Mr. Anderson said:
but the key words here are "for something that I don't think is likely to happen"
It's no more eyeroll-worthy than the constant and ill-informed want lists that get thrown around in here, and I have to be at least slightly concerned that this was done in a public thread instead of in private. There are more people posting than me, and the volume of them is higher than mine.
Perhaps one reason for that is my insistence on researching my claims.
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).
On this, you're preaching to the choir. In fact, I think you'll find this exact same point in my older posts at more than one place, since I've seen just how much people seem to expect things that won't come, or at least not in the form that they want.
segundo said:
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?
That depends, really, on the optimization of the code. There's still a lot of libraries and tricks for using the G4 that haven't necessarily been duplicated on the G5 yet. It will grow into its own eventually, but the proven technology is still the one with the most development on it.
Just look at VPC for an example.
Belly-laughs said:
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.
I've already spent considerable time on local charity and fundraising events, and continue to give time, money, and other donations when I can. Don't assume that you know what I do.
AL-FAMOUS said:
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,
Better how? It's hotter, draws more power, has a support system that also eats more to do its work, and otherwise requires far more engineering than the G4 did. The clock-to-clock performance on most tasks it roughly on par, with only a minimal edge to the G5. It's faster because it's higher clock, mainly.
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
Yes, I've seen your opinion. Now show me the figure on heat dissipation for the machine that just jumped from approximately 20-22 watts total power to something more like 40 watts total power. How, in a small formfactor, is Apple intending to keep it both quiet and cool, while also dropping the cost and adding all these new, shiny features that everyone keeps howling about?
as for killing it off ---- why would they do that???
Because the all-in-one has had a love/hate relationship with Apple Computers over the years, and the current processor crop doesn't seem too friendly with the SFF and portable markets. As such, they might need to just bite the bullet and create something else entirely - a consumer tower, in this case - to fill the niche that the iMac was intended to sell to in the first place.
Don't get me wrong. I think that Apple will make it work, if it's possible for anyone in the industry to have a simple, elegant, reasonably quick consumer machine. It's just not going to be $700 or nearly as flashy and complex as some people hope. Detachable screens cost as much as the baseline iMac does
right now, just to name one example.
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)
I did. The 12" PowerBook is basically cannibalized by the iBook as it is. There's very little reason to buy one, because the power difference isn't all that great, and there's just no way that a G5 is fitting in there.
They had to make it fatter to fit a G4!
Kill the smallest PowerBook, but beef up the iBooks to take its place. That's my position on the subject. Two pro laptops, two consumer ones.
Nemesis said:
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.
I have to confess, I'm with Squire on this one. First you claim that absolutely, without a doubt, there's going to be an update because your good friend at Apple told you so (or specifically didn't deny something). Now you're off on a rant about how everything Apple does is going to be crap and that they're all losers.
Aside from being borderline trolling material, what's your point?
Also, while the words your partially blanked are not against forum policy, the use of symbols to get around the language filter
is. I tell you this for your own good.
hmg said:
Well, why not?
Oh, cables for power.... ok.... put a battery in the lcd that gets charged when the screen is "on the arm" and wireless for video signal. sure hell-expensive soution, but it's possible!
The current wireless displays all use embedded processors, RAM, flash memory, and a lithium-ion battery, along with Windows CE on a thin client. They use 802.11b wireless and don't get enough bandwidth to allow display of video or anything more complex than word processing and web surfing. This is why I oppose the idea, because even the current models (which are only 15" wide) cost over $1000 when manufactured by a company that
specializes in consumer electronics, like Phillips.
