G5 iMac?

[Nemesis]

Few Good Men

So Apple's going to ignore how ugly it would make the iMac to have cords dangling off the machine? I don't believe it.

You won't see them. Chrome arm is still part of the design, but is not necessary to put it if you don't want hovering screen.

There's the final proof we needed that this is inane speculation and nothing else. Jobs? Stopping ideas? The man has been nearly singelhandedly responsible for saving Apple from the financial wreck it was about to become in the late 90s.

You're seriously mistaken, man. Apple has brilliant men beside him. It was Apple's management that sucked in 90s. SJ is not God -- he only has so many GREAT people working there. They have great ideas.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Well, the thing is that my old friend, who works for Apple for more than a decade, doesn't like to tell me any detail. For good reason! I can understand that, and I devise my own ways of finding out interesting stuff. But from I understood by his denials, and my bits and pieces to complete the picture, new iMac will have

* detachable screen
* very similar form factor
* new processor

which means, iMac becomes a low-end G5. And more than that!

We'll have variety of screens to choose -- 15", 17" (already used in PowerBooks, so this too cuts costs down), 20" (low-end Cinema Display), and several iMac configurations. So instead of locking youself with a certain iMac and screen size, like we had in iMac G4, new iMac can be combined as we wish because new design allows screen to be detachable. So you can choose whichever screen you like. New iMac configs will no longer be based on screen size, but on processor speed.

BUT, if you don't want detachable screen, you can hook your iMac to a Studio Display Screen! That's cool, man, so with this new machine, we'll get both traditional all-in-one iMac and new, headless Mac, to be hooked onto anything you'd like!

They did that not only to give more choices to customers, but also to make transportation and productions costs down. Computer base (body) will be somewhat wider, and will change its colour.

To what colour exctly, I don't have a clue!

This makes a lots sense from the tidbits we get. what we have is a configurable imac with a new G5. many people are waiting for these. talk of e600 and blah blah blah from moto is just talk. 970 G5s have been in production for awhile so it makes no matter to me if they use a 970fx or 970. just get that G4 out of there and imac sales would jump up. give it some performance for a change. wonder what the video will be? i would guess a 9600xt or better. a 9800 mated to single G5 would make a decent machine.

 

[thatwendigo]

When he came back in Apple, he stopped Apple's internet service, only few weeks before launching. Then again, in couple of years he lounched it agan.
.Mac you call it.

Wrong again. The "Apple internet service" was eworld, and I was a user back when it actually was a viable ISP. It died because it directly competed in the AOL/CompuSerce pool and was being eaten alive by both, just as CompuServe later was by AOL.

Guys from development both hate and like him. And yes, he ideed DID STOP many great concepts and ideas hit the market. Also he neglected the whole Mac line during the last two years because of the iPod and iTMS.

Riiiiight. I'm sure that you have a direct connection to Steve Jobs' brain, and that the move to the G5, which Jobs has said stated started over two years ago, was a sudden kludge job when they realized that magical iPod sales weren't going to fix everything. Apple knew that Motorla, as it existed then, could not produce the nest-generation chip that they wanted, so they went with IBM. This is public domain. This is fact.

What you say is accusation and speculation, with no backing.

Guys from marketing believed they can get more new users by introducing one or two more Mac lines, to bring more horsepower and dimnish the border between Pro and Consumer lines. To give people more choices. But no -- he didn't like the idea and kept separating Mac line.

Yes, and marketing people are notorious for not understanding the technical issues involved in an endeavor. As much as Scott Abrams makes fun of them in Dlibert, there's a grain of truth to the cluelessness of many marketing branches. Apple doesn't have the kind of market or resources to offer a Dell-like pick your own machine system, and they never really have. Get over it.

And that's why we have so stupid situation on the Mac market today, man. Machines are overpriced cr*ap, all except for dual G5 and iBook which bring good choice for reasonable money. And, look at the miracle, they're absolute hits and best selling Apple computers! Users are not stupid, SJ!

The machines are neither overpriced, nor crap. I defy you to find a major PC OEM that turns a profit that can also build a machine like Apple. Here's a hint: their name is spelled D-E-L-L and they have horrible QC issues.

I bet he'll stop this new iMac concept. Did you guys know that this was ORIGINAL idea too, before iMac G4 introduction? To build iMac as users want, not Apple ...? Well ... only heaven knows how that company endures. Thanks to iPod, I suppose.

Would you kindly reply to my post, rather than ranting about things that aren't at all provable? The iPod sold 807,000 units last quarter but only made the company $264,000,000 before expenses. Computer sales, on the other hand, were 749,000 units and $1,160,000,000 before expenses, or around a billion dollors more on a 50,000 unit difference. Read about it here.

So, yeah... Apple's sure making all their money off of iPods.

You won't see them. Chrome arm is still part of the design, but is not necessary to put it if you don't want hovering screen.

Ah, right. So these displays will have invisible power and video connectors, then?

You're seriously mistaken, man. Apple has brilliant men beside him. It was Apple's management that sucked in 90s. SJ is not God -- he only has so many GREAT people working there. They have great ideas.

I've never said that Apple didn't have a mass of creative, brilliant people that are largely responsible for the climb. However, without Jobs at the helm, they wouldn't be getting those products out and the company would be foundering without a direction. Apple is still alive today because Jobs came back. Period.

This makes a lots sense from the tidbits we get. what we have is a configurable imac with a new G5. many people are waiting for these.

Many people are waiting for Jesus to return, too. I've yet to see it happen.

The only way that these rumors make sense is if you ignore how much these things cost on the open market right now, as well as the technical issues like heat and convection.

talk of e600 and blah blah blah from moto is just talk.

So is what you're saying. The difference? I back my claims. Where's your backing, DHM? Can you show me a 970 running in a small enclosure with only one fan?

970 G5s have been in production for awhile so it makes no matter to me if they use a 970fx or 970. just get that G4 out of there and imac sales would jump up.

The sad thing is that I think you're right on this one aspect... People would buy the computer just because the number after the processor is one higher. It doesn't matter if it's not any faster, if it's noisier, if any of a hundred other things apply. All that a lot of you care about is that the G5, which isn't much faster clock-for-clock at this point, is under the hood.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thatwendigo doesnt ever give up, they have 2 G5s in Xserve i think they will be able to get 1 into a modified imac base. no big deal.

 

[thatwendigo]

Thatwendigo doesnt ever give up, they have 2 G5s in Xserve i think they will be able to get 1 into a modified imac base. no big deal.

The xServe has fans constantly on and it's even louder than a PC. The MDD G4 was a purring kitten compared to a jet engine when you get one of those things running, DHM. This is about design and the removal of heat, two things which never seem to quite stick with you.

Nevermind that the xServe has something like 4 times the internal volume to allow convection...

 

[rdowns]

Wrong.

The G5 is not the only processor that might be used in the iMac, and there's a far better power/performance option in both the VX and the e600 chips. Both chips are supposedly far lower heat for higher clock and performance than the dumbed-down 1.6 or 1.8ghz 970. As such, I find it both to be stupid and remarkably blindsided if Apple just sticks a 970 in a revised case rather than moving with better technology.

The G5 is the only available processor at this point. The VX is merely a myth that even you have acknowledged. As for the e600, we have no idea when, or if, that will be available. Motorola hardly has a good track record in delivering on promises. Apple can hardly wait for either unless they are killing the iMac. Some say they already have.

 

[ingenious]

Just because many people believe he's God's ambassador on Earth. Nope, man. He's both great and crazy. Great is because he indeed has a nose to sense what market wants, but crazy because of that stupid CEO syndrome. When someone from development team brings some cool idea, SJ will put him on mental torture first, then he'll dislike the idea, then in one year he'll love it! Strange man.
When he came back in Apple, he stopped Apple's internet service, only few weeks before launching. Then again, in couple of years he lounched it agan.
.Mac you call it.
Guys from development both hate and like him. And yes, he ideed DID STOP many great concepts and ideas hit the market. Also he neglected the whole Mac line during the last two years because of the iPod and iTMS. Guys from marketing believed they can get more new users by introducing one or two more Mac lines, to bring more horsepower and dimnish the border between Pro and Consumer lines. To give people more choices. But no -- he didn't like the idea and kept separating Mac line. And that's why we have so stupid situation on the Mac market today, man. Machines are overpriced cr*ap, all except for dual G5 and iBook which bring good choice for reasonable money. And, look at the miracle, they're absolute hits and best selling Apple computers! Users are not stupid, SJ!
I bet he'll stop this new iMac concept. Did you guys know that this was ORIGINAL idea too, before iMac G4 introduction? To build iMac as users want, not Apple ...? Well ... only heaven knows how that company endures. Thanks to iPod, I suppose.

right...... im with thatwendigo on this one. i dont believe anything this guys saying. it looks like he tacked on the last bit just so he'd still be right just in case "apple didn't pull through."

I bet he'll stop this new iMac concept. Did you guys know that this was ORIGINAL idea too, before iMac G4 introduction? To build iMac as users want, not Apple ...? Well ... only heaven knows how that company endures. Thanks to iPod, I suppose.

um, if apple had had something "that cool" before the iMac g4, i think they would've released it. And no, the iPod isn't keeping the company alive, even if it did sell better than macs last quarter. its helping sell more macs too. Apple needs to kick start their advertising campaigns and get the word out about Mac OS X and the low priced eMac that kicks Dell.

 

[thatwendigo]

The G5 is the only available processor at this point.

Correction: That Apple has acknowledged. If you'll recall, nothing was said about the G5 until it was released.

The VX is merely a myth that even you have acknowledged.

No, I agreed that the VX was likely to be what MacPhisto said it was, and that it would be a bet-hedger against being screwed in the portable space. I believe it exists and that the design work was done on it, but that there is a reason that Apple has chosen not to run with it yet. Maybe they're allowing FreeScale a shot at the e600s, or maybe IBM has something up their sleeves... Either way, it's obvious that it's not physically in a product yet.

As for the e600, we have no idea when, or if, that will be available. Motorola hardly has a good track record in delivering on promises.

FreeScale != Motorola Semiconductors Group.

Apple can hardly wait for either unless they are killing the iMac. Some say they already have.

If they're not going to do it right, then I wish they would kill the iMac. We need solid, good designs, not catering to a bunch of people who complain if Apple doesn't give them a footrub with every computer they buy. The iMac has been languishing and the G4 at its current clock rate is not a very good competitor in any kind of performance space that doesn't involve heavy vectorization or cool operations. Even the Centrino must bow to the MPC74xx series on power usage.

 

[zucruw]

imac g5

ThatWendigo,Your right when you say "The sad thing is that I think you're right on this one aspect... People would buy the computer just because the number after the processor is one higher. It doesn't matter if it's not any faster, if it's noisier, if any of a hundred other things apply. All that a lot of you care about is that the G5, which isn't much faster clock-for-clock at this point, is under the hood", however its not just the "stupid consumers" fault, at least for me. i had the idea that if it was a g5 it was automatically better, because i went into the apple store here in columbus, and the employees made it very clear that the g5 was superior in all aspects. its the employees feeding uninformed consumers these misconceptions, believe me. they were basically saying the g4 was old, outdated technology, and had me contimplating getting a g5 tower over a powerbook. so, its not just people ignoring facts and just looking at the higher number, it starts (for some people, at least) at the Apple store.

 

[Colonel Panik]

Ok, lets try this again. They need an entry level headless model with a price that makes sense.

<rantlette>Why do people always say 'Headless'. Jeez, if the brains are in the head, then what you want is a headed mac. When you say a headless mac, you're really saying you want a mac which is just a display. It's just as efficient to say monitorless mac as it is to say headless mac. Perhaps we should coin another term for this... let's say a faceless mac?? Any ideas?</rantlette>


Instead of asking for a 'consumer level' monitorless mac, go and buy a second-hand tower. They're cheap and they have lots of life in them.

We have to think what is meant by 'consumer'. Sure, everyone who consumes is a consumer, but we do differenciate between professionals, pro-sumers and consumers.

Consumer (or entry-level) machines are not power-horses and aren't designed to be powerful. Sure, you can pick up a Dell at a low price, but it is a piece of ****, and it comes with Windows, and it's not for beginners or 'consumers'. A consumer wants something which works like their DVD player or their TV. It just works, and does what they need it to do. The more adventurous might start editing with iMovie, but if you are serious about making movies, then you don't do it with iMovie on an iMac.

While most folk seeking entry-level machines aren't thick, a lot of them become technophobic when they are faced with operating a computer, because their experience is using Windows at work, where they have IT people with PhDs who fix their computers, banish viruses, set up networks, etc etc. Using Windows is often a pain in the ass, and consumer products shouldn't be a pain in the ass to use.

When Apple makes a machine for the consumer, they are making an experience. The original iMac was touted as the easiest way of getting on the internet. That's what sold it for millions. So Apple are unlikely to turn around and make a machine for consumers which requires them to go and choose a display and work out the wiring and installing drivers and so on. It could be said that Apple is the only computer manufacturer who make consumer machines, if we are careful about what we mean by consumer.

If you want a 'headless' mac, then you are a more confident consumer, and not an entry level consumer. Hence, perhaps there is a need for a pro-sumer model. That would be like a tower, aka sans-display. And I'd love one of them. A cheap silent mac box which is my jukebox/server/print server/internet server etc. But that's certainly not what a consumer looks for.

As the Mac salesman said, "You want a PC because you use a PC at work. Does your PC ever have problems at work? And who fixes it? And do you have a help desk at home?"

 

[Colonel Panik]

They did that not only to give more choices to customers, but also to make transportation and productions costs down. Computer base (body) will be somewhat wider, and will change its colour.

To what colour exctly, I don't have a clue!

Although all of us hearing folk probably have audio email alert, a case which had colour change, or some sort of visual feedback, would be great for all those who can't hear, or need to have their sound off, and want to save the life span of their monitor.

Of course, let's go crazy and talk about a case that can emulate it's surroundings, so it really does 'blend in' with it's surroundings. The Chameleon Mac .

 

[aswitcher]

Of course, let's go crazy and talk about a case that can emulate it's surroundings, so it really does 'blend in' with it's surroundings. The Chameleon Mac .

Does this mean in the corporate environment they all go beige or black and have the word Dell on them

 

[ingenious]

Although all of us hearing folk probably have audio email alert, a case which had colour change, or some sort of visual feedback, would be great for all those who can't hear, or need to have their sound off, and want to save the life span of their monitor.

Of course, let's go crazy and talk about a case that can emulate it's surroundings, so it really does 'blend in' with it's surroundings. The Chameleon Mac .

that would be awesome tho... think about it!

 

[thatwendigo]

its not just the "stupid consumers" fault, at least for me. i had the idea that if it was a g5 it was automatically better, because i went into the apple store here in columbus, and the employees made it very clear that the g5 was superior in all aspects. its the employees feeding uninformed consumers these misconceptions, believe me.

Oh, I agree. Apple can't be totally exonerated from this mindset, since people are crossing over to the mac platform from a world where (if they even paid attention) the performance is all measured in numbers that are pushed by an industry struggling to differentiate its products from everyone else. However, even in the x86 world, the truisms about higher numders don't always hold true. Just look at the Pentium 4 when it first arrived, because that thing was slower than the P3 it was supposed to replace. The problem was only solved by higher clock rates and time.

Hmmm. Actually, that sounds like a decent metaphor. The 970 is the mac world's P4, because it's hotter and a little less efficient and elegant, but does achieve more performance (because it's clocked higher, at this point). What we need is a return to the high-perfoming and highly-efficient PowerPC.

they were basically saying the g4 was old, outdated technology, and had me contimplating getting a g5 tower over a powerbook. so, its not just people ignoring facts and just looking at the higher number, it starts (for some people, at least) at the Apple store.

The G4 is older, but hardly outdated. It's used in all kinds of applications that are of criticla importance because it's a proven solution. Look how long Intel ran on the P6-core (Pentium Pro through Pentium 3) without a really serious architectural change...

 

[Mr. Anderson]

thatwendigo: your one man crusade to point out all the flaws in this thread is getting to be a bit much, especially since it might be all a moot point if Apple goes ahead and puts a G5 in the iMac and doesn't give us any other option.

this can go on and on - why not just agree to disagree and move on. You've shown you have a valid argument, backed up by plenty of data, but this is becoming a circular argument and the only conclusion - whether its an "I told you so...." or not will be settled in a month.


D

 

[thatwendigo]

Instead of asking for a 'consumer level' monitorless mac, go and buy a second-hand tower. They're cheap and they have lots of life in them.

Or, you know, buy the low-end PowerMac. since it's not all that expensive for what you get. Hell, buy one of Apple's G4 towers, since you can get one for $1,299 at this point...

Consumer (or entry-level) machines are not power-horses and aren't designed to be powerful. Sure, you can pick up a Dell at a low price, but it is a piece of ****, and it comes with Windows, and it's not for beginners or 'consumers'. A consumer wants something which works like their DVD player or their TV. It just works, and does what they need it to do. The more adventurous might start editing with iMovie, but if you are serious about making movies, then you don't do it with iMovie on an iMac.

Anybody here that doesn't already know that isn't going to be listening to you, Colonel. As much as I wish they would, it's been said over and over again by countless people before you. We try to get across that these "consumer" machiens in the x86 world are corner-cut and useless piles of junk in many cases, and it just never sticks.

Hence, perhaps there is a need for a pro-sumer model. That would be like a tower, aka sans-display. And I'd love one of them. A cheap silent mac box which is my jukebox/server/print server/internet server etc. But that's certainly not what a consumer looks for.

Actually, there are cheap hardware solutions to all of the tasks you just mentioned and they all cost less than a whole other computer would. That being said, what would a "prosumer" need a box just to print serve on, or only to run a website from? You're almost certainly better with a purpose-built device in those cases, and they can be had much more cheaply than Apple hardware.

If the "prosumer" has to become an official line, then it needs to be done right. I already outlined a hardware differentiation pattern that would suit this supposed need fairly clearly. It's about a page or two back at this point, but not at all hard to find. Make the professional line all-dual and make the prosumer line singles, with the same processors in each machine. Offer better graphics cards and HDs in the pro machines, along with the option for more storage and optical drives. It's pretty simple.

 

[thatwendigo]

thatwendigo: your one man crusade to point out all the flaws in this thread is getting to be a bit much, especially since it might be all a moot point if Apple goes ahead and puts a G5 in the iMac and doesn't give us any other option.

My "one man crusade," as you put it, is born of a desire not to see people spread falsehood and fake hope, only to allow the anger and disappointment when it doesn't come. It is because of people like Dont Hurt Me, Nemesis, and others that people get cranked up and ready for something that I don't think is likely to happen.

Who does the community a greater disservice - the man who (perhaps wrongly) cautions against possibly unreasonable expectations, or the one who fuels the fires?

this can go on and on - why not just agree to disagree and move on. You've shown you have a valid argument, backed up by plenty of data, but this is becoming a circular argument and the only conclusion - whether its an "I told you so...." or not will be settled in a month.

It will be settled in a month, but I think there's a misconception about my position. I don't think that the current form factor or anything close to it will function for an iMac, nor that there will be the option to add on cards, and that any claims of wireless, removable displays come from a lack of understanding of the cost and drawbacks of that approach. That's really the extent of my argument. Anything beyond that has been added on by others, or is my own personal feeling on the subject (like the death of the iMac).

I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be an iMac G5, but that it's unlikely to be this amazing, brilliant leap in performance that some people are billing it as. That's it.

However, if you're asking me to stop my commentary, then I'll at least try to cut back. I don't want to cause problems for the management here. I just think that I do something valuable in offering the counterpoint to the incessant posts by others, especially since I have a tendency to gather more than one post into a single reply.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

My "one man crusade," as you put it, is born of a desire not to see people spread falsehood and fake hope, only to allow the anger and disappointment when it doesn't come. It is because of people like Dont Hurt Me, Nemesis, and others that people get cranked up and ready for something that I don't think is likely to happen.

but the key words here are "for something that I don't think is likely to happen"

like I said, everyone here is allowed their own opinion, and your concern for other's possible dashed hopes is laudable, but I think a little misplaced. You should realize that no matter what you say, there will always be someone looking to see a G6 in the new iMacs *if* they come out at WWDC this year (G6 is not a typo).

Just bide your time and lets all see what happens.


D

 

[windowsblowsass]

Although all of us hearing folk probably have audio email alert, a case which had colour change, or some sort of visual feedback, would be great for all those who can't hear, or need to have their sound off, and want to save the life span of their monitor.

Of course, let's go crazy and talk about a case that can emulate it's surroundings, so it really does 'blend in' with it's surroundings. The Chameleon Mac .

actually apple patented some technology tha lets cases have vusual effects a while back

 

[windowsblowsass]

Although all of us hearing folk probably have audio email alert, a case which had colour change, or some sort of visual feedback, would be great for all those who can't hear, or need to have their sound off, and want to save the life span of their monitor.

Of course, let's go crazy and talk about a case that can emulate it's surroundings, so it really does 'blend in' with it's surroundings. The Chameleon Mac .

actually apple patented some technology tha lets cases have vusual effects a while back

 

[ibjoshua]

Does this mean in the corporate environment they all go beige or black and have the word Dell on them

lol

yeah and maybe if Apple went back to beige cases they'd sell more units too.

i_b_joshua

 

[segundo]

Hmmm. Actually, that sounds like a decent metaphor. The 970 is the mac world's P4, because it's hotter and a little less efficient and elegant, but does achieve more performance (because it's clocked higher, at this point).

While I agree that the G4 is still a fine chip I think the G5 has some distinct performance advantages above just clock speed that make it a better solution than the G4. One in particular is floating point performance. Wouldn't a 1.6 Ghz G4 lose out to a 1.6 Ghz G5 on floating point calculations?

 

[Belly-laughs]

Who does the community a greater disservice - the man who (perhaps wrongly) cautions against possibly unreasonable expectations, or the one who fuels the fires?

If that´s your reason for writing at this forum I must say you´re really concerned about our feelings. I doubt very much that people will get hurt if Nemesis´predictions or alleged facts appear to be wrong.

You obvioulsy spend a lot of time on your replies, instead maybe you should spend more of your time on issues that matter, perhaps in your local community.

 

[BakedBeans]

In reply to all thatwendingo posts

ok ive got a little time on my hands to talk about my opinions on your view regarding the imac (the death of it, the G5 in it and the comparison you make in regards to G4)

People would buy the computer just because the number after the processor is one higher. It doesn't matter if it's not any faster, if it's noisier, if any of a hundred other things apply. All that a lot of you care about is that the G5, which isn't much faster clock-for-clock at this point, is under the hood.

now im not sure exactly what your meaning is with this statement, because
alot of people want the G5 because it is a better and faster, it, as you know, is faster clock for clock (not much but still faster) even if you compare the 1.6 to the 1.25 thats in it or the 1.5 that you have said might be in it, the difference isnt just the clock speed. In my opinion when apple put the G5 in a modified imac they will put a 1.6/1.8 in the 17inch and a 1.8/2.0 in the 20inch, giving you a huge advantage over a 1.5 G4, such as - 800mhz-1ghz fsb, 64bit processor ect

as for killing it off ---- why would they do that???
then again i read another one of your posts saying something about removing 12inch powerbook from the line (dont quote me because im not quoting you i may be wrong)

 

[Nemesis]

G4 is an old horse...

While I agree that the G4 is still a fine chip I think the G5 has some distinct performance advantages above just clock speed that make it a better solution than the G4. One in particular is floating point performance. Wouldn't a 1.6 Ghz G4 lose out to a 1.6 Ghz G5 on floating point calculations?

Doesn't matter Segundo. G4 or G5, it all su*k. Apple will scr*w up once again, I can feel that. G5 is DEFINITELY a way to go, because that's what people want. But I'm really sick of waiting. Gee, ONE YEAR since it was announced, and we still see NO G5 consumer machine (!), not even a PowerMac!! Hey, that's sick, man and there's no wonder that people are enough of that. I think they're real loosers.
Why they always wait for some "fair", "convention" or similar? Wht can't they announce something straight away? Now we have ONLY 2 major Mac conferences in one year, MWSF and WWDC. Are they going to introduce all they have just then? Why we have to wait 2 months for a WWDC and not have the product now!?
I think they have nothing to announce, after all.