7on]

Myself personally think the new form factor change might be to make the iMac more look like a cinema LCD, but maybe a little thicker and different casing. they could almost take the powerbook mobo and stick it behind an Apple display to help consolidate the product line. It'd be nifty, though I've seen PC companies do it.

The reason Apple doesn't make a headless consumer model is because with the all-in-one, Apple sells you the monitor too.

[ts1973]

I think there will be a G5 i-mac soon, in a completely new design because of the heat issues involved.

I also quietly hope for a cube-like design with seperate screens (in addition to the imac linup), to keep prices down to a consumer level (and you can use whatever screen you like).

[Mr. Anderson]

I heard that only the top modle will have a G5 in it, the 17" high end and the 20". And also from what I hear, don't expect 2.0ghz iMacs, instead the iMacs will get 1.6ghz procs.

and what is your source?

reliable or just something in passing...

D

[PPC970FX]

Plz I need a G5 Cube.

And if the imac will be updated before the G5 will be updated, the best Imac will be faster then the SP 1,6Ghz G5?

But I think that Apple will soon drop most of its desktop PC, and mostly have Ibook, Powerbook, (ebook? and cubebook?? hehe).

[FriarTuck]

The sheer invebtivness of the iMac saved Apple from closure

I can just imagine Steve Jobs yelling into the speakerphone,

What is wrong with you people? We need invebtivness, and we need it now!!!

:p

[mpopkin]

Yeah it does make sense, because the imac has been struggling recently and Apple cannot wait 1+ years to put a g5 into it while waiting for the mobile Powerpc g5 to be ready, supposedly this new imac is a total redesign as well and will be an awesome machine, it would make sense for it to be and it will probably be lower priced than it is now:)


I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

[jayscheuerle]

Let's take an overpriced niche machine that hasn't lived up to the sales of its predicessor and make it MORE overpriced, thereby SHRINKING its niche!!

Pure genious!! Maybe they can even find a way to jerk up the starting price of the low-end model to $2000!!

[Dont Hurt Me]

I doubt very much that we wont see a new G5 imac, Apple has to have at least 1 line of hot selling desk tops and right now not one of them are making much of a splash when it comes to sales. They need a big hit and another G4 machine will do nothing. Slow computers dont make for sales. They need a G5 imac and they needed it last year. This crap about waiting for powerbook before imac makes no sense at all when it comes to selling machines.
Performance wise G4 machines can not hang with the AMD's or Intels. this has been fact for 2-3 years now and apple knows it has to correct this if its going to ask high dollar. my guess is we will see a 1.6 1.8 and a 2.0 G5 imac and il buy the 2.0 Imac G5 :D

[wrldwzrd89]

I doubt very much that we wont see a new G5 imac, Apple has to have at least 1 line of hot selling desk tops and right now not one of them are making much of a splash when it comes to sales. They need a big hit and another G4 machine will do nothing. Slow computers dont make for sales. They need a G5 imac and they needed it last year. This crap about waiting for powerbook before imac makes no sense at all when it comes to selling machines.
Performance wise G4 machines can not hang with the AMD's or Intels. this has been fact for 2-3 years now and apple knows it has to correct this if its going to ask high dollar. my guess is we will see a 1.6 1.8 and a 2.0 G5 imac and il buy the 2.0 Imac G5 :D
I don't think the G5 iMac will get a 2.0 GHz G5 unless the PowerMac line doesn't have a 2.0 GHz processor (everything's above 2 GHz) or 2GHz is the low end. My prediction for G5 iMacs depends on what Apple decides to do with the new PowerPC G4s. If Apple uses them in an iMac revision, then the revision after that will definitely see 2.0 GHz G5s. However, if Apple elects to skip over the new G4s and put G5 processors in the next iMac, they will most likely top out at 1.8 GHz.

[njmac]

I know everyone seems to want a PB G5, iMac G5 and a PM 3Ghz G5 at WWDC. I just wish apple would spread out their updates. When they announce something new often over a period of a few weeks it is exciting, but then the rest of the year is waiting.. waiting....waiting.
If we do get new iMac's I would love to see decent advertising for it.

[blakemsf]

If they do put the G5 in the Imac then count me in for a lab of 20+ of them. We were about to buy a lab of the new Emacs but are deciding to wait till later for the upgrade. 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 G5 with a 17inch LCD with at least 512MB Ram for $1500 and I would be happy :)

[mklos]

The next iMac upgrade won't be completely to the G5. It'll be:

17" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with combo drive
17" G4 1.5 Ghz iMac with superdrive.
20" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with superdrive.
20" G5 1.6 GHz iMac with superdrive.

There is no way in hell they can do that because it would never cool correctly with the G5 in a current iMac form factor. Why would Apple design a logicboard just for that 1 particular model? Doesn't make sense. If Apple was going to do that they would of released it by now.

Applle has to be doing something big with the iMac or else they would of just slapped a 1.42 GHz and/or 1.5 GHz G4 in it and released an update like they did with everything else (besides the PM). If Apple is going to announce new PowerMacs at the WWDC in June with faster processors in all 3 models then this leaves Apple plenty of room to put at least a 1.6 to 1.8 GHz processor in the iMac, or possibly even a 2 GHz G5, again, depending on how much faster these rev B. PowerMac G5's are going to be.

As far as a headless iMac goes, well I'm all for it. I think its time Apple quit doing this consumer/pro-sumer thing. To me its a bunch of crap and they need to target all of its models toward anyone. There are actually people out there (like me) who want a PowerMac. Now I may not need all the power of the high end G5, but Apple shouldn't punish people like me because of that. If Apple is going to continue doing this consumer/pro-sumer thing then they absolutely need to bring out a consumer level expandable headless Mac. I think the iMac is a perfect thing for it. I mean with the current iMac you get this beautiful display with it and when you want to sell or give it away for a new Mac you have to give this beautiful display away with it. Then say you buy a PowerMac you have to buy the damn display all over again! I know a lot of Windoze users that won't buy a Mac because its not expandable. They know the PowerMac G4/G5 is expandable, but they aren't going to pay $2000 for it either. If Apple truelly wants to get people to switch they need to do create some kind of cunsumer Mac that has the ability to change the HD, Graphics Card, and things like that instead of just 1 RAM Slot and an AirPort Extreme Card.

[Chaszmyr]

When Macrumors' own sources say we should expect a G5 with the next iMac revision, it might as well be written in stone

[NOV]

Certainly you and 365 may be onto something, as the all-in-one is a rather out of date concept that was good back in 98, but rather showing it's age as a tired idea.

I don't think the concept is out of date, on contrary. If only I think of senior people (> 55), that
* have money to spend (no need for bottom prices),
* have a taste for more luxurious and stylish goods
* have time to spend (iLife)
* have little computer knowledge and
* have seen the benefits from computer/internet using from their (grand)children

I still think the iMac is the ideal machine and we're not speaking of a niche market here, but a very fast growing market for the forthcoming decades.

[mklos]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

You see....this is the exact problem I see with Apple doing this stupid consumer/pro-sumer thing. It traps them in a hole because just like limelite just said, why would they make their consumer models faster than their pro-sumer models? If Apple marketed all of their models to everyone they could update the damn things when ever they got it working instead of holding a perfectly working G5 iMac off until they get a perfectly working G5 PB. Pretty soon I'd say 1.5 or 2 years down the road they will all at least have either a G5 or G6 in them, so then what makes them different, or say the G6 isn't ready then you may have a G5 PM, iMac, and PB all with similar specs. Then what do you do? You see, it puts them in a corner with updates unless they do in fact just say the hell with it and when they get the next revision working release it like I hope they do with the iMac. One model shouldn't hold the other model back I guess is what I'm trying to say.

[Squire]

There is no way in hell they can do that because it would never cool correctly with the G5 in a current iMac form factor. Why would Apple design a logicboard just for that 1 particular model? Doesn't make sense. If Apple was going to do that they would of released it by now.

Applle has to be doing something big with the iMac or else they would of just slapped a 1.42 GHz and/or 1.5 GHz G4 in it and released an update like they did with everything else (besides the PM). If Apple is going to announce new PowerMacs at the WWDC in June with faster processors in all 3 models then this leaves Apple plenty of room to put at least a 1.6 to 1.8 GHz processor in the iMac, or possibly even a 2 GHz G5, again, depending on how much faster these rev B. PowerMac G5's are going to be.

Thanks. You just saved me a lot of typing. ;)

Think of the engineering man-hours and money that go into a new enclosure for one of their (supposedly) top-selling machines. If they're going to re-engineer the thing, they'll do it for a G5. And as for people saying it's not possible, heat issues, blah, blah, blah...the company is working with freakin' liquid cooling for crying out loud. Engineers are paid to make that stuff work. Besides, from what I've heard, this Johnny Ive fella's a pretty talented guy.

One thing is for certain, though- the new iMac has to be amazing. I bought a 17" iMac and its appearance still amazes me. How are they going to trump that? I can't wait to see.

Squire

[ts1973]

And as for people saying it's not possible, heat issues, blah, blah, blah...the company is working with freakin' liquid cooling for crying out loud. Engineers are paid to make that stuff work. Besides, from what I've heard, this Johnny Ive fella's a pretty talented guy.
Squire

I agree with you on this : liquid cooling is the future and Apple should be the first to implement it on a larger scale.

[Phobophobia]

In response to "OMG THE g5 will never work in an imac, too hot!!! omg lol wtf11!!!!shiftone!!eleventy~~!!"

Bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly, but that won't stop them :)

[CmdrLaForge]

Certainly you and 365 may be onto something, as the all-in-one is a rather out of date concept that was good back in 98, but rather showing it's age as a tired idea.


98 ? The Mac was always a all-in-one. Even the first one.

[wrldwzrd89]

98 ? The Mac was always a all-in-one. Even the first one.
You mean there have always been all-in-one Macs, correct? Not ALL Macs are all-in-one (for example, the B&W G3, the PowerMac G4, the PowerMac G5, and earlier Macs like the PowerMac 7200/75 weren't all-in-one). You are correct in stating that Apple has historically had at least one all-in-one Mac in its product lineup.

[sparks9]

I think Apple knows the iMac is dead without a G5 in it. The sooner Apple goes G5 the better. I don't think they should wait for the Powerbooks to have the G5 first even though the iMac is a consumer machine, because the main distinction between the 2 is portability.

The two other questions are:

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

Apple has NO reason at all to make a headless iMac. It wouldn't fit into their product line in any way. The hole point in the iMac is that is a complete working computer - everything included.
Headless iMac --> will never happen.

[jeffbistrong]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

The G5 processors produce an amazing amount of heat!! To put one of those in a laptop . . . .we definately talking a liquid (vodka would be nice . . .lol) cooling system to keep that puppy cool. That would be a hazard . . Are the other extreme coooling methods besides using a liquid to do it?

[gekko513]

To think that G5s are too hot for the iMac is all backwards thinking. The current iMac has a design(not looks) based on the possibilities and limitations on the technology that was available at the time, including the G4 processor with it's low power consumption.

The new iMac will have a design based on the technology that is available now (G5 among other things). The 90nm G5 has slightly higher power consumption, so the design will have to take that into consideration. Maybe it isn't possible to make a quiet G5 computer with a base as small as the current iMac. If so, then Apple will just have to make a larger design.

It's clearly not impossible to put a new G5 in a consumer computer if you take into consideration that it produces approximately a third of the heat from a P4.

[AidenShaw]

Are the other extreme coooling methods besides using a liquid to do it?

Many laptops (including Apple's) use closed cycle liquid cooling today, where water under low pressure boils at the CPU and the vapor carries the heat to the fins.

Here's a picture of a Dell Centrino's cooling system:

http://docs.us.dell.com/docs/systems/latd600/sm/thermal4.jpg

The tubes contain the water - it boils on the plate at the bottom, and the steam goes into the radiator (fins) at top.

The fan blows air through the fins, the steam condenses, flows back into the tubes and to the CPU, where it boils....

[Mr. Anderson]

what Apple systems use liquid cooling?

D

[Wonder Boy]

whatever the update is, whenever the update is, i would like to see price cuts. just imagine "the fastest mac ever, the macs lowest price ever" that could generate a lot of interest.

IF tiger is available this fall, im not sure how much that will effect my time of purchase. im so jacked up for new hardware, the os really isnt an issue right now.

[nmk]

Oh great. The G5 Powerbook rumors ended now we have the G5 iMac rumors. I mean, thats the deal with you people and the G5 processor anyway. Its a decent processor, but most real world benchmarks show that it isn't any faster than a G4 Mhz for Mhz. This has been mentioned repeatedly on these forums, and yet people seem to simply ignore this fact. I think there is a strong desire, so strong infact that it eclipses logic, to believe that sticking G5's in the iMac will somehow transform it into an uber consumer mac. A 1.6 Ghz G5 will simply produce an enormous amount of heat, causing Apple to create a noisy compromised iMac, without providing any perceptible improvement in performance over a 1.5 G4. Why would you want a 1.6 G5 in an iMac. I would much rather see Apple simply upgrade to the current crop of G4's. Maybe with the additional room in the iMac they could overclock it to about 1.6 Ghz.

Performance wise G4 machines can not hang with the AMD's or Intels. this has been fact for 2-3 years now and apple knows it has to correct this if its going to ask high dollar. my guess is we will see a 1.6 1.8 and a 2.0 G5 imac and il buy the 2.0 Imac G5

Ok, and technically neither can the current G5's (nor could they when they were released). Macworld itself tested the G5's against AMD 64's and Pentium 4's and concluded that the latter two were faster in most cases. Why do you think the 1.8 was so quickly upgraded to dual. It take TWO G5's to compete with a Pentium 4. But it doesn't really matter, as the G5 is fast enough for professional video and audio editing. It is fast enough for professionals. Its just not any faster than a G4 at the same clockspeed.

Repeat over an over and over
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4

This is not my opinion, it is a fact (as has been shown in tests done by Mac benchmarking websites).

[jelloshotsrule]

This is not my opinion, it is a fact (as has been shown in tests done by Mac benchmarking websites).

where are there 1.6 ghz g4 chips out there?


i think the fact is, if apple goes with the g5, they will most likely redesign the imac's form... in which case, they are going to be open to more possible upgrades in the architecture, beyond just the chip itself... that's where the speed gains could come from...

[wrldwzrd89]

Oh great. The G5 Powerbook rumors ended now we have the G5 iMac rumors. I mean, thats the deal with you people and the G5 processor anyway. Its a decent processor, but most real world benchmarks show that it isn't any faster than a G4 Mhz for Mhz. This has been mentioned repeatedly on these forums, and yet people seem to simply ignore this fact. I think there is a strong desire, so strong infact that it eclipses logic, to believe that sticking G5's in the iMac will somehow transform it into an uber consumer mac. A 1.6 Ghz G5 will simply produce an enormous amount of heat, causing Apple to create a noisy compromised iMac, without providing any perceptible improvement in performance over a 1.5 G4. Why would you want a 1.6 G5 in an iMac. I would much rather see Apple simply upgrade to the current crop of G4's. Maybe with the additional room in the iMac they could overclock it to about 1.6 Ghz.



Ok, and technically neither can the current G5's (nor could they when they were released). Macworld itself tested the G5's against AMD 64's and Pentium 4's and concluded that the latter two were faster in most cases. Why do you think the 1.8 was so quickly upgraded to dual. It take TWO G5's to compete with a Pentium 4. But is doesn't really matter, as the G5 is fast enough for professional video and audio editing. It is fast enough for professionals. Its just not any faster than a G4 at the sam clockspeed.

Repeat over an over and over
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4

This is not my opinion, it is a fact (as has been shown in tests done by Mac benchmarking websites).
There's one problem with these facts - right now, no (official) 1.6 GHz PowerPC G4 exists. How on earth, then, did the testers come up with this conclusion without extrapolating, overclocking, or both???

[Steven1621]

apple is in dire need of a mid-range consumer computer with more power than the emac. the present setup just doesn't cut it for the price range. a g5 imac would fit the bill nicely.

[AidenShaw]

what Apple systems use liquid cooling?

D

PBG4

http://www.medicalmac.com/mac103.html

MDD 1.42

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/MDD_copper_heatsink_swap/mdd_copper_heatsink_swap.html

emac, ibook, G5, ...

[nmk]

Let me clarify what I said before people decide to dismiss it. I am referring to two sets of test performed here. The first is a number of tests that Barefeats performed between a number of computers including a 1.5 G4 and 1.6 G5. This showed that there was a very marginal difference between the two. This could be accounted for with the G5's extra 100 mhz.

The second test was performed by Macworld between all the G5's and the best of the crop that Inteal and AMD had.

Agreed there is no 1.6 G4, but there is a 1.5. The difference in speed between this processor and the 1.6 G5 is almost nothing. If there was a 1.6 G4, then there would be no difference between the two.

So you can repeat over and over.
If there was a 1.6 G4, it would be the same speed as a 1.6 G5

or

The i.5 G4's performance is almost identical to the 1.6 G5.

[elo]

I would love to see a G5 iMac introduction this summer and think it would be technically feasible. Whether or not they can do it that quickly remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic.

I suspect it *won't* be headless (though I don't have any information one way or the other), but I wish it were. Those who argue that a headless iMac is basically just some sort of mini-tower are missing the point. Lots of people who wouldn't care at all about upgrading internal components would like to buy one nice, large flat-panel display and know that they can keep it when they upgrade the computer a year or so later.

With such a strategy, people would probably buy more computers, as it's much easier to upgrade a cheaper, headless box every year or so than it is to upgrade an entire iMac (particularly one with a larger monitor). The Cube seemed like a great idea in this respect, but it was hampered by two flaws: first, it was too expensive for the consumer market, and they are the ones who have the most need for something like this. Second, it was slower than comparable G4 towers. Even people who don't want expandibility still want the fastest chip they can get.

elo

[Mr. Anderson]

Repeat over an over and over
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4

This is not my opinion, it is a fact (as has been shown in tests done by Mac benchmarking websites).

not only is there an issue with the fact the there is no 1.6 GHz G4, if you take into account the bus speed of a G5 vs. that of a G4 system, there's no contest. You get a 800 MHz bus on a 1.6 GHz G5 and a 167 MHz bus on the G4 iMac. Access to more RAM, too (don't think they'll go to 4 Gigs, but even 2 Gigs would be nice :D).

All things considered, the future of the iMac is much stronger using the G5.

D

[rufwork]

The two other questions are:

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

Or they're two big strengths for the PowerMac's sellability. Since the first Mac (and continued through the LC and then the original iMac (see any connections with CEOs & designs?)), consumer models gave Mac users 90% of what they'd ever want for a pretty competitive price, all things considered. If you wanted more, you had to shell out for it, cube very much included. That's been Apple's most successful business model, and I wouldn't expect that to change.

Heck, they removed the Mezzanine slot from the rev A just to save a few cents per motherboard -- removing even an unsupported chance to keep those boxes up to date with a better video card. iMacs are efficient, slimmed-down, money making machines, believe it or not.

Want more, pay more. Buy or bye. It's 'spensive, but ultimately worth it, I think (on my third iMac already...).

That said, the warranty's gone on my latest iMac, and if anyone finds a hack to let me use that flatscreen with another box, I'm ready to start soldering. If you could just figure out a way to reuse the monitor, the iMac becomes an aboslutely great buy.

[ts1973]

There's one problem with these facts - right now, no (official) 1.6 GHz PowerPC G4 exists. How on earth, then, did the testers come up with this conclusion without extrapolating, overclocking, or both???

You're right of course, but the point is made : Mhz for Mhz, a 1.5 Ghz G5 would be about as fast as the current 1.5 Ghz G4, and a 1.6 Ghz G5 would just not make the iMac competitive... (of course, the scaling is not correct : a 1.8Ghz G5 is not 20% faster than a 1.5Ghz one). The only reason to put such a slow G5 in an iMac is image building...

On the other hand, Apple will have to make this step once in the future... whether the G5 is faster Mhz for Mhz or not.

[nmk]

I'm not, despite these facts, saying that Apple will not release a iMac G5. They may do this simply as a marketing ploy. However, the unfortunate thing is, if they stick in a 1.6 G5 it won't be any faster than the current top of the line Powerbook. It will not be appreciably faster than what they could get by sticking a G4 in their, but it will be a noisier, hotter machine to run. I only think it makes sense to put a G5 in their if its 2.0 Ghz and up. Meaning the lineup should be 2.0, 2.2, 2.4. Then it makes some sense to compromise the design of the current machine.

[lem0nayde]

I think Apple should move everything to G5 ASAP. **** the G4, its ancient technology and those ties need to be severed. If they put all their backing on the G5, they can focus their product line, produce more G5s and therefore make them cheaper.

This can make way for an all G5 lineup with consumer machines having single chips and maybe one dual iMac for prosumers and pro machines having all dual chips, and maybe one very high end quad-chip machine.

The iPod is great, but they've been way too focused on it, and unless they are planning an exit from the computer market - they need to make their consumer products a lot more appealing.

That's what I think.

Joe

[nmk]

not only is there an issue with the fact the there is no 1.6 GHz G4, if you take into account the bus speed of a G5 vs. that of a G4 system, there's no contest. You get a 800 MHz bus on a 1.6 GHz G5 and a 167 MHz bus on the G4 iMac.

I wish people would read my followup to the original post. I said that there is no 1.6 G4, but the performace of the 1.5 G4 is very very close to the 1.6 G5. If freescale takes the G4 to 2.0 Ghz with improved cache, it will make the new 1.6 G5 iMacs look like toys. The bus is a nonissue, since even with the 167 bus the current G4's are competitive with the G5's (again Mhz for Mhz). The G4 only has 7 pipeline stages, whereas the G5 is something like 20+. G4 doesn't need to be fed as quickly, and doesn't suffer the same penalties for things like branch mispredictions that the G5 does.

[Rower_CPU]

PBG4

http://www.medicalmac.com/mac103.html

MDD 1.42

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/MDD_copper_heatsink_swap/mdd_copper_heatsink_swap.html

emac, ibook, G5, ...

I'm seeing nothing at either of those links that shows/states Apple using liquid cooling.

I think you're mistaking the heat pipes with a liquid cooling system. I've seen Apple's tech docs for all current models and nowhere is liquid cooling mentioned. Besides, you know Phil Schiller would have made a big deal about it if they were - "It's like air cooling...on steroids!". ;)

[nmk]

I think Apple should move everything to G5 ASAP. **** the G4, its ancient technology and those ties need to be severed. If they put all their backing on the G5, they can focus their product line, produce more G5s and therefore make them cheaper.

lol, yeah, dump it because its old. Maybe you should go give Intel a clue, they're about to drop their P4 architecture in favour of the Pentium M architecture which is based on the P3. The Pentium M is essentially a P3 with a lot of cache and better branch predictor.

[lem0nayde]

You're right of course, but the point is made : Mhz for Mhz, a 1.5 Ghz G5 would be about as fast as the current 1.5 Ghz G4, and a 1.6 Ghz G5 would just not make the iMac competitive... (of course, the scaling is not correct : a 1.8Ghz G5 is not 20% faster than a 1.5Ghz one). The only reason to put such a slow G5 in an iMac is image building...

On the other hand, Apple will have to make this step once in the future... whether the G5 is faster Mhz for Mhz or not.

It's definitely all about image building.
The chips may or may not make faster machines - but Apple needs to SEEM like it is moving into the future. The iMac, eMac and iBook just seem sad and old. Plus its also important to remember that Apple has to build OSX to straddle several generations of Macs right now. If it could focus its lineup with the G5 and broaden the chips adoption - it would be able to start taking advantage of what the G5 has to offer, as would other developers.

Forward movement is always best, even if it is only perceived forward movement. Consumers eat it up.

[Mr. Anderson]

I wish people would read my followup to the original post. I said that there is no 1.6 G4, but the performace of the 1.5 G4 is very very close to the 1.6 G5.

I read that after I posted mine - relax - you hadn't posted it when I quoted.

As for the bus - what about moving data around for video editing and the like? If they offer firewire 800 for a new iMac that would be a nice advantage.

D

[macridah]

do you think the look will also change when the iMac G5 comes out?

[Hattig]

The current iMac is not selling that well.

I don't think that is because of the current processor, more the styling and limited usefulness of the computer in a consumer environment. It might be good as a stylish computing device in a household where no-one plays games or does anything particularly stressful.

Then again, Apples product line-up has so many holes it is no wonder that the share of the market is so small and shrinking. PowerMacs are droolworthy, but too expensive for a power consumer. There is no "single processor (but as fast as the fastest dual PowerMac's), cheaper PowerMac" option to get though.

I think that Apple should make a smaller G5 style PowerMac, with one processor (at comparable speeds to the current PowerMac line-up, none of this retarded "consumer machines should have slower processors" crap). It should have AGP and PCI expansion. I'd buy something like this if it was a reasonable price without thinking. I won't buy an iMac, I want to play games occasionally and have my choice of monitor (I have monitors already, I don't need another). I won't buy a PowerMac - I can't afford one.

[stockscalper]

It will not be appreciably faster than what they could get by sticking a G4 in their, but it will be a noisier, hotter machine to run.

The current generation G4 at 1.5 GHZ pulls 27 watts compared to only 12 with the current generation G5's (970 fx). Plus you get an 800 MHZ fsb vs. 167 and the capability to address much more ram with the G5's.

I have one of the new G4 Powerbooks and it gets hotter than hell. The G4 is at the end of it's life cycle; time to move on to new technology :)

[Postal]

There are some areas where the 1.6 GHz G5 could improve upon a 1.5 GHz G4. Any time an app is bandwidth-dependent, for example. Also, the G5 has a much better FPU, and as a result is a much better choice for 3D apps such as games.

However, I think the real gain from using a 1.6 GHz G5 (or faster, if it's sufficiently inexpensive) is cost. The 1.5 GHz G4 is currently the fastest - and thus most expensive - G4 chip out there. The 1.6 is the lowest-end G5, and we know that its cost will have gone down over the past year. This should be especially true if Apple uses the 90 nm G5, since any sub-2.0 GHz yields should be relatively easy.

And don't think that the G5 is too hot to run in an iMac-style enclosure (assuming they don't produce a radical revision). The MPC7455 chip in the current 17" and 20" iMacs can produce up to 35W of typical power dissipation according to Motorola's PowerPC listings (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03C1TR04670871), although I'm sure it sometimes produces less. A 2 GHz G5, by comparison, shows 24W in typical power consumption.

So a G5 seems entirely plausible to me. The only questions I have are regarding the cost and design. Will Apple be able to reduce the price significantly, whether through the internal components or through the materials the enclosure is made with? Will they reintroduce colour into the case design? And finally, will they still try to cling to the all-in-one LCD design, or will they try something 'new' and offer a relatively inexpensive headless desktop?

[0 and A ai]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

I think it has to do more with having the g4 as a mobile processor and the g5 as a desktop processor. Thats how its going to be for at least a year.

2ghz g5 imac here we come.



So a G5 seems entirely plausible to me. The only questions I have are regarding the cost and design. Will Apple be able to reduce the price significantly, whether through the internal components or through the materials the enclosure is made with? Will they reintroduce colour into the case design? And finally, will they still try to cling to the all-in-one LCD design, or will they try something 'new' and offer a relatively inexpensive headless desktop?

I think the fact that they have had faster cooler g5s for a while now plays a part in the cost. Because they had them for a while and have stocked up on them because of the issues they have had with new powermac revisions the price will probalby be the same. A modified case too. I would expect a change like that of the original iMac. ala iMac -> iMac DV. thats the kind of change I suspect.

[ts1973]

lol, yeah, dump it because its old. Maybe you should go give Intel a clue, they're about to drop their P4 architecture in favour of the Pentium M architecture which is based on the P3. The Pentium M is essentially a P3 with a lot of cache and better branch predictor.

LOL, good one. But I still think Apple will have to look forward one day, and I think you'll have to agree that the G5 has a lot more headroom to grow than the older G4... Furthermore, these 20+ or so instructions on the G5 are meant to be used, so Apple (and others) will want to rewrite their code to make advantage of the G5 (thus diminishing support for the G4...)

[nmk]

Interestingly, Mr. Anderson (that has a familiar ring to it), the benchmarks I mentioned from Barefeats were for a group of FCP renders. This is the benchmark in which the 1.5 Powerbook had almost the same times as the 1.6 G5. I'm guessing that the 1.6 G5 probably is anable to take advantage of the massive bus. But even in the case of the Dual 2.0's, there performace advantage is almost completely equivalent to their Mhz advantage. The G4's tend to be more efficient processors. Perhaps if they wouldn't need a bus faster than about 200 mhz. I just really like the G4's. I think they are one of the reasons Apple has been able to make the Powerbooks extremely sleek. I really hope the freescale rumors are true. 2.0 Ghz G4's by middle of year with built in memory controllers (and perhaps dual core later) would be monster processors. Motorolla has, as its over riding objective, to keep energy consumption down. So any improvement they make in their architecture has to meet this condition. I really doubt Apple will be able to continue making Powerbooks, or mabe even iMacs, in their current form factor if they start using processor that consume 40+ watts and produce enough heat to warm a small building.

[the_mole1314]

and what is your source?

reliable or just something in passing...

D

Hasn't been to reliable when it came to the iPod Mini, but some rumors I have read here stack up to what he has said before. SOooooooooo, take it with a grain of salt.

[AidenShaw]

I think you're mistaking the heat pipes with a liquid cooling system.

And I think that you are being pedantic about my definition of "liquid cooling" without explaining what you think that your words mean.


A heat pipe contains liquid, and cools due to the motion (and phase change) of the liquid therein. If that isn't "liquid cooling", then English words no long mean what they say.


Also - go back and see that I was replying to the question Are the [sic] other extreme coooling methods besides using a liquid to do it?

Heat pipes do use liquid to cool, and they're commonplace, not "extreme".

Apple *is* already using liquids to cool their laptops and desktops - this technology might be feasible for a G5 iMac as well.

[minstryoffunk]

Hmm, imagine this at WWDC 2004:

Power Mac G5 DP 2.2GHz, DP 2.6GHz, DP 3.0GHZ

iMac G5 SP 2.2GHz, SP 2.6GHz, SP 3.0GHz

Yummy! I know, it’s just a dream and won’t happen but Apple would finally be competitive again.


something like that for the powermacs would definately be good…but are dependent on a certain fab in East Fishkill.

i would imagine that a G5 iMac would be a single proc machine with chips clocked at the same speed as the current pMacs (1.6,1.8,2.0)

An excellent way for apple to differentiate their product lines is to have all DP pMacs and all single proc iMacs

Expandability isnt so much a concern as people on these boards seem to think it is. The market that the iMac targets isn't terribly interested in expanding, they just want a basic, easy to use, maintenence free computer

For instance, there are 3 different generations of the CRT iMac in my extended family, apart from adding ram and installing osx, there has been no real want or need for anything else.

[denm316]

I hope Apple does this, I understand it's a consumer line but the better the machines are in all the lines the better Apple looks

[nsb3000]

A G5 iMac will make my Power Mac G4 look even worse :(

I don't understand how the current eMac and the current Power Mac G4 can have almost identical specs, yet the Power Mac is about NZ$1000 more.

On the other hand, any advance is an improvement :)

Because the Power Mac G4 is Apple's Last OS9 Bootable machine. A small, specific group users really need that, and are willing to pay extra for it.

[CmdrLaForge]

You mean there have always been all-in-one Macs, correct? Not ALL Macs are all-in-one (for example, the B&W G3, the PowerMac G4, the PowerMac G5, and earlier Macs like the PowerMac 7200/75 weren't all-in-one). You are correct in stating that Apple has historically had at least one all-in-one Mac in its product lineup.

Thanks for correcting me. Yes - thats what I meant. There have always been all-in-one Macs.

[minstryoffunk]

The next iMac upgrade won't be completely to the G5. It'll be:

17" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with combo drive
17" G4 1.5 Ghz iMac with superdrive.
20" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with superdrive.
20" G5 1.6 GHz iMac with superdrive.

i can't imagine that Apple would be so daft as to mix processors in a single model. if they're moving to a new form factor (which it appears is the case) than it would be stupid and wasteful to design both G4 and G5 versions of the mobo. am i wrong, or do the two not share much in terms of other components?

[Trekkie]

ever heard of phil zimbardo's prison experiment? you are an example of what it proved: people take up roles that they are given and play them out. I assume you think of yourself as somekind of Pro-User. Apple's classification of iMac at some unfortunate point in its history as consumer model has now led to people claiming that Apple should cripple a computer so Powerbook can get a rush out of being 'Pro' with special access to Apple tech.

Oh, and Apple long since made iMac something other than consumer- the top of the line now costs 2200.

I've found myself on many occasions in the past looking over the G4 Tower vs. the iMac as far as the 'available slots' and stuff like that.

Then one day, something clocked me in the head, or I stopped having a bit of a disposable income when #2 child came along or something like that and I realized that when it came to a replacement desktop for my iMac 800MHz and I realized I'm never goign to invest in 8 memory DIMMs, PCI-X adapters, or anything like that and a G5 iMac would be perfect especially around the 1.6 - 1.8GHz range compared to what I have, and I bought a LaCie 320GB drive for my music & home videos.

So, Bring on a 21" 1.8GHz G5 iMac that I can put a big drive in and about 1GB of RAM and I'm good to go and ready to spend.

[wdlove]

The current iMac is not selling that well.

I don't think that is because of the current processor, more the styling and limited usefulness of the computer in a consumer environment. It might be good as a stylish computing device in a household where no-one plays games or does anything particularly stressful.

I think that Apple should make a smaller G5 style PowerMac, with one processor (at comparable speeds to the current PowerMac line-up, none of this retarded "consumer machines should have slower processors" crap). It should have AGP and PCI expansion. I'd buy something like this if it was a reasonable price without thinking. I won't buy an iMac, I want to play games occasionally and have my choice of monitor (I have monitors already, I don't need another). I won't buy a PowerMac - I can't afford one.

I have never really cared for the style of the iMac either. For some reason I like having the monitor separate, just a creature of habit. It would be a good idea for Apple to got with the all G5 line ASAP, guess that it somewhat depends on IBM.

[TimDaddy]

Noooo! Not yet! I am trying so hard to get out of debt. I have paid off $2500 of debt this year. Hearing of a G5 iMac is causing me to have withdrawal symptoms. Please, Apple, wait a year or two, for my children's future!

[IndyGopher]

In response to "OMG THE g5 will never work in an imac, too hot!!! omg lol wtf11!!!!shiftone!!eleventy~~!!"

Bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly, but that won't stop them :)

I wish whatever 3rd grade teacher told the world that, would be flogged on national television. It's WRONG. That statement is based on the relation of wing size to mass, in a fixed wing craft Airplanes don't flap their wings. They are just gliders with deformable wings and an engine to keep inertia at bay.

You do yourself, and anyone listening who is gullible enough to believe you, a grave disservice by passing along Bad Science.

To bring this slightly back towards the topic, the same application of ignorance and bad science is what leads people to think you have to stick all the components from a G5 tower into a box the size of an iMac in order to make a G5 iMac. No one expects a G4 powerbook to be the size of a G4 MDD tower, so why can't they wrap their head around the notion that if you don't include all the expansion slots, a power supply designed to run a computer, and a monitor (remember the ADC monitors) etc, that you can shrink things a LOT..

[msandersen]

I guess that's the downside to marketing hype. Once everyone is convinced how incredibly the G5 is, no-one will want anything less. Irrespective of actual performance.
If the Motorola rumors are to be believed, then they DO have plans to scale the G4 towards 3Ghz, but in general it's said it's at the end of it's lifecycle. The real point of the G5 is that it will scale well into the future. Where the G4 has left off, the G5 supposedly picks up. So obviously to advance, the iMac has to move to G5s sometime. Other rumors indicate Apple has been working on a redesign, which would seem self-evident if they want a G5 iMac. The heat issue is significant. The iMac is a very compact machine, not a lot of airflow in there. So, it must be redesigned for that alone. Not to mention the whole motherboard. So why not a whole new look to mark a new iMac G5 era?
The basic principle of the flatpanel iMac will presumably be carried over, the swingarm idea is just too damn convenient.

Whatever became of the fruity colors? For some, that's what make the old iMac stand out and desirable over a PC. If they could device a way of customising them with detachable colored opaque panels, so dealers could swap them over themselves and hence not be stuck with computers in an 'uncool' color, that would be great. People migh want to periodically give their Mac a new look, like they might with their Nokia phones. It adds nothing to the speed or performance (unless you believe the school of thought that speed stripes make a car go faster), but adds to the 'cool' or 'desirability' factor that people may pay a premium to get. Preferably they shouldn't HAVE to pay a premium, though.

Personally, although I know it's unlikely, I'd like to see the Cube resurrected in some form, which would be separate from the iMac. Steve never ruled it out if the time was right. It would have to be somewhat bigger, needing custom-built cards makes upgrading expensive, and leaving some room for expandability like RAM wouldn't hurt. I've seen a PC that's borrowed the Cube look, it's much bulkier, but pretty cool nonetheless. Certainly more airflow is needed. People didn't like plugging things into the base, but I'm not sure how that might be prevented. Price killed the cube more than anything. If you got everything including the screen for what they asked, it would have been tempting. But a flat-panel to boot, which at the time was much more expensive than now...

We need reasonably-priced Macs, or Apple won't increase their marketshare. Lots of people would LOVE to get a Mac, but they won't with the current price structure. And, of course, people have to KNOW about them! Better advertising and marketing. Macs are not bloody BMWs. Most luxury car makes, like Rolls Royce or Jaguar, have been bought out by large makers of small consumer cars, like Fiat etc.

[rosalindavenue]

A G5 in an iMac would have nothing to do with marketing. Potential customers don't know the difference between a g5 and a g4. They don't know that a g4 is considered a lesser chip to the macworld. Because no one knows anything about technology besides what they are told. And since what little marketing Apple does says the iMac is still good, then thats all they know.

Stop thinking the general (dare i say normal) public follows the development of a microprocessor like their mortgage interest rates. The rest of the world doesn't think like MacRumors readers. And no one buys a mac for its processor.

-Hertz

I (respectfully, of course) could not disagree more. As long as you aren't talking about grandparents or compete noobs, if customers know ANYTHING about computers they know about processors. Intel's marketing made sure of that. Anyone (at least anyone below 40) can tell you that they have a "500 Megahertz PIII" or something like that-- its how computers were marketed until about a month ago. The fact that an imac has a G4, which has been available since 2000, really hurts apple, in my opinion-- the G4 was introduced in the day of the PIII. Apple (and AMD) are right in debunking the megahertz myth, but the average "kind of knowledgable" consumer was educated by Intel marketing to look at the processor-- even potental switchers. This is why I believe the rumor here-- remember, Appleinsider said that a new, metallic design was provided to the Chinese manufacturers in November.

[b_riggs]

As a Ph.D. Economist and apple shareholder, as well as a long time Mac user I would like to make some general comments.

First, Apple as a corporation has two basic responsibilities, to make money and to increase market share. (At the present time, I would say that growing market share is the most important of the two.) In any event, each and every action Apple takes must be evaluated against these two criteria first. By first I mean that there is a hierarchy of things/actions etc., that Apple needs to take into consideration, and that profit and market share are at the top of the hierarchy. Viewed in this light, the answer to the question of whether Apple should put a G5 in the iMac before the Powerbook is clear. If they can technically do it, and it will improve profit and/or market share the answer must be YES.

The idea of a headless iMac, or some other varient of a consumer Mac at a price point of $800 makes perfect sense as a potential way to gain market share. It probably would not be highly profitable, but I believe apples stock would go up very nicely anyway if they were to gain market share and profits were to remain at about the same levels.

Clearly the switcher campaign has not worked. It is Apple's clear responsibility to try something new to increase market share. Analogies to BMW do not hold water. The car market is highly fragmented and nobody talks about "standardizing" on a particular car they way companies (and schools) have standardized on Windows

[Chaszmyr]

Something to think about in relation to a headless iMac:

If Apple released a headless iMac, then many consumers are likely to buy it and use it with an old crappy 17'' CRT monitor or what not. And if you compare the overall feel of using an old crappy CRT monitor or a pretty nice new LCD monitor (like iMacs have), you will realize that everything just feels so much nicer with the LCD. Therefore, many users of a headless iMac would not realize the full glory of OSX

[Rower_CPU]

And I think that you are being pedantic about my definition of "liquid cooling" without explaining what you think that your words mean.

A heat pipe contains liquid, and cools due to the motion (and phase change) of the liquid therein. If that isn't "liquid cooling", then English words no long mean what they say.

Also - go back and see that I was replying to the question Are the [sic] other extreme coooling methods besides using a liquid to do it?

Heat pipes do use liquid to cool, and they're commonplace, not "extreme".

Apple *is* already using liquids to cool their laptops and desktops - this technology might be feasible for a G5 iMac as well.

In my understanding, the heatsinks employed by Apple here are air conduits to directly move the heated air off the CPU. If you can provide a tech doc from Apple that says there's water in their cooling systems I'll gladly stand corrected.

Also, your link to the MDD 1.42 heatsink was an aftermarket upgrade, not a part stock from Apple.

I'm not arguing the feasibility or "extremeness" of such systems at all, just whether or not Apple is using them *now*.

[gekko513]

To nmk ... I do agree that the G4 and the G5 are not so different performance-wise clock for clock. There are still several reasons why Apple should go G5 instead of G4 for the nect iMac revision.

On the FCP test made by barefeats, the 1.6GHz G5 is 10% faster than the 1.5GHz G4. If we scale linearly, then the G5 is 3% faster clock for clock. I think the G4 has a better graphics card. Nevertheless, they perform in the same league.

However, the G5 scales better than the G4 with increasing clock-speed. Mostly because of the faster front side bus. So at 1.8GHz the G5 would have a larger advantage. Of course there is also the small issue of 1.6GHz G4s not existing, and certainly not 1.8GHz.

IBM claimed 25W@2GHz for the new G5 link (http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=displaynews&NewsID=1035)
Motorola claims 20W@1.42GHz for the new G4 link (http://www.theregister.com/2004/02/23/motorola_chip_launch_paves_way/)
Both have power tuning technology. If IBM weren't way off in their claims, then heat will be a small problem.

[minstryoffunk]

Since i hope everyone realizes there won't be a headless iMac, what can (and maybe should) happen is, since the e and i have been EOL'd (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/03/20040319052859.shtml), there will be a complete makeover of the con/prosumer line.

i don't have any actual solid information, but logic would dictate that instead of having a crt and lcd based all in one as they do now, they should have an lcd based all in one and a consumer level headless machine.

the two lines would run the complete range from inexpensive to state of the art, have fewer form factor variations than they do now (17" on all, with a 20" option on the top model) and maybe even be customizable?

the all in one should not be expandable and the headless could have limited expandability (micro tower maybe?)

[eric67]

if you look at hardmac.com you will see that there is maybe a hint of a new iMac, now G5 or not, this is another story...
http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-05-10#2072
Digitimes.com is usually a reliable info source...
so let's wait

[jared_kipe]

There are heatpipes in practically every mac around today. I remember seeing an x-ray picture of a powerbook with many heatpipes spreading through it, but I don't have time to find it for you all. So I have instead found a picture of the heatpipe from a 800MHz eMac. I'm sure the new ones have it too. ;) http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/eMac/pics/eMac-heatsink-5.jpg

And the link to the project itself:
http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/eMac/eMac-upgrade.html

[steveh]

what Apple systems use liquid cooling?

The G5 systems. They use heat pipes to carry heat from the CPU to the heatsink fins.

They don't use water, though, but a liquid with a much lower boiling point, like a light alcohol.

[msandersen]

Something to think about in relation to a headless iMac:

If Apple released a headless iMac, then many consumers are likely to buy it and use it with an old crappy 17'' CRT monitor or what not. And if you compare the overall feel of using an old crappy CRT monitor or a pretty nice new LCD monitor (like iMacs have), you will realize that everything just feels so much nicer with the LCD. Therefore, many users of a headless iMac would not realize the full glory of OSX
A pointless argument. People who buy a headless Mac for $800 to put it with a crappy old CRT do it for economic reasons. If they had the money, they'd either get a shiny new monitor to go with it, or an all-in-one model like the current iMac. My PCs 17" monitor is pretty old and starting to lose color, being secondhand, but it's served me well and I couldn't afford a new one at the time. Had it been economically viable at the time, I would most certainly have gotten a Mac instead of a custom-built PC recycling old parts like monitor, keyboard and HD. Moreover, if I had a Mac with a fully-functional 20" flatscreen, why would I want to pay to get a new one just to upgrade the computer?

If people can't afford the Mac, they won't get to experience OSX at all. Apple needs to grow marketshare badly. Cheap Macs may not be profitable, but they make for a good introduction to a Mac and future upgrades, and grows marketshare among groups like students etc.

[jwhitnah]

An iMac G5 would put the iMac ahead of the Powerbook and no one seriosly expects a G5 Powerbook before 2005.

[Rower_CPU]

The G5 systems. They use heat pipes to carry heat from the CPU to the heatsink fins.

They don't use water, though, but a liquid with a much lower boiling point, like a light alcohol.

Can you point us to an Apple doc or other source that can confirm that?

[slughead]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

I know it's been answered but:
G4s suck. G5s are actually modern processors. I saw a P4 2.8Ghz in an all-in-one a couple days ago (with a 17" 16x9 LCD), which would beat the pants off of any single CPU G4, even in a photoshop test! Plus it cost about $500 less. In order to be worth anything, Apple doubled them up on their last G4 PM's.

G5s aren't that much better than Opterons, and the gap is shortening every few months. I would argue that the G5 was the first processor in years to actually rival intel's CPUs (I'll grant that it even beat them in legitimate benchmarks). The G4, however, is obsolete, was always obsolete, and probably always will be obsolete.. Apple needs a DP-3GHZ G5 in June or they'll be losers again.

Forkamotorola.

For the record, I bought a DP800MHZ G4 when it came out, knowing it was barely comparable to the Intels, specifically so I could run OS X 10.2 with Quartz Xtreme enabled (which was on the eve of coming out).

[The Red Wolf]

First off, to anyone who things a G5 1.6 GHz is a moderate speed bump to the 1.25/1.33 GHz G4 is buying in to Intel MHz marketing. It may only represent a small change in numbers, but the difference between a G4 1.25 GHz on a 167 MHz system bus and the very possible 1 GHz iMac G5 system bus. Even half of that, say a 500 MHz bus would vastly improve total system performance. Not to mention the advances from 32-bit to 64-bit from the G5 processor itself.

Second, any time Apple creates a new machine or a tangible update to a line it helps them in their success with other products. The main thing that may attribute to the delay of the G5 PowerBook mays imply be the delay from IBM on the 970FX line. Most more than likely the chips going into a G5 iMac would be the 970. Unless Apple is pulling off miracles which would be grand. I'm sure Apple would loose money if they only concentrated on their "Pro" laptop design. Waiting for chips and then selling to a market that isn't anywhere near as large as the general public which would enjoy an entry to mid-level machine.

We could have a G5 PowerBook right now. It would be dual processor, heavy and come with a 23" screen. Maybe they could even rub of X-Serve and write on PowerBook. Then again it would weigh far more than 6 odd pounds. Oh, right, there are production problems, getting getting the X-Serve out as well... Wait, the PowerBook G5 will come and it will be worth it.

[yossele]

Check this out! (http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-05-10#2072)

[beatle888]

The powerbook could be considered pro simply by it's weight, formfactor, design and not it's CPU.

:p i wasnt going to repeat this but it was so funny i just had to.

[QCassidy352]

The two other questions are:

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

I don't get the idea of a "headless imac." From day 1, the imac has been an all-in-one. If it were headless, it would be an entirely new computer, certainly not an imac.


So, you want a G5-based machine with no monitor attached and a lot of upgradability... now if only apple would make something like that... hmm... :rolleyes:

[kenaustus]

In terms of a new iMac I tend to think of 4 things:

1. iMac, by definition, is a computer + screen.
2. Design
3. Engineering
4. IBM fab problems

A new iMac will, if history is an indication, have a new design that will blow out minds. Apple is rather good at that. Think back to your reaction when the current iMac was released - can they make that great of a leap again? Blows my mind just thinking about it!

A new iMac will also require a significant level of engineering work. The have probably been working on that ever since they started working on the 90 nm PM. It is not economically logical for them to make a large engineering investment using a chip that will be at an EOL stage in a short time - and the 970 was definitely a stopgap chip.

I believe that a new iMac will be G5, 90 nm and will have some impressive tech - including a faster FSB. Going this way will increase the number of G5 Macs on the market and that is a good motivator for developers to focus on that area more.

With regards to IBM's fab problems - I think that is the only reason why we have not seen a G5 iMac already. When you see the PM released with the 90 nm chip then you can expect the new iMac to follow shortly - as soon as the initial PM backlog is cleared.

I have been ready to buy a new 20" iMac since January, but I'm waiting for the G5 simply because it will be used for a long time and there will be a lot of software coming out that will need the G5 chip. The G5 iMac is therefore a better 4 year investment for me than the G4. My credit card is ready. :D

[AidenShaw]

Also, your link to the MDD 1.42 heatsink was an aftermarket upgrade, not a part stock from Apple.

According to that article, the heat sink is in fact the stock Apple Part No. 076-0983 for the MDD 1.42 systems. There's lots of noise on the web about the copper heat sink in the MDD 1.42, for example http://pmcg.comeuppance.org/archives/000025.html.


If you can provide a tech doc from Apple that says there's water in their cooling systems I'll gladly stand corrected.

I don't mean to be flippant, but I challenge you to find a tech doc from Apple that says that that Apple uses capacitors in their power supplies. Obviously they do, so it's not worth stating.

If you can accept that Apple uses heat pipes, then look up what a "heat pipe" is.

http://www.thermacore.com/images/heat_pipe_illustration.jpg

http://www.thermacore.com/hpt_how.htm

http://www.thermacore.com/images/heat-pipe-201.gif


I'm not arguing the feasibility or "extremeness" of such systems at all, just whether or not Apple is using them *now*.

Well, I'm sorry I can't find an article quoting Steve Jobs saying "This new Mac uses liquid-filled heat pipes for cooling". Maybe he's just embarrassed to be using the same cooling technology as everyone else.

How about one of the many quotes from Mac enthusiasts, though, like:

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-61633

Laptop manufacturers and Shuttle form factor desktops use heatpipes already, as some people have pointed out. What's surprising me is that nobody's brought up that Apple already uses them, too.

In fact, the machine right in front of me uses a heatpipe. The eMac has a dual contact pipe that rests between the processor and the SuperDrive, running back around the monitor and up to an exhaust fan.

So we know Apple has some experience using them.

[MrSugar]

.........

Repeat over an over and over
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4

This is not my opinion, it is a fact (as has been shown in tests done by Mac benchmarking websites).

Please sir, show me the benchmarks. Considering your G4 has less than 1/3 the bus of the g5. I find this very very hard to believe. When you make statements, show a benchmark to back yourself up.

PLUS DID I MENTION THE G5 IS 64bit!!!!!!! Even if you are right (benchmarks please) the future is not on the 32bit chips, it's on the 64.

[SiliconAddict]

Despite the seeming lull in product releases in the past few months, according to sources, Apple has been hard at work on upcoming releases...

Most specifically, sources report that a PowerPC G5 based iMac is in the works and should represent the next iMac revision.


Any "potential" issues with shoehorning a G5 into a PowerBook aside how utterly pathetic will/would it be if the iMac outperforms the top of the line PowerBooks? :rolleyes: Pro portable my butt.

Don't get me wrong this is "potentially" good news for consumers but its a sad testament to the situation Apple is in when it comes to their pro laptop line.

[slughead]

First off, to anyone who things a G5 1.6 GHz is a moderate speed bump to the 1.25/1.33 GHz G4 is buying in to Intel MHz marketing

I don't know if you were responding to me, but I'll pretend you were cuz it sort of sounds like it..

I never said the G5 wasn't good, I even said it was modern. By contrast, I said the G4 "sucked."

I think it's common sense to say a jump from Sucky to Modern is a pretty big jump, but that's not the reason why I didn't directly say it.

The reason is: it doesn't matter. If Ford only made one car: the 1980 pinto for like 20 years, and then created the mustang, does it matter how big the jump was?? Ford sucked for 20 years, and then made something halfway decent.

We shouldn't be saying "oh what an accomplishment!" We should be saying "It's about bloody time!!"

And if you did faun over the new product because of it's superiority to the old one, when there's BMW pumping out M3s all the while, wouldn't YOU be the one buying into FORD's marketing?

For those who don't like metaphors:
It doesn't matter that Apple made a BETTER product, unless the old product was actually DECENT, which in the case of the G4, it was not.

[Rower_CPU]

According to that article, the heat sink is in fact the stock Apple Part No. 076-0983 for the MDD 1.42 systems. There's lots of noise on the web about the copper heat sink in the MDD 1.42, for example http://pmcg.comeuppance.org/archives/000025.html.

I don't mean to be flippant, but I challenge you to find a tech doc from Apple that says that that Apple uses capacitors in their power supplies. Obviously they do, so it's not worth stating.

If you can accept that Apple uses heat pipes, then look up what a "heat pipe" is.

Well, I'm sorry I can't find an article quoting Steve Jobs saying "This new Mac uses liquid-filled heat pipes for cooling". Maybe he's just embarrassed to be using the same cooling technology as everyone else.

How about one of the many quotes from Mac enthusiasts, though, like:

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-61633

No problem, I think we're just getting stuck on semantics. From what I've seen, they do have pipes attached to some of their heatsink units, but I've yet to hear any mention of liquid heat pipes - I've also been unable to find the term "heat pipe" in Apple's service guides.

I'm just asking for another source to corroborate. No need for the attitude.

[dontmatter]

So where's the news in this? We all new that we're well due fro imac revisions, particularly after the emac revisions. And clearly the G4 ain't going much further. Maybe we didn't KNOW that it woudl be a G5, but we knew that it had better be a G5, and this is a rumor anyway, so it's hardly more solid.

The only question, and the big question indeed, is when. And we still get to ask. When? I guess this does provide plenty of people the place to make their speculations....

[BrianKonarsMac]

I don't get the idea of a "headless imac." From day 1, the imac has been an all-in-one. If it were headless, it would be an entirely new computer, certainly not an imac.


So, you want a G5-based machine with no monitor attached and a lot of upgradability... now if only apple would make something like that... hmm... :rolleyes: I've heard rumors of a G5 Power Mac but I'm not holding my breath. :eek: ;)

as you said, the iMac is an all in one, its for people like my parents who could care less whether or not they have internal expansion or future upgradeability. if they can use the internet and emai, print a few papers and use the web camera that's all they want. it's a simple family computer, when you start talking upgradeability, you move to the power mac.

[volleygirl]

I have been waiting patiently for a G5-based iMac. Current iMac is outdated/underpowered (for my needs); G5 desktop is out of my price range for home computer (I have a new G5 PowerMac at work). Have checkbook in hand...come on Apple, let's go.
:D

[gekko513]

I've heard rumors of a G5 Power Mac but I'm not holding my breath. :eek: ;)

as you said, the iMac is an all in one, its for people like my parents who could care less whether or not they have internal expansion or future upgradeability. if they can use the internet and emai, print a few papers and use the web camera that's all they want. it's a simple family computer, when you start talking upgradeability, you move to the power mac.
We don't want a dual G5 upgradeable tower with pci-x slots and digital audio in all directions. (We don't want a huge overprized single G5 tower with normal pci, either ;) )

Many people just want a small quiet consumer G5 without a screen. How hard can it be?

[ktlx]

As a Ph.D. Economist and apple shareholder, as well as a long time Mac user I would like to make some general comments.

First, Apple as a corporation has two basic responsibilities, to make money and to increase market share. (At the present time, I would say that growing market share is the most important of the two.)

You need to get a refund for your education. :)

Apple as a corporation has only one responsibility: to make money for their shareholders. Everything else is just implementation details of that responsibility. Increasing market share may be one implementation plan but so might be liquidating the company and becoming a venture capitalist firm for cool technology.

[BoRegardless]

Everyone understands that when the story gets hot about the "next release" or "next generation" release that you can savage the existing sales. Hence, Apple better start accelerating their spending to get things out faster.

I for one am ready to buy both the G5s in a 17" PowerBook and a DP 3ghz PowerMac, but I'll be damned if I am going to buy now and have the new G5 stuff show up in a few months.

I am sorely tempted to "Buy Now", as the psychologically tempting web page phrase urges, but I have superb restraint.

There are one whole heck of a lot of people out there just like me. The pent up demand is high in my view.

[faroutfive]

Upgradable...thats a tougher call. I very much doubt it. Of course they would always allow access to the ram slots, possibly the graphics card?, hard disk? and a pci slot or two, but it would be a big change for the imac line...

I hear this all day long. "The powermac is upgradable. The iMac isn't, Right?" I tell them I upgrade iMacs all the time.

You need a hard drive? External FW HD. Your need a faster optical drive? Lacie makes a great 8x DVD+/-RW. 7.1 audio via USB? TV Tuner with Tivo? Hell, You can upgrade your zip drive by not having a zip drive. :p (.mac). And shoot me now, but I am just guessing that not every consumer user could use a big fat PCI slot on the back of their iMac. (dun dun)

Don't get me wrong, I am a videographer and small business owner. The powermac exists for much needed reasons. But we are talking about iMacs. And I've worked with enough customers to know that the iMac is the answer for most.

But the powermacs are so expensive! The iMacs are so expensive! We need pro iMacs! We need powermacs at iMac prices!

I only start feeling the iMac price tag as unfair when the processor, the defacto non upgrade, has fallen behind the curve. Hello G5 iMac. Why not. I think we'd all agree we'd get what we paid for. And when I'm writing a check for a new powermac, I'm looking less and less at how many PCI slots it has and more to how many ports it has. Things are slowly changing.

The iMac is extremely flexible. I've worked in small houses that cut DV with 6-7 external drives on iMacs. That was during the dark ages of the powermac G4. If the new powermac architecture wasn't so (finally) advanced, maybe I'd own an iMac too. Don't get me wrong, people. There are fantastic PCI cards out there, but pros is pros is pros...

I took my SCSI card out when I upped to 10.3. I think it's time to remove the idea you need the big box everytime, everywhere and think outside the box alittle :D

External graphics card anyone? ;)

[nextbigthing]

Hi,

I've never posted before. But I do get a kick out of reading the forum.

There WILL be a G5 Imac. It will NOT be headless. In addition, we also think the $999 emac is a screaming deal.

Thank you, we now return you to your discussion.

n-b-t

[ramiman]

This is what i think personnally.

The imacs which will come out sometime this summer will be the following :
17" imac G5 1,6 and 1,8 the 1,6 with ATI 9700 64 Mb DDR and the 1,8 with ATI 9700 128 Mb DDR and superdrive for both
20" imac G5 1,8 Ghz superdrive pus ATI Radeon 9700 128 Mb DDR


Concerning the performance of the G5 compared to the G4, it is true that there is no great difference although the G5's higher performance is perceptible. The real gain in performance in the G5 is not in the processor but the whole architecture of it : more RAM and especially gain of performance in graphics wether it is photoshop or a game.

For example, the powermac G4 dual 1,42 Ghz with the ATi 9800 pro and 128 Mb DDR cannot perform more than 30 fps in a botmatch in UT 2003 whereas the powermac G5 1,6 Ghz withe same graphic card performs a bit more than 40 fps and the powermac G5 1,8 Ghz performs 50 fps with the same graphic card also. And the powerbook G4 1,5 Ghz with 128 Mb video option performs a bit more than 32 FPS. So lets admit that it would be a real revolution to get G5's in an imac especially that we will finally be able to compete with PC systems.

[The Red Wolf]

[QUOTE=slughead]I don't know if you were responding to me, but I'll pretend you were cuz it sort of sounds like it..

Slughead, I was posting in general. I'm sorry if you felt my post was directed at you, it wasn't. I am tired of seeing several posts of how G5s based on the 970 chip-set are out of date and slow. I can't afford a high end G5 right now. The fact I was able to get an "Apollo" chip for my Cube made me very happy. It's basically a G5 without altevec. But my bus speed remains 100 MHz. 2MB level 3 cash helps. I would get a G5 iMac with a 20" screen. As it would be affordable for the time. Later when I have the money I can get a G5 PowerBook to replace a long dead 3400ce and finally retire the TAM.

The difference between a G4 500 MHz (the same chip that was in the dual G4 500 MHz tower) and the G4 "Apollo" 1.25-1.42 GHz... I assure you, is not just a speed bump. Nor a Pinto compared to a Pinto. The difference quite honestly in the way of cars would be like going from the high end model of a car to the high end model of the luxury line of the same company. VW to Audi, Toyota to Lexus, Nissan to Infinity, Honda to Acura. Looking at a G5 while driving your new luxury car is like looking at a BMW M3 with twin turbo. Or a Lamborghini per say. Which is why it bothers me so much when someone says "Man, this 2004 Lamborghini is too slow, I need the new 2004.5 model." When you're diving a 1997 M3... Doesn't the low end Lamborghini look good? My two cents.

[aftk2]

What's the point if you cannot install more than 4 GiB of memory?
Should use faster G4.

We're talking about running OS X...not Longhorn ;-)

[cgc]

A G5 iMac will make my Power Mac G4 look even worse :(

I don't understand how the current eMac and the current Power Mac G4 can have almost identical specs, yet the Power Mac is about NZ$1000 more.

On the other hand, any advance is an improvement :)
But an iMac on your lap on a plane would look even worse. Oh, it's not even on. A Powerbook's strength isn't it's power, it's its portability.

[dongmin]

The idea of a headless iMac, or some other varient of a consumer Mac at a price point of $800 makes perfect sense as a potential way to gain market share. It probably would not be highly profitable, but I believe apples stock would go up very nicely anyway if they were to gain market share and profits were to remain at about the same levels.


If all people cared about was getting a cheap computer, you can get an eMac for $750 (edu price) and ibook for $950 (edu). I think those prices are pretty competitive for what you get.

[dizastor]

I for one, am glad to see a fresh rumor... I go into MR witdrawl most weekends...

*twitch*

[the_wallcrawler]

when your mac is a 400 tibook..........even the current iMacs would be a major improvement. so talk of a g5?? sign me up.

[rogozhin]

I'll take one as soon as they reach the UK (though I'd much rather pay US prices - any reason a US one wouldn't work over here?)

Other than a power supply difference and that whole driving on the other side of the road, I can't think of any reason why not...

[Tom800]

So is the new design going to be as much as a leap as it was between G3/G4 iMacs? Will they go to metal? Return of the rainbow? How about black for once!

[isgoed]

finally!

A substantial G5 iMac rumor. It was about time.

[cryhavoc2112]

Once again, everyone tries to blow Longhorn off as a huge system hog. Not true. Completely scalable. Oh, and I have OSX in all it's bloated glory, just as bloated as any M$ OS. I know the flames of feverent Mac users shall now commence, but the truth is clear. Longhorn will be pretty and bloated. OS-NEXT will be pretty and bloated. All OS'es suck, so get over it.

Plus it will play all the games I love. M$ may have it's issues, but if you are a gamer, it is the only OS right now. And M$ is taking steps to ensure it's stronghold in the gaming market in the next OS. Looks like us gamers are stuck with M$.

Now start your replies. And start foaming @ the mouth. :cool:

[Chaszmyr]

A pointless argument. People who buy a headless Mac for $800 to put it with a crappy old CRT do it for economic reasons. If they had the money, they'd either get a shiny new monitor to go with it, or an all-in-one model like the current iMac. My PCs 17" monitor is pretty old and starting to lose color, being secondhand, but it's served me well and I couldn't afford a new one at the time. Had it been economically viable at the time, I would most certainly have gotten a Mac instead of a custom-built PC recycling old parts like monitor, keyboard and HD. Moreover, if I had a Mac with a fully-functional 20" flatscreen, why would I want to pay to get a new one just to upgrade the computer?

If people can't afford the Mac, they won't get to experience OSX at all. Apple needs to grow marketshare badly. Cheap Macs may not be profitable, but they make for a good introduction to a Mac and future upgrades, and grows marketshare among groups like students etc.

A headless imac wouldn't be any more affordable than an eMac

[weezer160]

because it's taken so dang long before apple can get any new powermac g5 updates, it's forced to take some interesting steps in promoting the sales of it's g5s. i think this is the good side of this powermac g5 update - apple is forced to do something unexpected with the g5s that they so desperately have to sell. :rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

I wish people would read my followup to the original post. I said that there is no 1.6 G4, but the performace of the 1.5 G4 is very very close to the 1.6 G5. If freescale takes the G4 to 2.0 Ghz with improved cache, it will make the new 1.6 G5 iMacs look like toys. The bus is a nonissue, since even with the 167 bus the current G4's are competitive with the G5's (again Mhz for Mhz). The G4 only has 7 pipeline stages, whereas the G5 is something like 20+. G4 doesn't need to be fed as quickly, and doesn't suffer the same penalties for things like branch mispredictions that the G5 does.here are some UT scores from eashop.macsales. notice how 1.6 G5 kicks a dual g4 1.42. This app isnt really that savy for 2 cpu's but this just goes to show in a lot of tests a single G5 can match or exceed any G4 duallies and these apps are not yet written for G5 or running a G5 OS.

[macrumors12345]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

Your argument presupposes that there is some degree of substitution between the Powerbook and the iMac line. This is a bad assumption - it is highly unlikely that many (any!) prospective Powerbook buyers would shift to the iMac simply because the iMac has a faster processor. It is arguably even more absurd to assume that a prospective Powerbook buyer might choose not to buy any machine simply because s/he was "jealous" that the "consumer" iMac had a faster processor than the "professional" Powerbook.

People understand that there is a tradeoff between power and portability. They are not stupid. They do not expect that a light laptop must be able to outperform a heavy desktop. In the Wintel world, you can buy a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 system for under $1000 that will easily outperform any $2000+ Pentium-M (Centrino) laptop, but you don't see consumers not buying Pentium-M's just because there exists a desktop that weighs 20 times as much and costs less and can outperform the Pentium-M.

[thatwendigo]

You have no idea what is/has been going on in Apple labs and for how long they have been working on putting a G5 in an iMac. We have all read the supposed problems with heat dissipation, FSB, memory controller ad nauseum. It wouldn't shock us if Apple has worked through these problems.

You're right on one point - we don't know what Apple has been up to. As I stated in my post, it is possible that something has been done to work around the issues of the G5, but the truth of the matter is that it would take one of a couple of solutions or a major breakthrough in technology. In general, that means a sacrifice in elegance or an even greater outlay in money, when you're talking about solving huge engineering problems.

If any company in the modern computing market could pull it off, I have faith that Apple could do it. The problem is that all the technical information that's been released, all the information on past models, and any other technical documentation points to the G5 being too hot, too slow, and too power hungry for a portable or a SFF computer. Just think about it logically for a moment... The 970 is a chip derived from a server processor that is constantly powered, cooled, and basically pampered in enclosures intended to keep it cool at lower clock than the current design.

I'd love to see there be an across-the-board rollout of a processor that's faster than the G4, but I'm not willing to see a decrease in power management and heat efficiency to achieve that. Big, important things are happening out there, and my predictions about Intel dropping the Pentium 4 development in favor of their Centrino design were right. Companies are realizing that they need fast and efficient, both. For Apple, this will be the 975/980, which should be around any time now, since the Power5 chips are debuting a week or two before WWDC.

If we see a major revision to the iMac, my bet is that it will be one of two things: an e600 from Freescale or a 975/980 with much better power slewing than the current 970 or 970fx. Of course, as I've posted all over the place in the past. I think the iMac is nearing the end of its life. Apple has a love/hate relationship with all-in-one computers, and they seem to make one every once in a while, only to discontinue it. A "headless iMac" would be better served as a minitower enclosure that is straightforward in its design, not as a kludge of an "all-in-one" that has some magical (and extra-expensive) detachable screen.

- I think they can cool it. New elegant form factor with clever use of convection and quite fans should do the trick
- I think only 2 RAM slots would be a waste for a prosumer machine. Dual channel is what helps the G5 go fast.

I think you're wrong. The heat output of current generation G5s is more than any past system that I am aware of, and that goes double for the all-in-one designs. Convection is only good for so much, and even the G4 required active cooling in both the eMac and iMac.

Also, as much as people like to label the iMac as a "prosumer" machine, I'd like to see what features make it so. There is no expansion slot, there is no upgradability, and that is one of the tradeoffs of all-in-one that you make as a necessity. In order to package the whole bundle together, you sacrifice certain things. That's just how it is, when you do simple, elegant designs like Apple's.

They will go G5...its inevitable. The fact they haven't done anything really with the iMac for so long bodes well to see G5 the next time round.

They're a bit stupid if they do, then. The recent admission by Intel should be meat enough for anyone that megahertz is not the measure of a machine, and the benchmarks at Barefeats (along with the analysis of them I've done elsewhere on the board) shows that the G5 is not significantly faster than the G4 at the single-processor level when you go clock-for-clock. The new 1.5ghz G4 PowerBooks have shown this.

Regardless of what speed G5 the iMac gets, it will be a significant improvement and something that will sell quite well. I'd imagine there would be a huge delay in shipping :D

People keep claiming that there would be a huge boost in performance.. Why? Show me where anything indicates that a low-clock single processor G5 is soooo much faster than the current generation of G5s. Please keep in mind that I'm talking about the 1.5ghz 7447A, not any previous version.

I'd have to respectfully disagree, I think that having a detachable screen would send one message only which would be choice and upgradeability, it would also reduce significantly Apple's iMac inventory headache, rather than the current scenario where they have to produce a 15", 17" and 20" iMac, they could simply stock a one size fits all iMac box and ship your monitor of choice seperately.

Gee... I've heard this before. Oh, right, it's called a tower.

The simple truth of the matter is that some people just don't seem capable of admitting that what they want is a greedily cheap implementation of a non-commodity system. It doesn't matter what it does to Apple, whether it would be viable as a long-term product, or anything else. All that counts is that they get a G5 system with their particular desires, not that the design be at all solid or likely to sell. There is already a headless G5 system, and it's called a PowerMac.

I kind of wish that they would go ahead and do so, just to shut the people who can't stop talking about expandable low-end G5s up. I've done it before, but here's what I think the lineup would look like in a reasonably perfect world:

iBook 12"/14" 1.8ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(2-DIMM), 40GB 4200RPM, Combo, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,299
iBook 14" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(1-DIMM), 60GB 4200RPM, Superdrive, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,699

eMac 15" LCD 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60 GB/80GB, Combo/SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 128MB, $1,099/$1,499

cMac 2.2ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,499
cMac 2.6ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 160GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,799
cMac 3.0ghz 975 (dual-core), 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 Ultra 256MB, $2,099

PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 5400RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,799
PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,999
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,399
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 1GB PC 3200, 80GB 7200RM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,699

PowerMac 2.2ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x60GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $1,999
PowerMac 2.6ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x80GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $2,499
PowerMac 3.0ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 1GB PC4200, 2x120GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 256MB $2,999

[thatwendigo]

here are some UT scores from eashop.macsales. notice how 1.6 G5 kicks a dual g4 1.42. This app isnt really that savy for 2 cpu's but this just goes to show in a lot of tests a single G5 can match or exceed any G4 duallies and these apps are not yet written for G5 or running a G5 OS.

Did you even bother to read your own chart, DHM? The FPS for the Dual 1.42ghz is 36, and the single 1.6G5 is 33.5. The G4 wins. Also, if you at all research the models, the machine with highest FPS all have different graphics cards, and the leading one has a far better card than the others.

:rolleyes:

[MacFan25]

I'm wondering if they will have a re-design also. I love the design of the current iMacs, but I'm sure that the engineers at Apple already have something better in mind.

But a G5 iMac sure would be fast! :)

[steveh]

In my understanding, the heatsinks employed by Apple here are air conduits to directly move the heated air off the CPU.


No. My company did a competitive analysis teardown of a G5 system, and I got to look at the parts after disassembly. The heatsinks on the processors include a metal plate (copper, IIRC) contacting the CPU, and a pair of heatpipes carrying heat from the plate into the finned heatsink.

If you can provide a tech doc from Apple that says there's water in their cooling systems I'll gladly stand corrected.

You won't find it. If for no other reason than that the heat pipes don't contain water; they contain some low boiling point liquid.

There is no actively-pumped liquid cooling system, which is what you seem to be thinking of.

[steveh]

Can you point us to an Apple doc or other source that can confirm that?

No. Just hands-on experience with a complete tear down.

Definitely a heat pipe. It's a sealed copper tube, not some sort of duct for moving air.

[nmk]

DHM, as has been pointed out, you havent read your own chart. For the benefit of those who also didn't bother reading your chart, it shows the Dual 1.42 as having a higher framerate than the 1.6 G5. It also shows the Dual 1.25 matching the 1.6 in speed. This is interesting, particularly for a game that doesn't make any extensive use of dual processors.

Please sir, show me the benchmarks. Considering your G4 has less than 1/3 the bus of the g5. I find this very very hard to believe. When you make statements, show a benchmark to back yourself up.

This is a very well known, and respected, Mac benchmarking site. If you want to check yourself http://www.barefeats.com/fcp4.html

[MrSugar]

here are some UT scores from eashop.macsales. notice how 1.6 G5 kicks a dual g4 1.42. This app isnt really that savy for 2 cpu's but this just goes to show in a lot of tests a single G5 can match or exceed any G4 duallies and these apps are not yet written for G5 or running a G5 OS.

Thank you, thank you! This is exactly what I think people miss, these apps aren't even utilizing the true power of the g5! nice work DHM

Please keep in mind all, that the g5 is 64 bit, even if it isn't as much of a performance increase at this current time.

[nmk]

Thank you, thank you! This is exactly what I think people miss, these apps aren't even utilizing the true power of the g5! nice work DHM

Oh really. FCP, at least, contains libraries that allow the software to take advantage of the 64 bit processor. See the chart I have included above. It does not, at the same clock speed, have any noticible advantage over a G4. Please play special attention to the scores of the 1.6 G5 and 1.5 G4. FCP is a professional application. It does take advantage of anything the G5 might have to offer.

[Lanbrown]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

Why can't they put the G5 in the iMac before the PB? When a product is ready, it should be released. Maybe the question should be why not? iMac sales are down, they need to do something to stimulate them. Another speed bump won't do it, they've already done that. They even tried releasing a bigger screen, that didn't do anything either. Look at the current iMac design, it's over two years old. Here's what they need to do:
G5, at least 1.8GHz if not 2.0. By the times these are released, the PM should be at 3GHz. SATA drives and offer more then the current 160GB ATA option. Update the SuperDrive on all desktop systems to 8x, or at least on the PM and iMac. The GPU should me much improved as well, how about the Mobility 9700 or 9800?

The iMac is for a different segment then a PB or even an iBook. Apple cannot make the G5 for the Pro line only. Apples sells more equipment to consumers then they do to Professionals. Some businesses/governments even use the iMac.

[SiliconAddict]

here are some UT scores from eashop.macsales. notice how 1.6 G5 kicks a dual g4 1.42. This app isnt really that savy for 2 cpu's but this just goes to show in a lot of tests a single G5 can match or exceed any G4 duallies and these apps are not yet written for G5 or running a G5 OS.

Benchmarks based on Frames Per second are typically not very trustworthy in gauging pure performance since those specs are so dependant on the GPU. I'd trust something more along the lines of Photoshop benchmarks to give an accurate idea of performance.

[Mord]

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

stop with he headless imac thing apple tryed it with the cube (I am typeing on a dual g4 cube at this moment :)) and the mac community rejected it because of the price it's not going to happen however much i want a g5 cube.

[Piker]

Has anybody heard which G5 chip will be in the iMac? This info prob'ly hasn't been released yet, but I wonder if they finally got enough of those 970fx chips pumped out of the factory to make this feasible, or if they are sticking with the first generation G5's which are (still) currently in the PMG5.

If they are using the 970fx, and they don't release a PowerBook G5 right along side of this new iMac, I would be forced to get upset.

-Piker

[dstorey]

What I'd like to see is something like the iMac mini that macrumors is currently making up. I'd like to see it being to the iMac, what the iPod mini is to the iPod. It would be in a cube form factor, but a real cube shape instead of being raised on plastic feet like the original...or was the NeXT cube the original? The problem would be fitting everything into a small cube form factor, as a large cube would look kinda bad. Cooling would be a problem too, but i guess they could share components with laptops if the size is too much a problem.

It would be made out of aluminium, and look like it was made out of one slab, coming in all the colours of the iPod mini and white. Basically it would look like the throphies that apple are giving away at WWDC http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/images/cubes-together.jpg
but with the apple logo on the side, iMac mini written on the front in small writing, small glowing power button on the front, which is more touch sensitive than an actual button...kinda like what bang & oulfson do on their latest hi-fi, and the same superdrive/combo drive as the powermac either at the top of the front face or mounted vertically like the cube...very clean lines and lack of clutter. The bottom would unlock to access the internald for expansion using same lock as the powerbook battery. The ports would be lined up along the bottom of the back face, again in a similar style as the powerbook. Maybe a mini-dvi could be used to save space. Im not sure about an removeable graphics card as it would ruin the clean lines along the back.

Of course it would be underpowered (low end g5 or high end g4) and cost too much, but as the iPod mini proved, the specs wont matter to the general public, theyll all think its cool and goes with their ipods and they will fly off the shelves to everyones amazment. Having some sort of ipod/mini dock on it would be nice too. Just as the ear buds are white, so would the keys and mouse for each model. Of course al lthe teen girls could buy pink imac minis to match their ipod, or mix and match such as hving ,pink ipod, blue imac and silver iSight.

sorry for going on...but that would be my dream computer...well except i'd get the silver or white one, not pink ;)

[ahmadof]

makes me wonder why Apple is not marketing the iBook/ Powerbook line as such. You can get a bluetooth iBook, CRT monitor, and wireless keyboard + mouse for about the same as an iMac. There's a cube or a rectangle that's pretty good and lets you have a laptop. The performance is about the same as iMac currently. also i don't even pretend to be an expert, but the reason i would not buy anything but a G5 atthis point is that I keep computers for a while. My G3 400 powerbook is running 10.3 faster than 10.2 which was faster than 10.1. I believe that if i buy a G5 now, it will last a lot longer and get "faster" as the OS gets more efficient, more applications are optimized for it, and people start using the 64 bitness of it. That's why even if there is not a huge difference now, apple has shown me that they will keep improving my existing computer. there is more room for the G5 to grow.

[jayscheuerle]

A headless imac wouldn't be any more affordable than an eMac

Then give me a headless eMac for $700! I've got a fine 17" lcd attached to a 400mHz beige G3. eBay is my only option for an affordable upgrade. Apple does not offer anything I can justify paying for.

A 1.25 gHz G4 is plenty strong for 90% for what most Mac users use their machines for, providing they have enough RAM.

I'm interested in understanding the opposition to an affordable, low-end Mac that isn't the size of a microwave oven and you can attach any size monitor you want to. Is this some kind of crazy religion? There's no logic behind it....

[rdowns]

do you think the look will also change when the iMac G5 comes out?

I definately think they would update the design with a G5. If the G5 rumor is true, I bet Jobs and Ives have something really hot up their sleeves (save the G5 heat jokes please).

Off topic: Posting this from the hotel bar in my Atlanta hotel. Just finished blowing away some Wintel jerk who couldn't get his wireless connection working. Called my iBook a toy. I just booted up and Airport recognized the wirelss LAN, entered access code and was off. Started checking my work mail while he cursed and rebooted time and time again. I asked him if he wanted me to email a message to his office for him. :D

He was looking over my shoulder so I asked him if he ever saw OS X. He was very impressed with the OS X stuff I showed him. Told him he owed me a beer for the education.

The whole place is wireless!!!!!!

[jayscheuerle]

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

stop with he headless imac thing apple tryed it with the cube (I am typeing on a dual g4 cube at this moment :)) and the mac community rejected it because of the price it's not going to happen however much i want a g5 cube.

That's because they aimed for the wrong market.

A headless iMac/eMac should be aimed for the lowest price bracket, not the designer/boutique/pseudo-power-user market.

[Rower_CPU]

No. Just hands-on experience with a complete tear down.

Definitely a heat pipe. It's a sealed copper tube, not some sort of duct for moving air.

Thanks for the info. :)

[Phobophobia]

[QUOTE=IndyGopher]I wish whatever 3rd grade teacher told the world that, would be flogged on national television. It's WRONG. That statement is based on the relation of wing size to mass, in a fixed wing craft Airplanes don't flap their wings. They are just gliders with deformable wings and an engine to keep inertia at bay.

You do yourself, and anyone listening who is gullible enough to believe you, a grave disservice by passing along Bad Science.

To bring this slightly back towards the topic, the same application of ignorance and bad science is what leads people to think you have to stick all the components from a G5 tower into a box the size of an iMac in order to make a G5 iMac. No one expects a G4 powerbook to be the size of a G4 MDD tower, so why can't they wrap their head around the notion that if you don't include all the expansion slots, a power supply designed to run a computer, and a monitor (remember the ADC monitors) etc, that you

Although I feel you overreacted a bit, you are correct. I was merely trying to make a point and realize that it is "bad science".

[dontmatter]

What I'd like to see is something like the iMac mini that macrumors is currently making up. I'd like to see it being to the iMac, what the iPod mini is to the iPod. It would be in a cube form factor, but a real cube shape instead of being raised on plastic feet like the original...or was the NeXT cube the original? The problem would be fitting everything into a small cube form factor, as a large cube would look kinda bad. Cooling would be a problem too, but i guess they could share components with laptops if the size is too much a problem.

It would be made out of aluminium, and look like it was made out of one slab, coming in all the colours of the iPod mini and white. Basically it would look like the throphies that apple are giving away at WWDC http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/images/cubes-together.jpg
but with the apple logo on the side, iMac mini written on the front in small writing, small glowing power button on the front, which is more touch sensitive than an actual button...kinda like what bang & oulfson do on their latest hi-fi, and the same superdrive/combo drive as the powermac either at the top of the front face or mounted vertically like the cube...very clean lines and lack of clutter. The bottom would unlock to access the internald for expansion using same lock as the powerbook battery. The ports would be lined up along the bottom of the back face, again in a similar style as the powerbook. Maybe a mini-dvi could be used to save space. Im not sure about an removeable graphics card as it would ruin the clean lines along the back.

Of course it would be underpowered (low end g5 or high end g4) and cost too much, but as the iPod mini proved, the specs wont matter to the general public, theyll all think its cool and goes with their ipods and they will fly off the shelves to everyones amazment. Having some sort of ipod/mini dock on it would be nice too. Just as the ear buds are white, so would the keys and mouse for each model. Of course al lthe teen girls could buy pink imac minis to match their ipod, or mix and match such as hving ,pink ipod, blue imac and silver iSight.

sorry for going on...but that would be my dream computer...well except i'd get the silver or white one, not pink ;)

hmm... sounds just like the origional cube, only with modern specs. An, yeah, that one went well, if I remember correctly. not. What, precisely, would make this one different? Compters are just a bit more complex than ipods, in use and so in marketing and what people care about. That's why the cool factor just isn't as big. Not to mention, why does apple need to make a desktop that's going to require laptop components, and otherwise be an engineering nightmare and so be rediculously over priced, just to be cool? Apple's are ALREADY cool.

[thatwendigo]

Then give me a headless eMac for $700! I've got a fine 17" lcd attached to a 400mHz beige G3. eBay is my only option for an affordable upgrade. Apple does not offer anything I can justify paying for.

I doubt it'll happen. Besides, it's $1,299 for a 1.25ghz G4 tower that's more expandable than the eMac and roughly comparable.

I'm interested in understanding the opposition to an affordable, low-end Mac that isn't the size of a microwave oven and you can attach any size monitor you want to. Is this some kind of crazy religion? There's no logic behind it....

I'm against crappy versions of the mac platform, which a low end machine will have to be if it isn't a G4. Of course, since you've stated that you'd be fine with a G4, I have to ask you this... What makes you believe that a G4 lowend box would sell all that well if the eMac isn't exactly screaming off shelves?

[Mojo The Monkey]

If Apple's really interested in selling iMacs, they shouldn't be too afraid of the idea of a G5 iMac. If they can design it, they should ship it.

Look back to the introduction of the first, tray loading iMacs.

Apple agressively designed the Bondi iMac with a 233 G3 processor at the same time that the PowerMacs were shipping with 233, 266, or 300 MHz processors. It wasn't clock speeds that were differentiating these machines, it was the expandability.

When I bought my 333 Grape iMac in May of 1999, Apple had since moved to the Blue & White PowerMacs, which were shipping with 300, 350 or 400 MHz processors. Again, the iMacs had comparable processor speeds to the PowerMacs. My lowly consumer-level iMac was, at least in terms of MHz, faster than the cheapest PowerMac!

At this same time (April 1999), Apple was shipping PowerBook G3s with 233, 266, or 300 MHz processors. The iMacs, for a few weeks at least, were faster than the fastest PowerBook! In May, Apple introduced the Lombard PowerBooks, which shipped with 333 or 400 MHz processors. It wasn't processor speeds that were differentiating these machines, it was the portability.

Anyway, the long and short of this post is this: Historically, Apple has not been afraid of agressive specifications for the iMac line. For short periods of time, the iMacs have been faster than any PowerBook available, and have been faster than all but the fastest PowerMacs available. A G5 iMac could well be released in the next couple of months.

If Apple remembers and learns from the success of the original fruit-flavored iMacs, Apple could well release G5 iMacs at speeds up to 2.0 GHz.

[jayscheuerle]

What makes you believe that a G4 lowend box would sell all that well if the eMac isn't exactly screaming off shelves?

LCD and a small form factor. The eMac is huge and overkill space-wise for anyone who already has a decent display.

And there's the fact that tons of people are clamoring for them. Have been for years. Inexpensive doesn't mean cheap. Heck, if someone created a kit which would allow the removal of the monitor of an eMac and a revised, smaller case (with respectable styling), I'd buy one in a minute. Sure, I can get a used G4 on ebay, but like all of those who claim that the current iMac is upgradable, I already have external drives and opticals, etc. I don't need a fully configured machine...

It would take away the excuse of Macs being too expensive. Yes, yes... We ALL KNOW that feature for feature, they're not, but not everyone needs a high-end machine and not everyone needs all of their working external devices replaced by a new machine.

I think Apple doesn't offer this because it would drastically cannibalize the sales of their higher-margin machines.

Not everyone needs a laptop.

[jayscheuerle]

I doubt it'll happen. Besides, it's $1,299 for a 1.25ghz G4 tower that's more expandable than the eMac and roughly comparable.

Why would I pay $500 more just not to get a monitor? The low-end eMac is $799.

Heck, I'd pay $799 if they'd just redesign the case without the monitor in it...

[Trekkie]

The G5 systems. They use heat pipes to carry heat from the CPU to the heatsink fins.

They don't use water, though, but a liquid with a much lower boiling point, like a light alcohol.

Not necessarily, you can also put water in at a much lower atmospheric pressure and it'll boil much sooner at a lower temperature transfering the heat better/faster. I think at 50% of normal pressure water converts to steam at 80 deg F.

[Trekkie]

An iMac G5 would put the iMac ahead of the Powerbook and no one seriosly expects a G5 Powerbook before 2005.

This is new how? I seem to remember processor technology showing up first in a desktop form factor before a laptop factor?

[thatwendigo]

The eMac is huge and overkill space-wise for anyone who already has a decent display.

I have a "decent display," but it's CRT, so the the eMac was a reduction in space used for me.

And there's the fact that tons of people are clamoring for them. Have been for years.

Actually, I've never really seen it as "tons" of people, so much as a very vocal minority. Most people are more intersted in "me, me, me" cries for the latest and greatest (along with their personal "needs") for basically bargain basement prices. Could you show me someplace I could verify the existence of this massive, untapped market for G4 headless, externally expandable machines?

Inexpensive doesn't mean cheap. Heck, if someone created a kit which would allow the removal of the monitor of an eMac and a revised, smaller case (with respectable styling), I'd buy one in a minute.

I agree, but that's also conditional on G4 systems. At the moment, the G5 is going to necessitate that inexpensive does mean cheap.

It would take away the excuse of Macs being too expensive. Yes, yes... We ALL KNOW that feature for feature, they're not, but not everyone needs a high-end machine and not everyone needs all of their working external devices replaced by a new machine.

Interestingly, if you do a search into third-party G4 systems (they exist), you'll find that Apple is far more generous than most. I did a breakdown of the Pegasos II motherboard that used commodity parts, and it was basically a wash. Macs were far better value, even at the older pricepoint.

I think Apple doesn't offer this because it would drastically cannibalize the sales of their higher-margin machines.

I think they don't offer it because there's not enough demand to sell one. The mac isn't about low-end experience.

[JOD8FY]

A G5 iMac would be great :) . I had the same thought process as some of you: they should put a G5 in the powerbook first because its pro, right? But now I've changed my views. Apple should make their machines the best that they possibly can and not be stifled by one line being "pro" and the other "consumer." The difference is that one's a laptop and one's a desktop.

Anyway, this would be a much needed and very nice update to the iMac. I hope it's true. Will they change the design? I like the way it looks now, but if they changed it, it wouldn't be for the worse.

Cheers,
JOD8FY

[appleface]

when is apple going to promote a cable-free computer? i imac seems like an ideal candidate. next gen imacs ship with wireless keyboard, mouse, and built in airport card (buy a 23" imac, and they'll throw in the base station for $100).

the display can be wireless, so you can tuck away the brains. you could buy the imac brain without an apple display for you headless fans.

get the brains without the head.

[Mr. Anderson]

the display can be wireless, so you can tuck away the brains. you could buy the imac brain without an apple display for you headless fans.

i'd love to see a wireless monitor, but I don't think that's really possible now. Your talking a very large res screen, that needs fast refresh....that would be one hell of a signal :D

D

[JOD8FY]

next gen imacs ship with wireless keyboard, mouse, and built in airport card (buy a 23" imac, and they'll throw in the base station for $100).

I like that wireless idea. Not bad at all. Hmmmm........

[jackieonasses]

i got an idea...

the powerbook is the "pro" version of the laptops.....therefore it is the better quality....

then the imac is the "consumer" of the *desktop* line. dont cross the 2 platforms.....

[Mr. Anderson]

This is a very well known, and respected, Mac benchmarking site. If you want to check yourself http://www.barefeats.com/fcp4.html

you have one problem relying on this data - its only one app.

look at this http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum.html

if taking the extrapolation of 2x1.42 and 2x2.0 (assuming the same processing power) you'd get a ratio of about 41% faster. There are a couple at around 37% (which is close), but quite a few much higher. One at 110% and another at 117% better. That's a significant difference.

I do 3D animation - and the cinebench2003 (110%) indication would be a huge help for me :D Although, using Lightwave, my results might vary..

D

[PowerMacMan]

Could this happen tomorrow? I hipe over every Tuesday... But anyways, G5 iMac, in my opinion, would be the right move, and is very likely... I just want a Mac!

[jpk]

Despite the seeming lull in product releases in the past few months, according to sources, Apple has been hard at work on upcoming releases...

Most specifically, sources report that a PowerPC G5 based iMac is in the works and should represent the next iMac revision.

As with many of Apple's revisions, sources are unable to provide a specific timeframe for release, but iMacs are due for a revision. The iMac was last updated in November 2003.

There was a lull before the iBook/PowerBook/eMac releases. I'd say that's enough for awhile, although PowerMac, iMac releases would be welcome.

All my best,
JPGK

[gwuMACaddict]

gee whiz... i cant check the site for a day because of finals and look what i miss... this is awesome. i think it means good things for powermac updates too. apple cant use the same chip in both, that would be borderline ridiculous. i'm excited for the iMac, but powermac here i come :D

[oingoboingo]

Repeat over an over and over
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
A 1.6 G5 is not faster than a 1.6 G4
.

Repeat over and over:
There is no such thing as a 1.6GHz G4
There is no such thing as a 1.6GHz G4
There is no such thing as a 1.6GHz G4

[oingoboingo]

here are some UT scores from eashop.macsales. notice how 1.6 G5 kicks a dual g4 1.42. This app isnt really that savy for 2 cpu's but this just goes to show in a lot of tests a single G5 can match or exceed any G4 duallies and these apps are not yet written for G5 or running a G5 OS.

It's not fully SMP-aware, but the sound thread does run on the 2nd CPU, which lifts frame rates a little for, say, a single 1.25GHz G4 system versus a dual 1.25GHz system.

No mention on video cards in that benchmark...I'd assume those systems were just benchmarked with their stock GPUs? It's hard to draw any conclusions without knowing what video cards are installed in those systems. As would be typical of the Mac benchmarking community, it'll be a hodgepodge mix of graphics cards and those benchmarks will be next to useless for benchmarking CPU performance.

[iLilana]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

the 1.6 G5 i thought ran as fast as or faster than a dual 1.42 g4... a low cost g5 would be sooooo nice. if the g5 imacs happen, they might be released in concert with g5 pb's.

just supposen

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hmm, imagine this at WWDC 2004:

Power Mac G5 DP 2.2GHz, DP 2.6GHz, DP 3.0GHZ

iMac G5 SP 2.2GHz, SP 2.6GHz, SP 3.0GHz

Yummy! I know, it’s just a dream and won’t happen but Apple would finally be competitive again.

I like your numbers. Though if the iMac had 1.8 and 2.2 I wouldn't complain.

[vitruvius]

it's comming...

[Chaszmyr]

it's comming...

Cool looking but bad design from an ergonomic perspective... Way too big of a footprint to volume ratio

[k2k koos]

Now this is funny, just when I was thinking to upgrade my home machine (currently an iMac DV 400mhz) to a G5 Powermac (as I use an external TFT screen anyway, the build in one is dead...) this is announced, interesting, wonder what the prices will be, if I go for this imac, i have a 15" samsung TFt monitor for sale ha ha ha

[aswitcher]

Could this happen tomorrow? I hipe over every Tuesday... But anyways, G5 iMac, in my opinion, would be the right move, and is very likely... I just want a Mac!


Well they have been doing something new each week for over a month so we can but hope.

[AmigoMac]

it's comming...

Actually I thought you were mistaken and wanted to post on the "May Desktops" thread ... ;) :p :D Nice design but as already said, big footprint, nice work tho.!

[mms]

What kind of a "rumor" is this? Not meaning to be a troll, but this is all common sense. Of course a G5 iMac is in the works and is most likely the next revision. This is nothing new, and unless MacRumors could point to a credible source or an approximate timeframe, this is no rumor but merely an educational guess. None of the information provided in this "rumor" was anything I couldn't figure out myself.

[nek]

I think the iMac G5 will be as follows:
15" 1.6GHz
17" 1.8GHz
20" 1.8GHz

I'd like to see 4 RAM slots but they may stick with 2 because it still allows for 2GB and makes it more consumer compared to the Powermac. The graphics will obviously also be improved, possibly to the Radeon 9600 or even the 9800 now that ATI has introduced the significantly better Radeon X800. They may also include a 250GB HD as an option.

The Powermacs may seem underpowered by comparison until they are updated at the WWDC. I think the Powermacs will be as follows:
dual 2.2GHz
dual 2.6GHz
dual 3.0GHz
With long delays in shipping any of them, especially the 3.0GHz. The Radeon 9800 or something from nVidia will become the standard graphics card with the X800 as an option. There will also be space for 3 internal HDs and possibly an second optical drive.

[thatwendigo]

the display can be wireless, so you can tuck away the brains. you could buy the imac brain without an apple display for you headless fans.

Um... Right. So where are the power and signal coming from, without wires? If 802.11g is tha fastest current consumer wireless, doesn't it tell you something that there's wireless audio but no wireless video? Anywhere. No, really.

get the brains without the head.

Right now, I'd settle for people just using theirs. :rolleyes:

you have one problem relying on this data - its only one app.

look at this http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum.html

if taking the extrapolation of 2x1.42 and 2x2.0 (assuming the same processing power) you'd get a ratio of about 41% faster. There are a couple at around 37% (which is close), but quite a few much higher. One at 110% and another at 117% better. That's a significant difference.

You're doing that wrong. Extrapolating by clock speed, you get an increase of 41% over the G4s, and yet a performance increase of about the same. Oops. There goes the supposed benefit of the G5 over the G4, aside from its faster scaling.

I'm firmly ensconced in the idea that the 970 was a rush job, as more and more evidence has come out. It's only meant to tide us over until the real deal, the 975/980 can be released. Then we'll see some actual differences, because it's designed from ground up and not taken from a design that's just as old at the MPC74xx.

Admittedly, on some of the integer-operation heavy tasks, the G5 does smoke the G4. That's because it was at least partly aimed at filling that gap. However, for consumer use, which is all that the iMac is intended for, it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference. This is especially true when you're talking about the dual G5, instead of a single.

the 1.6 G5 i thought ran as fast as or faster than a dual 1.42 g4... a low cost g5 would be sooooo nice. if the g5 imacs happen, they might be released in concert with g5 pb's.

No, it doesn't. The dual 1.42ghz G4 almost universally beats the single 1.6ghz G5, and this is exactly the kind of market hype we need to avoid. Pay attention to reality and not the shiny, "ooh, the number is higher so it's better" mentality. That way lies Intel...

[el_aarono]

it's comming...

i think with a g5 the entire dome should be perforated sort of like the g5 towers. It would look like those folding vegetable boiling pots. :) Like this:

[AppleJustWorks]

I can spend $3000 U.S. on a desktop.. I want a 20" or larger display...And I want a G5 based system.

If Apple released an all-dual lineup and lowers prices on their displays, or puts the 20 at the bottom, I will get that...If not..What Should I do?

[iriejedi]

Might as well stick those "OLD" and "SLOW" G5 chips somewhere.

:rolleyes:

Sigh $4k sitting in the bank and no new towers - I just want to help the bottom line... but not yet.... rev B I'm waiting for you!

Not a Page 2 rumor?

Hmmm....

[iriejedi]

Ok my God they Killed Kenny uh I mean R2-D2 - I knew the Star Wars Droids were Mac Based!!!!! No Windows in a galaxy far far away!

it's comming...

[iriejedi]

This sits on top of Big Screen HDTV
:D
Cool looking but bad design from an ergonomic perspective... Way too big of a footprint to volume ratio

[Apple //e]

it's comming...

it looks annoyingly hard to pick up. perhaps a recessed grip in the rear?

[aswitcher]

it looks annoyingly hard to pick up. perhaps a recessed grip in the rear?


No, no, just slip it into hover mode :eek: :D

[windowsblowsass]

Admittedly, on some of the integer-operation heavy tasks, the G5 does smoke the G4. That's because it was at least partly aimed at filling that gap. However, for consumer use, which is all that the iMac is intended for, it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference. This is especially true when you're talking about the dual G5, instead of a single.


yes it might be cheaper w/o a g5 and wouldnt sacrifice much but what will sell more a improved imac g4 or a all new imac g5 g5 is just better for marketing

[JazzyGB1]

I don't know whether Apple will update the next iMac to a G5 or not, but it is possible.
I remember how (alleged) structural engineering experts posted to this forum saying that it was impossible for Apple to increast the TFT on the iMac from 15" to 17" as it would topple over.
Loads of technical stuff was said about load bearing, things being disproportional etc etc, but here we are a year later staring at not just 17", but 20" imacs - so much for the 'experts'.
I hope the new iMac is a G5, but (unfortunately) I think it will still use G4.
Anyone claiming that Apple can't put a G5 in an iMac though, is just talking out of their bottom.

Geoff

[Pegano]

I'm not sure it matters whether the next iMac is G4 or G5 so much as it costs less, so it's an actual CONSUMER product for EVERYONE. Where Apple is really hurting is its volume which could be increased through reaching out to everyday Joe. (sorry to you if your name is Joe) Apple is praised effervescently by design critics for their intriguing, COOL new creations (Cube, iMac, etc.), but unfortunately that's not what it takes to sell computers. I appreciate the functional design of Apple's computers as much as any, but for goodness sake, make a headless iMac and we'll be back in business. Let's Go Apple! You can do it!

[Gyroscope]

What I'd like to see is an headless iMac or at least one that comes with detachable screen. All that coupled with blitz fast G5 and I'm sold. Hope that soon all Macs will have >=G5 in them. G4 is gettin' on a bit.

[Nermal]

Because the Power Mac G4 is Apple's Last OS9 Bootable machine. A small, specific group users really need that, and are willing to pay extra for it.

Oh yeah, I forgot that the eMacs aren't OS 9 bootable. I use OS 9 quite a lot, for Virtual PC.

[jackieonasses]

Um... Right. So where are the power and signal coming from, without wires? If 802.11g is tha fastest current consumer wireless, doesn't it tell you something that there's wireless audio but no wireless video? Anywhere. No, really.



Right now, I'd settle for people just using theirs. :rolleyes:



You're doing that wrong. Extrapolating by clock speed, you get an increase of 41% over the G4s, and yet a performance increase of about the same. Oops. There goes the supposed benefit of the G5 over the G4, aside from its faster scaling.

I'm firmly ensconced in the idea that the 970 was a rush job, as more and more evidence has come out. It's only meant to tide us over until the real deal, the 975/980 can be released. Then we'll see some actual differences, because it's designed from ground up and not taken from a design that's just as old at the MPC74xx.

Admittedly, on some of the integer-operation heavy tasks, the G5 does smoke the G4. That's because it was at least partly aimed at filling that gap. However, for consumer use, which is all that the iMac is intended for, it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference. This is especially true when you're talking about the dual G5, instead of a single.



No, it doesn't. The dual 1.42ghz G4 almost universally beats the single 1.6ghz G5, and this is exactly the kind of market hype we need to avoid. Pay attention to reality and not the shiny, "ooh, the number is higher so it's better" mentality. That way lies Intel...

everything you said was true....but having the infamous "G5" just makes it more eye catching...more appealing.up to date....and of couse "more powerful....if you look through the consumers looking glass that is....

[Nemesis]

Yes it might be cheaper w/o a g5 and wouldnt sacrifice much but what will sell more a improved imac g4 or a all new imac g5 g5 is just better for marketing

Heh, I'd be prepared for something really new, if I were you guys. ;)
An iMac with DODECAEDRON form shape and deploying G5 proc is about to emerge!

Now, just try to image that!

;)

[Sun Baked]

It would be nice to know that the XServe G5 is getting CPUs in volume and in making great strides in reducing the backlog of machines -- especially since the iMac would be using the same processor, the 970fx.

[wizard]

Get a grip here would you, there are many good reasons why this route might be taken.

First iMac sales suck and aren't getting any better!!!!!!
Second portables are doing well, at least in comparison to the rest of the line.
Third who says the iMac has to be a 1.6GHz unit??? If apple is at all serius about staying in the market place the iMac or its replacement needs to hit 2GHz as a minimum. The reall world performance of the iMac will have to be able to compete for almost a year against remarkable new technology. Expect to see a world wide shift to SMP machinery in the near future.

Dave



I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

[daRAT]

I have the same doubts...look at the PM G5 and all the fans and space...what happens when putting that cpu in the iMac - it's going to be "glowing" with heat :rolleyes:


Pssst ... Liquid cooled *wink*

If I remember right rumors of this have surfaced again recently in reguards to the ever present G5 Powerbook threads ....

While I doubt the liquid cooled PB's, the iMac's maybe a better contender for this cooling system.

*kicks the soap box to the next speaker...*

[thatwendigo]

Get a grip here would you, there are many good reasons why this route might be taken.

There are at least as many why it shouldn't be taken.

Third who says the iMac has to be a 1.6GHz unit??? If apple is at all serius about staying in the market place the iMac or its replacement needs to hit 2GHz as a minimum. The reall world performance of the iMac will have to be able to compete for almost a year against remarkable new technology. Expect to see a world wide shift to SMP machinery in the near future.

You're off on a couple of things. First, the 2.0ghz G5 in the original 970 puts out a whopping 50w of power, or roughly four times what G4 under the hood does. Even with the 970fx revision, it's still at least twice as hot, and that's just for the chip. Add in the RAM, the new FSB and ASIC, and you get quite the toasty little package.

Secondly, it's not SMP but SMT that the world is moving towards, though SMP will probably play a role with the dual-core designs that are being talked about at basically every chip manufacturer.

While I doubt the liquid cooled PB's, the iMac's maybe a better contender for this cooling system.

Complications roughly equate to expense. Forget a cheap iMac if they're doing something as new as commercializing liquid cooling.

[mms]

I'd like to see 4 RAM slots but they may stick with 2 because it still allows for 2GB and makes it more consumer compared to the Powermac.
You're right, but I think another reason is space. Right now, since the iMac design makes the base pretty small, there isn't that much space to squeeze that much more extra stuff. Of course the iMac G5 would probably be a complete redesign, but one of its strong points is how much little desk space it takes up, especially compared to the huge PowerMacs (they're nice but huge, even bigger than previous PM's).

[Abstract]

Then again, Apples product line-up has so many holes it is no wonder that the share of the market is so small and shrinking. PowerMacs are droolworthy, but too expensive for a power consumer. There is no "single processor (but as fast as the fastest dual PowerMac's), cheaper PowerMac" option to get though.

I think that Apple should make a smaller G5 style PowerMac, with one processor (at comparable speeds to the current PowerMac line-up, none of this retarded "consumer machines should have slower processors" crap).

I'm sure everyone agrees with the 2nd part. Seriously, other companies sell computers with 3.2GHz P4 computers for consumers to edit DV, their digital photos, burn them on DVD to send to family members, etc. They'll sell another line to cater to people who are seriously looking to run their P4's to the max using pro-level software. Its not other companies cripple the consumer line just because they're not planning on using Avid or something. They're just more geared towards DV and digital photos, mp3's, etc. They need a single proc G5 line of PowerMac's for those looking to do some intensive stuff, and a single proc G5 iMac line for the general consumer types. No crippling is actually necessary.

And I'll repeat it again:

(possibly....17" iMac 1.33 GHz G4 with Combo drive)

17" iMac 1.5 GHz G4 with Combo drive
17" iMac 1.5 GHz G4 with Superdrive
20" iMac 1.5 Ghz G4 with Superdrive
20" iMac 1.6 GHz G5 with Superdrive

Only 2 RAM slots for the G5, but possibly a modified case for the entire line for now.

I really don't think it'll be an issue for them to jam a 1.6 G5 in the casing they have now, possibly modified.

And for those who say that Apple is definitely going to release the new iMac with a completely brand new case design because of how long Apple is taking with the update, it has only been 6 months since the last update to the iMac in November 2003, so its still within Apple's typical timeframe.

Also, the heat issues with the G5 was generally reserved for the dual G5 2GHz models. A single G5 1.6GHz proc won't exactly give me 3rd degree burns. It may be a bit hotter than a G4 1.5Ghz proc, but they can jam that into a 15" PB, so.....

[Bigheadache]

And I'll repeat it again:

(possibly....17" iMac 1.33 GHz G4 with Combo drive)

17" iMac 1.5 GHz G4 with Combo drive
17" iMac 1.5 GHz G4 with Superdrive
20" iMac 1.5 Ghz G4 with Superdrive
20" iMac 1.6 GHz G5 with Superdrive

Only 2 RAM slots for the G5, but possibly a modified case for the entire line for now.

I really don't think it'll be an issue for them to jam a 1.6 G5 in the casing they have now, possibly modified.



It doesn't really make sense to have two types of logic boards (one for G5, one for G4) from a business point of view. If they designed a G5 motherboard, they might as well use it across all iMacs instead of having one which is only used by 1 model.

[AidenShaw]

It would be nice to know that the XServe G5 is getting CPUs in volume and in making great strides in reducing the backlog of machines -- especially since the iMac would be using the same processor, the 970fx.

Saw this story on C|Net, about the new #2 supercomputer (unofficial until next Top500 list) based on Itaniums. ( http://news.com.com/2100-7337_3-5208220.html )

Seems that it has 20 TFLOPs, and was made by the company that has a certain Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan as its CTO. ( http://www.californiadigital.com/execs.shtml )

Maybe those PPC970fx chips aren't happening after all, if Dr. Varadarajan is an executive at a company that's pushing Xeons and Itaniums....

ps: Dr. V. was behind an older cluster at Virginia Tech....

[dvapplepro]

I think if they take all that white boring plastic off that imac and but some nice slick aluminum casing on that thing. That would really look good; it would also cool better to. They also have to through a G5 in there, maybe not a duel, but through a 1.8 G5 and cut that from the Power Macs. Also what they got to do is bump up that bus speed… jezzzz, there defiantly going to have to come out with new imac, the powerbook are now comparable or even alittle nicer on the spec side. The ibooks are even catching up, IBOOKS!!!!!!!!!


Bobby The Gibbons
Crazybobby.com

[SpiceMustFlow]

"The traditional scaling of semiconductor manufacturing processes died somewhere between the 130- and 90-nanometer nodes, Bernie Meyerson, IBM's chief technology officer, told an industry forum. "

"Meyerson expanded on his scaling-is-dead theme here, saying CMOS has hit a wall in terms of power consumption. He said industry faces a similar transition to the one faced when moving to CMOS from bipolar logic. A new problem is the lack of mature alternative transistor logic technology."

source
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=19502091

"New Pentium M - 7xx" Dothan - Intel - 90nm (next step = dual core)
AMD athlon 64 - 90nm
IBM G5 - 90nm - undisclosed...???

Until the WWDC, I don't buy a new Mac...

:rolleyes:

[thatwendigo]

Also, the heat issues with the G5 was generally reserved for the dual G5 2GHz models. A single G5 1.6GHz proc won't exactly give me 3rd degree burns. It may be a bit hotter than a G4 1.5Ghz proc, but they can jam that into a 15" PB, so.....

G5 2.0ghz 970 = 50-55w
G5 2.0ghz 970fx = ~25w
G4 1.5ghz= 12-14w

A bit? It's double, and that's just the processor.

Maybe those PPC970fx chips aren't happening after all, if Dr. Varadarajan is an executive at a company that's pushing Xeons and Itaniums....

ps: Dr. V. was behind an older cluster at Virginia Tech....

Or, you know.. Maybe it was time-limited, like the Virginia Tech cluster, or he realized that processors can have strengths and weaknesses, like most people who know anything about computers do. It could just be that they wanted a Linux system on non-proprietary hardware.

There are a number of reasons, and we don't know which one is true.


"New Pentium M - 7xx" Dothan - Intel - 90nm (next step = dual core)
AMD athlon 64 - 90nm
IBM G5 - 90nm - undisclosed...???

Until the WWDC, I don't buy a new Mac...

Dothan -> Jonas (90nm dual-core) -> Merom/Conroe (improved Jonas)
Athlon 64 -> 90nm Athlon 64 4400+ "San Diego" (SOI) using 939 -> K9 Core
IBM 970fx -> Power5 2.0ghz 130nm (two SMT virtual cores per physical core) -> Power5+ 2.5ghz 90nm

Extrapolating the Power4 to 970 clockrates (1.3 to 2.0), we arrive at a speculative Power5 to 975/980 clock of 3.08ghz (2.0 to 3.08). The Power5 ships in June.

Coincidence?

[kingtj]

I can't say I agree with the message quoted below. Apple is still running as a company primarily because they fill a niche in the computer marketplace. They offer the only real commercial, bundled personal computer solution that runs something other than Windows. (Let's face it.... who else really sells such a thing? A few companies sell PC's with Linux preloaded on them, but Linux is still looked at as too complicated for "average people" to use as a workstation. The people who are comfortable in an OS like Linux are quite capable of installing it themselves on a bargain-priced Windows PC.)

The "all in one" computer may traditionally be very associated with Apple Macs, but I don't think consumers are really clamoring for that design these days. A small minority prefers it or demands it, but most people don't care for being locked into whatever screen size they initially purchase. They like the idea of being able to upgrade monitors down the road without needing to replace the whole computer to do it.

The success of the current iMac design is probably just due to it being unique and cool-looking. I know several dentists in this area using all iMacs, and it wasn't strictly because they felt a need for an "all in one" design. Rather, they liked the overall "elegance" of the design, and thought it added a touch of class to their offices. (That, plus these people just happen to dislike Windows and have a devotion to MacOS.)

That being said, I agree that Apple probably sees no point in doing a "headless iMac". Most of the iMac's customers like the flat screens on the swiveling arm and think that's part of the "charn" of the whole thing.

I would think the entry-level PowerMac G5's cover some of the bases for people wanting headless systems right now. The budget-conscious will do fine with an eMac and live with the monitor they have integrated in them....


The reason that Apple is still running as a company, is the fact of the all-in-one style of the iMac. The sheer invebtivness of the iMac saved Apple from closure, and the look is a classic one. A headless iMac will never be a REAL iMac, but some PMG(4,5) for consumer use, Apple will never stand for this, but a new computer, with the consumer marketability of a PC (Computer in one box, monitor seperate, and a PC competing price (consumer level) will do well)

[minstryoffunk]

Um... Right. So where are the power and signal coming from, without wires? If 802.11g is tha fastest current consumer wireless, doesn't it tell you something that there's wireless audio but no wireless video? Anywhere. No, really.

Philips makes a wireless monitor. I don't know anything about it, i've just seen it on their website. (www.philips.com) I'd imagine it still needs to be plugged in.

possibly i read the site wrong, but i think its the same thing

[thatwendigo]

Philips makes a wireless monitor. I don't know anything about it, i've just seen it on their website. (www.philips.com) I'd imagine it still needs to be plugged in.

possibly i read the site wrong, but i think its the same thing

You read it wrong.

Philips Desxape Detachable Monitor
Embedded Intel Xscale 400mhz processor
64MB SDRAM
32MB Flash ROM
802.11b wireless LAN
15" TFT LCD
60w Li-ion battery "up to five hours"
USB cable
VGA and mini-VGA cables
Audio cable

It's basically a tablet PC with no hard disk. In other words, this is exactly what I said would have to be done if there was going to be a wireless display, which is a heavily cached and networked flat panel with its own processor to shuttle things around.

In the words of the ZDNet review:
The limitations of both the RDP protocol and 802.11b wireless mean that although you can get your Windows desktop on-screen anywhere you want around your home or office, you don't get a fast enough connection for video and you can't use DirectX applications at all. It's ideal for email, Web browsing, listening to music or working with documents, and you get a decent desktop monitor too. However, the price is as high as the convenience factor.

Also, it costs around $1,300-1,400 for the display alone. Does this stop you people from clamoring over the removable LCD?