If the white iMac was still produced...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by asiga, Mar 17, 2016.

  1. asiga macrumors 6502a

    Nov 4, 2012
    I repaired my 20inch G5 iMac last December (the GPU died a few years ago), and I'm using it daily to my great delight. I sincerely prefer it over the rest of (ultraslim) Macs I've access to now. It cannot be compared, this is simply a real Mac.

    And, now that I think, looking at its thickness, it's obvious that it has space for having a current desktop-class (not mobile-class, but desktop-class) GPU. A liquid-cooled AMD Fury X would fit (perhaps some slight redesign required, but it would fit).

    If Apple hadn't been stupid and gone clueless, the white iMac would be an incredibly powerful desktop nowadays. And the white plastic was so much more beautiful that the <yawn> boring slim metal cases of current pseudo-macs with mobile GPUs (or even worse, with no GPU at all, just CPU integrated el-cheapo).

    Ah, but we have now watches, phones, and an FBI soap opera... what more could phone-fans desire?
  2. Mr_Brightside_@ macrumors 68030


    Sep 23, 2005
  3. redheeler macrumors 604


    Oct 17, 2014
    Because real Macs have GPUs that fail? ;)

    People tend to underestimate the power of the mobile GPUs in the iMacs. If someone isn't using it for heavy gaming (which is not what the iMac is meant for anyway), it's actually a very capable GPU, while consuming a lot less power than a desktop one.
  4. Moonjumper macrumors 68000


    Jun 20, 2009
    Lincoln, UK
    My first Apple item was a 24" white iMac, so it has a special place in my heart. But I do prefer the look of the current models.

    I have a G4 iMac, that was the pinnacle of Apple design. Looked great, fantastic ergonomics.
  5. redheeler macrumors 604


    Oct 17, 2014
    I have both 20" and 24" white Intel iMacs, and to me the design is meh. The iMac G4 is comparatively a work of art, while the 2009+ aluminum ones look more modern and sleek. The aluminum ones do tend to show scratches more, that's probably the main aesthetic disadvantage.
  6. ApfelKuchen macrumors 68030

    Aug 28, 2012
    Between the coasts
    If it does everything you need or want, then fabulous!

    I require a long list of apps and capabilities that are simply not possible on a PowerPC-based Mac, so while I might like to put one on a display shelf alongside my long-retired 1967 Nikon F as a memento, maybe even fire it up upon occasion for a blast from the past, there's no way I could use one to do work. My current iMac, running El Capitan, is my favorite and best Mac ever. I'd guess in another 10 years, it won't be. I'm fickle that way.

    I'm not particularly sentimental about computers, or particularly choosy when it comes to things like the look of an OS. First and foremost, my computers are tools. It's great to have tools that continue to do their jobs for many years, even nicer when they look good, feel right in my hand, and so on. But the nice thing about inanimate objects is that I won't hurt their feelings when it's time to move on. (OK, if this was the Toy Story universe, I'd be completely wrong about all of this; all those poor old Macs and PCs, wishing Andy would play with them again...).
  7. asiga thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nov 4, 2012
    I don't understand why so many people assume that strong GPU == "gamer user". My next computer will likely have a 16GB discrete GPU, because, yes, I want 16GB (satellite imagery, and large -I mean large- terrain triangle meshes), and, no, it won't be for gaming. I'd prefer it to be a Mac, but I don't see Apple releasing a Mac that suits my needs anymore.

    Of course I'm not using my white G5 iMac for graphics-intense work anymore, but I'm using it daily for my other (scientific) daily tasks. And, by the way, the G5 supports the "long double" IEEE fp format with 128bit precision, allowing more than 30 significant digits, while Intel CPUs just support a reduced 80bit "long double", with less than 20 significant digits.

    My algorithms obviously have higher performance on current Intel Macs than on over 10 year old G5s, but the fp precision is just another example of how Apple rejected the professional and scientific market in favor of facebook users (who, yes, rule the market nowadays).

    The G5 iMac wasn't perfect (it suffered frequent motherboard failures at the time) but its defects weren't related to the exterior design. I'm very confident that current iMacs would be much better computers if they had the white G5 iMac design, because they would have better cooling, they would be user-serviceable, and they would have space for powerful GPUs.

    And, of course, they would be much more beautiful.
  8. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    What makes your G5 iMac a real mac and the current iMacs not?
  9. LiveM macrumors 65816


    Oct 30, 2015
    Oh yes. I will never buy an iMac with that horrid current design. Those white iMacs are gorgeous.

Share This Page