PDA

View Full Version : G4 iMac's?


Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 14, 2001, 12:08 AM
Now that we are going to be seeing the new G5 power macs in the not to distant future perhaps we will also be seeing G4 iMacs? Or have iMacs lost their touch and does apple need a new look? I think it is very possible that we can expect to see a new look mac something to show off their G5 would be a good idea and somehow incorporate the G4 processor into the iMacs and get rid of the G3's altogether. The G3's are good but with the new OS it will start to struggle when running the new apps that are to be released, is it possible? :confused:

[Edited by Anton Szandor LaVey on 04-15-2001 at 05:37 AM]

Apr 14, 2001, 03:22 AM
tHeY pRoBaBlY wOn'T pUt G4's iNtO iMaCs fEr aWhIlE cUz G4's ArEn'T aLlOwEd oUtsIdE tHe U.S. aNd iMaCs aRe tHe oNly aPpLeS oUtSiDe tHe U.S.

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 14, 2001, 03:52 AM
G4's are alowed outside the US I don't know where you got the ideah that they were not but they have been for ages we have had G4's here since they were released. :)

OreoCookie
Apr 14, 2001, 05:52 AM
The G4s in iMac will come, I assume till the end of this year. Probably as early as Mac OS X will be preinstalled with all Macs.
There is a significant speed increase when a G4 is used in most system operations and the whole framework. Lower clock-speeds are also available, because Apple will shift to the G4+ in its pro-models, thus there are plenty of G4s available (with clockspeed of up to 600 MHz).

Apr 15, 2001, 03:23 AM
hMm...lAsT tImE i tRiEd tO bRiNg sHiP a G4 tO HK bUt i CoUlDn'T gEt iT pAsT US cUsToMz...

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 15, 2001, 04:13 AM
How completely wierd of them to of prevented exports¿¿¿

All I know is a G4 iMac would be a very good and sound seller!!!

I would buy one any way as with the iMac you don't have to go and spend AU$1,000 for a screen which is alot.

[Edited by Anton Szandor LaVey on 04-16-2001 at 03:28 AM]

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 20, 2001, 08:57 AM
Am I the only one that wants a G4 iMac? or are their other people out their that would buy one?

Does no one have an opinion of their own...

Hes Nikke
Apr 22, 2001, 01:18 AM
that is what the G4 Cube is, it is for those people who want a 17" screen or a G4. don't forget that the cube came when the 17" iMac rumor was at its peak. the G4 iMac rumor was at one of its peaks also.

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 25, 2001, 03:47 AM
The G4 Cube is a Cube not an iMac...

The good thing about the iMacs is that they are affordable mainly because you don't have to go spend a fortune extra to buy a screen, the cube is more a cube less an iMac.

Hes Nikke
Apr 25, 2001, 05:02 PM
The G4 Cube is a Cube not an iMac...

The good thing about the iMacs is that they are affordable mainly because you don't have to go spend a fortune extra to buy a screen, the cube is more a cube less an iMac

actuly i think you just made my point!

the cube is exactly an iMac Sans screen + G4 proccessor!

think about it::
For $1299 you can get a Cube with DVD and for $200 get a ViewSonic A70 screen, then you have a machine that is better equiped then a $1499 iMac (with the exception of RAM) all for...$1499!

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 26, 2001, 02:11 AM
I suppose you are tottaly right...

I have nothing to say

ransky
Apr 26, 2001, 08:22 PM
It's no coincidence that iMac sales are over 10 times better than Cube sales.

The whole point in the iMac is that its a small, single part, cables-free computer. Its young and cool. The Cube is nice, but requires connecting an external monitor and a pair of speakers. Now it may not seem much, but thats a lot more cable to your desk.

Second, the iMac is still much cheeper. You can get a top of the line 600Mhz/128/40GB iMac for 1499$, but a mid range 450Mhz/128/40GB Cube would cost you 200 buck more even *without* a screen.

And if I may add a personal comment, the stylish little cube really deserves a graphite apple monitor connected, any other just wouldn't be the same...

be happy

Hes Nikke
Apr 26, 2001, 11:48 PM
true but why not go all out and get a 500 MHz G4 Cube with a Cinama Display? all for the low low price of $5,198.00 your not going to find an iMac with a 22" display ;)

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 27, 2001, 01:26 AM
If you are concerned about not getting an iMac with a 22" well you still can just have it as an extra display and even if you were to buy the extra 22" with an iMac it would be cheaper then getting a Cube with a 22" and with the cube you would only have one screen. I find my iMacs screen just fine even if it is a few inches smaller then a 22" one.

What is needed is an iMac with the iMac design and price but with a G4 not a G3 mainly to run OSX better as a G4 is faster but also with the introduction of the G5 most software to be developed may well need to have the requirements of a G4 or G5. OSX certainly does run a whole lot smoother on a G4 than a G3 but most people have iMac as they are good affordable computers that kick most PC's arses. The only thing is that iMacs come with G3's and not G4's so it means that most people are going to be seeing OSX run slowly, you may disagree with this now and say it runs fine on your iMac but wait until their is actual software that can be run on OSX it will definitely run slow on the current G3 iMacs.

What does the Linux founder have to say about OSX? (http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=12)

Wow I did have something to say after all...

Hes Nikke
Apr 27, 2001, 03:10 AM
f you are concerned about not getting an iMac with a 22" well you still can just have it as an extra display and even if you were to buy the extra 22" with an iMac it would be cheaper then getting a Cube with a 22" and with the cube you would only have one screen. I find my iMacs screen just fine even if it is a few inches smaller then a 22" one.

i have 2 comments on that.

1st any screen hooked to an iMac will only show the same picture as the iMac it self, what this means is that you have a 15" screen running at 1024 x 768 and you have a 22" screen also running at 1024x768 it is kinda pointless.

my 2nd point may be even more relevant. the 22" Apple Cinama Display will only connect through ADC, wich provides both power and picture, as well as USB for the built in USB hub (older cinama's were DVI) and the iMac only has VGA output

that makes it kinda hard and pointless to use the 22" screen.

What is needed is an iMac with the iMac design and price but with a G4 not a G3 mainly to run OSX better as a G4 is faster but also...

if you need a G4 iMac get a tray loading iMac and drop a G4 into that, there are a couple of G4 upgrades for iMac's rev A-D

with the introduction of the G5 most software to be developed may well need to have the requirements of a G4 or G5.

who said ANYTHING about a G5?! i havn't heard anything about the G5 aside the logical conclution that it is coming.

OSX certainly does run a whole lot smoother on a G4 than a G3 but most people have iMac as they are good affordable computers that kick most PC's arses.

i'm not arguing with you there

The only thing is that iMacs come with G3's and not G4's so it means that most people are going to be seeing OSX run slowly, you may disagree with this now and say it runs fine on your iMac but wait until their is actual software that can be run on OSX it will definitely run slow on the current G3 iMacs

again you can put a G4 into some iMacs!

anyway MacOS X does run fine on my G3/350 Yosemite, i also have a gigabyte of RAM in it. the machine that Mac OS X runs poorly on is my G3/400 Pismo, with only 192 megabytes of RAM

so you see the prossesor isn't the ONLY thing that matters with Mac OS X, so does RAM!

don't mind the long winded reply (i get like this in the middle of the night, i geuse i'm noctornal)

{edit was a typo - called Cinama Display a Studio display in earler draft don't know why i am documenting my typos, just see note above, i'm beeing long winded!}

[Edited by Hes Nikke on 04-27-2001 at 04:17 AM]

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 27, 2001, 11:46 PM
So are you saying that if the were to have a G4 iMac that it should also be able to have 1.5G RAM? Their are so many other things than the processor that can make a computer faster but can but exactly what makes the biggest difference, obviously RAM does and so does proccesor speed but it is mainly said to be RAM as that is the easiest to upgrade. What about the Cache limit should they increase that to an extent never seen before would that make a vast improvement or would it only make changes to a certain extent?

That was a pointless post so I will stop there. :)

Hes Nikke
Apr 28, 2001, 12:06 AM
So are you saying that if the were to have a G4 iMac that it should also be able to have 1.5G RAM?
no i'm saying that if you have a G4 iMac that isn't the ONLY thing that'll spead up Mac OS X.
Their are so many other things than the processor that can make a computer faster but can but exactly what makes the biggest difference, obviously RAM does and so does proccesor speed but it is mainly said to be RAM as that is the easiest to upgrade.
the biggest diffrence??

hmm...

i'd have to say the system bus!

the new G4 towers have 133 MHz busses, while the old towers had 100 Mhz Busses. this means that the prossessor is idleing waiting for data 33% less on the new towers then the old. just THAT upgrade right there can literly give you a 33% spead boost! (more likely around 25% though)

What about the Cache limit should they increase that to an extent never seen before would that make a vast improvement or would it only make changes to a certain extent?

the L2 cache is a good thing when it is right on or next to the proccessor, the L2 (and now L3) cache is one work around to the system bus bottleneck. you have frequently used data and instructions in the cache and then the proccessory isn't idleing because it already has the needed data!

i'd say in an optinum world (2001 standards for those of you reading this in 2020 with your fancy 1GB L10 cache ;)) would be 1 MB on chip L2 cache running at 1:1 and then 8 MB of backside L3 cache running at 1:1 also.

but unless you have front side cache (running at system bus speeds - ICK!) you can't upgrade any cache withough replacing your proccessor.

also the 7400 G4's max out at 2 MB backside L2 and the 7450 G4's max out at 2 MB backside L3 cache (don't forget on the 7450 the 256k L2 cach is integrated onto the prosseccor running at 1:1)

That was a pointless post so I will stop there. :)

no it wasn't keep on going! (lets see how far we can take this verry OT thread ;))

Anton Szandor LaVey
Apr 29, 2001, 04:32 AM
If I were to have a G(something) and 10mb level 2 cache on one computer and on another G(the same something) with 20mb level 2 cache say both were running at 1GHz would I even be able to notice any difference as once I get past a certain point say 5mb level 2 cache wouldn't it be fast enough already so fast in fact that I would not be able to time the difference between the 10mb level 2 and the 20mb level 2???

What I am saying is that with a level 2 cache at 5mb wouldn't it become as fast as it can get.

Any way a G3 is going to be too slow soon as with everything that comes on OSX will prove that a G3 is a lot slower then a G4 unless as was said by yourself "Hes Nikke" you have 1GB of RAM which not everyone does I know I don't YET. So what IS going to be needed is G4's as the bare minimum of requirements this is not true yet but it soon will be 'maybe maybe not'. Everyone knows the the iMacs are favored due to their low cost/price and their style/or not their style if you have the flower power but more their popularity. But if G4's are to become standard then who want's a G3 I don't I want a G4 a G4 iMac would be good if it still came with it's low price and I was able to choose from all those colours that I once was but for some reason can not any more.

Oh well that last bit was worthless babbling so I will leave it there for now...

“note: colours was spelt like that not as a mistake but because I am Australian and living in Australia and that is how it is spelt here”

macboy
May 2, 2001, 11:15 PM
I agree! Add more Ram to iMacs and to ALL Apple computers! 64 - 128 is NOT enough! 256 min!!! Apple keeps saying that Ram is so cheap now! If it is so cheap add it into the Macs!!

MacBoy

Anton Szandor LaVey
May 6, 2001, 08:38 AM
Now that the iBook comes with a min of 500MHz and can come with a DVD drive, will the iMac soon come with a min 500MHz and will they also bring back the DVD drive? or will something more brilliant happen and the iMac come out with a G4 instead of a G3.

Personally I get the feeling that the iMac is definatley going to change at the NY expo hopefully for the good and hopefully with a G4.

It makes me wonder if I have done the right thing ordering an iMac 600 only a few days ago perhaps I should of waited...:(

Anton Szandor LaVey
May 6, 2001, 08:47 AM
One other thing that I am hoping for is the return of all those colours that you could once upon a time choose from....



BTW I have not spelt colours wrong!

(Edited for spelling is all)

[Edited by Anton Szandor LaVey on 05-07-2001 at 05:52 AM]

DaDude
May 16, 2001, 06:02 PM
You know guys, the imac may get ditched. Face it, it's been around for a while now, Apple needs to come up with a more capable faster computer. (howabout the G4 hexagon!)

Anton Szandor LaVey
Jun 3, 2001, 12:56 AM
I say keep the current iMac design, thoes pictures of iMacs with flat screen make the iMac look ***** I know I wouln't buy a flat screen iMac unless of cours it was a G4 and the screen was a 17" one.

The current iMac design is good I feel they should keep it just update it, like bring back a larger colour selection and get rid of the 'Flower Power' design because it really does look bad. :)

evildead
Jun 18, 2001, 05:25 PM
I agree.. they need to gte rid of the flower power. I think they are going to go more twards that cube direction. They well have at least one model (top-end) That well have the cube color scheem. They wont get rid of the iMac line... the iMac is what put Apple back in the running 4 or 5 years ago... what ever it is now. (i dont even remeber when I got mine...My rev A) I would love it if they move to a G4 and keeped a price that I could afford. I have heard that the iMac's well be the first platform to ship with OS X installed. OS X works best on a G4... lets see what happens. I am looking to get a new Mac soon. As soon as the new stuff MacWorld is unvailing makes me loose control of my Credit card.

mnkeybsness
Jun 25, 2001, 02:15 AM
i've got some insights for all the idiots out there that dream way too much.

the whole point of the imac is to make a computer that is reliable, easy to use, and inexpensive. putting an lcd screen into an imac would make that price sky-rocket, especially if steve-o threw in the 17-incher. the cheapest model of the imac would go from $899 up to about $1699. and if any user is going to spend that much money, they might as well upgrade to a cube.

and besides the monitor, the G3 processor is faster and more capable than you may believe it to be. i have OSX on a current imac with 512 mb ram in it and it runs silky-smooth. for the normal "in home" user, the imac is a wonderful machine, for the graphics artist and the likes, powermacs make a lot more sense.

so shut up-there will be no LCD screens and no G4 processors. (PERIOD)

OreoCookie
Jun 25, 2001, 02:21 AM
About LCDs, you didn't read about the new LCD prices yet, especially if you buy them in batches of 1,000 or 10,000?
I could go out and buy a 14" screen for $400, that includes casing and electronics.
So go figure the price for a batch.
And if you look at the latest strategy, it doesn't make and LCD iMac possible, but very probable.
This isn't rumoresque ********, no dreaming, just serious thought.

mnkeybsness
Jun 25, 2001, 02:37 AM
what is the point of a 14 incher

i'd rather spend all the money and go buy a powerbook

OreoCookie
Jun 25, 2001, 01:36 PM
Spontaneously, I can think of three.
You have about the same viewable area, a higher resolution that goes well with MacOS X and you save a lot of room compared to a 15" CRT.
Maybe they are smart and think ahead - leaving enough room for 15" to upgrade when they need to (when it is cheaper, that is).