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!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
G5 iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Phobophobia said: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..
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.
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.
MhzDoesMatter said:
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.
G5 iMac?
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
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
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
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
AidenShaw said:
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*.
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
Motorola claims 20W@1.42GHz for the new G4 link
Both have power tuning technology. If IBM weren't way off in their claims, then heat will be a small problem.
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
Motorola claims 20W@1.42GHz for the new G4 link
Both have power tuning technology. If IBM weren't way off in their claims, then heat will be a small problem.
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 (https://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?)
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?)
maybe a hint here
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
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
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
http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/eMac/pics/eMac-heatsink-5.jpgAnd the link to the project itself:
http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/eMac/eMac-upgrade.html
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?Chaszmyr said:
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.
LimeLite said:
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).
32-bit G4 vs. 64-bit G5 iMac
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.
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.
Frisco said:
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...
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.
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.
Rower_CPU said:
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.
Rower_CPU said:
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/hpt_how.htm
Rower_CPU said:
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:
https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-61633
thatwendigo said:
nmk said:
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.
Macrumors said:
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?
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.
The Red Wolf said:
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.