Trekkie said:
I agree completely, look at these 50% of computer buyers who get a laptop (at Apple this number is close to 50% at least), they hardly can upgrade anything (mainly the hard drive) and they are happy with it.
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.
iMac G4 no longer?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree completely, look at these 50% of computer buyers who get a laptop (at Apple this number is close to 50% at least), they hardly can upgrade anything (mainly the hard drive) and they are happy with it.
Whats the chance that we might see one of the new 2Ghz Dual Core G4's that Motorolla (Freescale) is supposed to start putting out soon. That would be much faster than any slowed down G5 they would be able to fit into a iMac. I would also mean we will be seing that processor in the PB's soon.
Dont Hurt Me said:
IBM officially states that the 970 scales to 1.8GHz and the 2GHz version seems to be a exclusive for Apple. The 970 is derived from the Power4+ core and the Power4+ is going to scale up to 2GHz, according to IBM. The Power5 will scale to 3GHz. So, expect no more than 3GHz for the 970FX and the 9XX Power5 derivitive.
Probably for many of the same reasons that Apple chose to wait for the 970FX before moving the Xserve to the G5. The heat that the 970 would create in a 1U server box, or small form factor iMac, was probably a major issue. If it wasn't then Apple could have also have come out with a 970 based PowerBook by now.
The G4 could compete with AMD or Intel in small form factor boxes if it gets faster memory and bus, along with moving to 2GHz with a dual-core chip like Motorola has mentioned. The biggest problem would probably be heat generated in a notebook computer with a dual-core G4 chip.
Do you honestly believe that the G4 will not be moved to a 90-nm process size and that FreeScale will not continue to make improvements to its architecture as has been the case in the past? If you believe that there has been little or no improvements to the architecture in the past, then you are ignoring the facts. The G4 doesn't run at 3Ghz, but neither does the Pentium-M or Itanium. In fact, Itanium runs at a top speed of 1.6GHz and yet it is arguably Intels fastest processor. Motorola expects the G4 to reach 2GHz in its next incarnation. Thats not a groundshaking speed improvement for running it on the desktop, but compare that to the current topend speed of 2GHz for the Pentium-M. The G4 will have essentially reached frequency parity with the Pentium-M if a 2GHz G4 comes out in the next 2-3 months. With a dual-core and memory/bus improvements the G4 should stack up very well against the Pentium-M in performance.
manu chao said:
The Xserve is a low production product and Apple has clearly stated that the reason for the backorders is lack of sufficient amount of 970FX processors from IBM. If there are enough 970FX processors in production, then there would not be a 4-6 week waiting time, as there is now, on the Xserve.
How about the possiblity that there was not a sufficient supply of 1.5GHz G4s to equipe both the iMac and PowerBook with the proccessor? Afterall, Motorola just recently introduced the 1.5GHz G4 and it does take time to increase production on a processor.
Apple seems to still have plans for the G4
Well, an Apple spokesperson has recently stated that the company is interested in using the G4 in small boxes. So, it could be that Apple intends to continue to make notebooks and possibly one or more consumer desktops with the G4. Apple would be foolish to bet the farm on one company that is using a single chip manufacturing facility to make the processors for Apple. What if that facility has a horrific accident that shuts it down for some time? Or better yet, what if IBM runs across some problems in moving the design to a different manufacturing process, which is exactly what is happening now?
nmk said:
Well, an Apple spokesperson has recently stated that the company is interested in using the G4 in small boxes. So, it could be that Apple intends to continue to make notebooks and possibly one or more consumer desktops with the G4. Apple would be foolish to bet the farm on one company that is using a single chip manufacturing facility to make the processors for Apple. What if that facility has a horrific accident that shuts it down for some time? Or better yet, what if IBM runs across some problems in moving the design to a different manufacturing process, which is exactly what is happening now?
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
5 year old G4 is still 7 year old G3 with altivec,nothing more. Still amazes me that people dont think a bigger base and a couple of fans and presto in goes the 970. no mystery no problem. Having used Macs for over a decade and watching moto crawl forward(perhaps crawl gives them to much credit) I fail to see the logic of staying with a last place Cpu in Imac. Moto also said a G5 was coming years ago and it never happened. Moto says this Moto says that and still has just got G4 up to 1.5 with half used DDR, 167 mhz which is but a joke when i can buy a $500 PC that comes with a P4 that will still kick Motos sorry behind every which way. Enough of Motocrap and motostagnation, Apple needs computers that can compete not computers that come in last place on everybench as G4 has done for year after fricking year! Apple didnt kick out G4 in Powermac and invest big money in G5 just to keep selling last place G4. Sorry G4 is fine for grandma's and kiddies in a sub $1000 machine not for a $2000 machine that is suppose to go against P4s & AMDs 64 bit stuff. Face it G4 is last place and all benches show it. Lets not pretend that G4 is anything more then a worn out old design that got walloped by the otherside. Apple needs a Imac that kicks butt not a imac that gets its butt kicked. This is Imac and Apple's problem for years staying with the dog(moto).
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
Sped said:
Hi-end CPU for the price of a Celeron?? AH ha ha ha. Dell ships a 2.4GHz Celeron for $350, so I tell you what, when Apple ships a ..mm.. 1.5GHz G3 for $350 we can talk. So what kind of Dell could we get for $1300(price of the 15" iMac)? Well we could get us a 2.8GHz P4 with 800MHz bus and HT, 512MB DDR , NVIDIA Quadro NVS 280 64MB... for $1200, no it doesn't have a monitor but dell offers a 15" LCD for $170, a very fair price. All in all, thats a whole lot of computer for the price of the low stock iMac. Things would look worse if we continued up the iMac price line.
High hopes -> high dissappointment
Just to try to keep a voice of sanity, I'm going with the few posts saying iMac is going to 1.5 G4, maybe with a new form. Top end PM at 2.4-2.6 GHz. Can't imagine Apple jumping 50% CPU speed in one shot (i.e. 3 GHz). IBM is ramping up production, but let's get real: they can't keep up with Xserves yet.
Fall '04/winter '05 will be the big changes. PB and iMac go G5, eMac not far behind.
Just to try to keep a voice of sanity, I'm going with the few posts saying iMac is going to 1.5 G4, maybe with a new form. Top end PM at 2.4-2.6 GHz. Can't imagine Apple jumping 50% CPU speed in one shot (i.e. 3 GHz). IBM is ramping up production, but let's get real: they can't keep up with Xserves yet.
Fall '04/winter '05 will be the big changes. PB and iMac go G5, eMac not far behind.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
yeah like that makes a lot of sense, design a all new computer around a completely old cpu. please pass the dubiedanvdr said:
LaMerVipere
macrumors 6502a
jared_kipe said:
I have yet to see any x86 based computer run as smoothly, as quickly, as reliably as my 12" PB 1Ghz. No matter what specs a PC has as soon as it gets loaded down with the lead weight of wondows it crawls.
Dont Hurt Me said:
Do you realize that the Pentium-M is substantially based on the old Pentium III? There are advantages to using a slower clocked processor for multiple cpu chip designs and also in situations that require a low power use.
And presto in goes the 970? Since when does Apple ever do major upgrades like that? You seem to want Apple to evolve into a Dell like PC company.
Do you realize that Motorola has to make improvements to the G4 in order to continue selling it in the embedded market? The G4 went to a faster bus when it was moved to the 130-nm process size and it is extremely unlikely that the processor would again have a minor bus improvement moving to the smaller 90-nm process. Thats because as the core frequency rises, at some point the processor has to have the capacity for using DDR and DDR-2 memory, and that time will likely have arrived on the 90-nm process size. On the 130-nm process, Motorola introduced SOI, Low-K dielectric and dynamic frequency switching. At the 90-nm process level Motorola will move the memory controller onboard the G4 and come out with a dual-core version.
The G4 would move up considerably in performance with a faster bus, higher performing memory and using dual-core. I seriously don't believe that Motorola would have been as willing to commit to going dual-core without Apple having a strong interest in using it. Afterall, Motorolas host processor sales are mainly coming from Apple and Motorola has stated that a dual-core G4 running at 1.5GHz will use an average of 25 watts. That power use is out of the range of the 10 watts, and under, that Motorola targets for the embedded market.
Or, do you honestly believe that the G4 will move to a smaller process size and have minor, or no changes, made to the processor? Thats unlikely to happen. IBM is making extremely minor changes to the 970 architecture as it moves to the 90-nm process, but then again, IBM is introducing a major addition with strained silicon in the chip manufacturing. At this point I'd say that IBM has enough problems just handling moving to a 90-nm process size that adds strained silicon to the mix. Introducing more complexity to the chip architecture would compound the problems for them and require even more time to reach full production.
Did you notice that Apple also kicked the G3 off of the iBook and put a G4 in its place? Does that seem like a company that is intend on quickly getting rid of Motorola? It seems more likely that the G5 now not only gives Apple a new level of performance, but also gives the company more options to move into other markets such as more than two processor server boxes. You might want to think of the G4 as moving into the position that the G3 occupied when the G4 was introduced. Did Apple immediately drop IBM and its pokey moving G3 when the Altivec equipped G4 came on the scene? No, and Apple is unlikely to drop Motorola and the G4 in the near future, so get over it. Motorola or Freescale will continue to improve the design of the G4 host processors that Apple uses for some time to come.
not true.
I disagree. For kicks, I built myself a liquid cooled PC last year. It currently has a AMD XP 2000+ (1.6 ghz) in it. I can upgrade that to a Barton 3200 (2.2 ghz) 333 mhz FSB chip and still keep my current memory (1 gig PC 2700, expandable to 2 gigs). This would just cost me about $150 and a little time; and while it wouldn't jump my computer to the front of the pack, it holds off the complete overhaul for a while longer.
I have a Nvidia 4200Ti 128 mb AGP 8x video card in that box, which I can upgrade to something more powerful when required. I don't game much and use my computer mostly for audio production and recording.
My motherboard also came with SATA drive controllers so I could switch if I felt like it later on.
Point is, if you choose your parts correctly, PCs are very serviceable and upgradeable if you just want to maintain decent performance with some of the latest games and applications. Sure, if you want to be at the bleeding edge, you might have to overhaul mobo, memory, and processor; but there's always a premium to be paid for being an early adopter.
Having said that, I love my G4 Powerbook, my first Apple, which I purchased in April 2004 when the new updates came out. I would completely switch over to Apple if the hardware caught up with the stuff that's available on the PC said of things.
I don't like the snobbery I'm hearing in this forum regarding iMac vs. PowerMac performance. Being able to drop thousands of dollars on a computer is a luxury that most people don't enjoy. It's kinda sick the way some PowerMac users disparage the wish for a high performance, slightly upgradeable iImac.
Gamers drive the "consumer" market. Maybe the average person doesn't know enough or wouldn't bother to upgrade a machine that's upgradeable but they know enough to understand that Dell can build them a cheap Wintel box that will outperform anything but the most powerful PowerMacs. Now, if most "consumers" are just using their computers for relatively non-critical applications like email, occasional word proc, Web surfing, and gaming, I think they can and will overlook the whole Windows vs. OS X argument to hundreds of dollars. And really, most consumers don't even know how good OS X is... I hadn't even given it much thought until a friend of mine started raving about his new 12" Powerbook. Until, you actually sit down and use it, it's hard for most PC users to understand how easy things can be...
Whatever the strategy, there's a huge potential market out there between the eMacs and the PowerMacs. Apple needs to figure out a way to tap it.
BTW, I've had my 17" Viewsonic CRT for 6+ years and while I would like a large LCD display, I just can't justify the purchase to myself right now, because the monitor still works just fine.
I disagree. For kicks, I built myself a liquid cooled PC last year. It currently has a AMD XP 2000+ (1.6 ghz) in it. I can upgrade that to a Barton 3200 (2.2 ghz) 333 mhz FSB chip and still keep my current memory (1 gig PC 2700, expandable to 2 gigs). This would just cost me about $150 and a little time; and while it wouldn't jump my computer to the front of the pack, it holds off the complete overhaul for a while longer.
I have a Nvidia 4200Ti 128 mb AGP 8x video card in that box, which I can upgrade to something more powerful when required. I don't game much and use my computer mostly for audio production and recording.
My motherboard also came with SATA drive controllers so I could switch if I felt like it later on.
Point is, if you choose your parts correctly, PCs are very serviceable and upgradeable if you just want to maintain decent performance with some of the latest games and applications. Sure, if you want to be at the bleeding edge, you might have to overhaul mobo, memory, and processor; but there's always a premium to be paid for being an early adopter.
Having said that, I love my G4 Powerbook, my first Apple, which I purchased in April 2004 when the new updates came out. I would completely switch over to Apple if the hardware caught up with the stuff that's available on the PC said of things.
I don't like the snobbery I'm hearing in this forum regarding iMac vs. PowerMac performance. Being able to drop thousands of dollars on a computer is a luxury that most people don't enjoy. It's kinda sick the way some PowerMac users disparage the wish for a high performance, slightly upgradeable iImac.
Gamers drive the "consumer" market. Maybe the average person doesn't know enough or wouldn't bother to upgrade a machine that's upgradeable but they know enough to understand that Dell can build them a cheap Wintel box that will outperform anything but the most powerful PowerMacs. Now, if most "consumers" are just using their computers for relatively non-critical applications like email, occasional word proc, Web surfing, and gaming, I think they can and will overlook the whole Windows vs. OS X argument to hundreds of dollars. And really, most consumers don't even know how good OS X is... I hadn't even given it much thought until a friend of mine started raving about his new 12" Powerbook. Until, you actually sit down and use it, it's hard for most PC users to understand how easy things can be...
Whatever the strategy, there's a huge potential market out there between the eMacs and the PowerMacs. Apple needs to figure out a way to tap it.
BTW, I've had my 17" Viewsonic CRT for 6+ years and while I would like a large LCD display, I just can't justify the purchase to myself right now, because the monitor still works just fine.
Trekkie said:
IBM sells the 970 officially at up to 1.8Ghz (and at 2Ghz to Apple) but it said in the beginning that the design should scale up to around 2.5Ghz, that means that they expected to produce 2.5Ghz versions (presumably that includes variations like the 970FX) at some point down the line (one, two, three years later).Phinius said:
IBM also publically stated that the 970FX consumes less power at 2.5Ghz than the 970 at 2.0Ghz. It does not make any sense to say something like this, if they don't expect to produce it at that speed in the not-to-distant future.
I think Phil Schiller used the word 'was' in that sentence: 'the reason for the backorders was [the] lack of sufficient amount of 970FX processors from IBM'.Phinius said:
But it naturally could very well be that even if there are enough 970FXs for the Xserve, there are still not enough for a higher volume product line.
Phinius said:
That's a good point, and since there is no waiting time for the 1.5Ghz Powerbooks let't hope that the situation is not that bad, and they will soon have enough for the iMac as well.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
imac isnt getting another G4 no matter what all you motorola lovers say, Apple invested millions into a new chip and deal with IBM so if you are clamoring for G4 stagnation,low performance,slow bus,1/2 used ddr just so you can be proud to be hammered by those pc's then i would suggest looking at the laps or perhaps a Emac. Imac is going to get something a little more special then another slightly bumped G4. Apple likes to look forward not backward. 😱
Dont Hurt Me said:
DHM, your commentry is starting to get quite tiresome. First of all, I hope you realize that a processor design does not necessarily become useless with age. The Pentium M, as one poster has already stated, is based on the Pentium three. Intel has recently decided to dump the Pentium 4 and move to Pentium M based processors for their desktops. The pentium 3 architecture is almost as old as the G3.
Additionally, I have posted benchmarks on these forums on a number of occasions that show that the G5 is not much faster than the G4 at equal clockspeeds. A dual core 2Ghz G4 with faster system bus and onboard memory controller would be quite a beast. In all likelihood, it would put a single core 2Ghz G5 to shame. The reason some people are interested in seeing this type of processor in the iMac or PB, is that it would provide superb performance while keeping power usage and heat output to a minimum.
This particular processor is supposed to go into production sometime in the next few months. The only reason Apple might choose a G5 over this processor for the iMac is for marketing reasons. It would satiate the apetite of certain users who blindly believe that the G5 is better than the G4 (does this remind you of anyone).
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the future of Apple (in terms of processor performance) seems good. The G5's will probably progress to at-least 2.4-2.6 Ghz. The freescale processors at 2Ghz should be comming into the market soon as well.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
Anyone who thinks a G4 is on par with a G5 is missing the boat, sure there are some apps written for G4 and have no idea what a G5 is. On those the G4 is still behind but lets not pretend G4 is the same as G5 because its not. I would suggest a read through of Apples pdf on the G5. lets see 167 bus vs 1000??? or how about the part of addressing 64 bits vs 32? how about that ddr that is half used in G4. I dont want to hear about vaporware im talking chips that are made now and G5 smokes a G4. Not if G4 had this and if G4 had that and moto is going to do this oneday maybe.
We pay top dollar to go with Mac it should have a top cpu not a cpu (G4) that performs at levels that Intel hit 2 years ago with a 2.0 P4. sorry i expect more out of Apple then last place cpu being sold forever at top prices. you should also. There is no more G4s in my future, a year of 1.47 G4 in my 3 year old machine is enough. If anyone is blind its the ones saying G4 is close or even near the G5. Maybe someone is trying to sell more G4s or trying to justify going with a new G4. Now thats blind. G5 is the future and its not in xserve and powermac because it is only slightly better. fool yourself all you want but we are still waiting for a G5 os and G5 apps. right now G5 is simply running G4 apps in its G4 mode. Here here to killing off G4 imac and giving it some muscle(G5)
We pay top dollar to go with Mac it should have a top cpu not a cpu (G4) that performs at levels that Intel hit 2 years ago with a 2.0 P4. sorry i expect more out of Apple then last place cpu being sold forever at top prices. you should also. There is no more G4s in my future, a year of 1.47 G4 in my 3 year old machine is enough. If anyone is blind its the ones saying G4 is close or even near the G5. Maybe someone is trying to sell more G4s or trying to justify going with a new G4. Now thats blind. G5 is the future and its not in xserve and powermac because it is only slightly better. fool yourself all you want but we are still waiting for a G5 os and G5 apps. right now G5 is simply running G4 apps in its G4 mode. Here here to killing off G4 imac and giving it some muscle(G5)
LaMerVipere
macrumors 6502a
nmk said:
I don't know WHY everyone keeps saying that the Pentium-M is based on the Pentium III, that just isn't the case. It's well known that the Pentium-M is an entirely new processor. It was designed from the ground up in Israel. Though they studied the Pentium III architecture when designing it, it isn't specifically based on the P-III.
MacsRgr8
macrumors G3
Last year we were bashing the G4 due to its low clock speed, slow bus and not using "true" DDR RAM.
We (finally) have the G5 now, and all these issues seem solved. The G4's still have the same problems, but now running @ 1.5 GHz...
Now people want more G4s??????
I don't get it. The iMac NEEDS a G5 if Apple wants to sell it! CPU speed sells. Apple knows it. The only reason Apple wouldn't do it, is if there were not enough G5's to go around. You just cannot sell a consumer $ 2,000 Mac running @ 1.25 GHz, with a GeForce 5200!
Make this baby the (ultra) low-end iMac, for $ 1,000, and all the rest G5s, with at least a Radeon 9800 Pro in the top model.
Consumer Macs: Single G5 (PPC 970, fx, 975... I don't really care)
Pro-Macs: Dual G5
Please.
I'm with you, Don't Hurt Me
We (finally) have the G5 now, and all these issues seem solved. The G4's still have the same problems, but now running @ 1.5 GHz...
Now people want more G4s??????
I don't get it. The iMac NEEDS a G5 if Apple wants to sell it! CPU speed sells. Apple knows it. The only reason Apple wouldn't do it, is if there were not enough G5's to go around. You just cannot sell a consumer $ 2,000 Mac running @ 1.25 GHz, with a GeForce 5200!
Make this baby the (ultra) low-end iMac, for $ 1,000, and all the rest G5s, with at least a Radeon 9800 Pro in the top model.
Consumer Macs: Single G5 (PPC 970, fx, 975... I don't really care)
Pro-Macs: Dual G5
Please.
I'm with you, Don't Hurt Me
No Intel Israel said it was a completely new processor. In reality it is very much an evolution of the old PIII core.LaMerVipere said:
Windowlicker
macrumors 6502a
Dont Hurt Me said:
I would think the 1.5GHz G4 is more likely to be installed on a future eMac rather than an iMac. The iMac's going G5 -- at least I hope so. It doesn't sound impossible. the iMac isn't a PB, and therefore it can produce more heat. not as much as PM's, but surely enough to hold a (new version of a) 1.6G5.
Prove me wrong.
manu chao said:
You're oh so right and oh so wrong. I'm on a powerbook. and yup, it's not even worth it to upgrade the HD, I'll just get an external one. But, I bought it because it does not stay in one spot. Now here at home, earlier at college, I hardly ever bother to plug in external mouse and keyboard, because I'm so frequently taking it to classes, library, friends house to share music, and I'm finding all sorts of times when I want my computer with me that I never thought of before I had a laptop. Yes, the price sucks for the power, and it's a buy, upgrade ram, HD, use to the last drop and then replace kind of computer, at an enormous price, but it is so worth it to be able to pick up and go, be it to the other side of the room or to another part of the country. I will never be tied down to a desk again.
However, you're still right in a lot of ways-I see SOOOO many PC users with laptops as their only computer, and I swear, they move less than some people's desktops. PC comsumers buy the computer for some idea of what they're going to do with it, for flexibility, and then never actually use it. They buy it because it is there. The most computer inept person in my entire dorm (I was always helping her with stuff on her PC, and I've never had a pc, never worked on one, and can say I am 100%, disgustingly incapable on one) had trouble with her dell, looked to me like some windows fault. She replaced it with a 17" toshiba desktop replacement, cost nearly as much as a 17 inch powerbook, but specs sucked, and she still didnt' know how to use it, and it still NEVER left her desk.
The same happens with mac users, but it still seems that a very disproprtionate number of laptops being used as laptops are apples, from my experience.
Wow, I just realized how off topic this post is. Sorry.
But, I think it kind of does fit in to the whole argument about consumer macs not existing, and the question of if a G5 would fix that, or if we need headless, etc. is not complete if we look at emac, imac, pmac. Truth is, every consumer mac user i know is buying ibooks. I've helped 4 different consumer mac users buy and set up ibooks over the last 8 months, and the only consumer mac user I know running anything but an ibook or something that long, long ago needed to be replaced (CRT imac or before), is a guy with a 12" PB who spend money without even noticing it, several hundred on usless pleasure items a week, courtesy of rich lawyer parents.