Its quite possible it could be an enclosure. It could be like a high-end server aimed at businesses as opposed to a rack-mount server. Not to say that 1U servers cannot be high-end, maybe Apple could be putting out to differentiate it from the crowd in terms of servers.
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.
Is this It (Photo)?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its quite possible it could be an enclosure. It could be like a high-end server aimed at businesses as opposed to a rack-mount server. Not to say that 1U servers cannot be high-end, maybe Apple could be putting out to differentiate it from the crowd in terms of servers.
My Mockup...
This is what I created in Photoshop by using all the images contained in this thread. I hope the photo isn't too big.
I took "dontask2.jpg" into Photoshop, added parts of "powermac970.jpg" and a few bits off the "G5_grill.jpg".
This is the first time I created anything in Photoshop and any images used are property of their respective creators.
Anyway, we all know that this isn't what the new G5 will look like (maybe an XStation) as a German store has opened the boxes and has described the real G5 (Page 2).
This is what I created in Photoshop by using all the images contained in this thread. I hope the photo isn't too big.
I took "dontask2.jpg" into Photoshop, added parts of "powermac970.jpg" and a few bits off the "G5_grill.jpg".
This is the first time I created anything in Photoshop and any images used are property of their respective creators.
Anyway, we all know that this isn't what the new G5 will look like (maybe an XStation) as a German store has opened the boxes and has described the real G5 (Page 2).
I'm torn between the two designs...the one above and this one (from the other angelfire site):
[hmmm...forgot attachment.]
[hmmm...forgot attachment.]
Which do you guys think is more likely?
The mesh grill/cameo Death Star
or this Compaq look-alike?
The mesh grill/cameo Death Star
or this Compaq look-alike?
It's nice to see some good Photoshop work flying around. 
That said, every single design in this thread is probably wrong, either partially or completely. Apple would've moved on the Angelfire pic if it looked even remotely like the real deal.
That said, every single design in this thread is probably wrong, either partially or completely. Apple would've moved on the Angelfire pic if it looked even remotely like the real deal.
I think there's a good reason arn put that thing on page two. It sounds nice, but it sounds fishy. It's interesting, but not necessarily accurate.
I'm sure most of the people who do new/totally different designs usually use a 3D modeller (I would if I knew how to use my copy of Maya...).
My one above was just done in Photoshop - I just layed everything on top of each other, added a gradient for the side and an apple logo (which might look like it's off but it isn't - just the angle), lightened up the handle bits and cut out imperfections (although I missed a few).
My one above was just done in Photoshop - I just layed everything on top of each other, added a gradient for the side and an apple logo (which might look like it's off but it isn't - just the angle), lightened up the handle bits and cut out imperfections (although I missed a few).
I agree. That's why I haven't tried to make a picture of that, yet!
There are some things that make that article sound more believable though, why the hell would anyone have diagonal PCI slots... Remember the first iMac - Why the hell would a PC manufacturer not include floppy drives...
I think next week we will see history in the making.
g5 mock ups
The pic I put up was sent to me through email. If I did make 1 id do it in lightwave which i use and would use all the radiosity, area lights an caustics to make it look real
The pic I put up was sent to me through email. If I did make 1 id do it in lightwave which i use and would use all the radiosity, area lights an caustics to make it look real
I need the picture
TJWETT
I would love if you could email me the picture to andreas@wpi.edu
thanks
Andreas
TJWETT
I would love if you could email me the picture to andreas@wpi.edu
thanks
Andreas
To repeat my much earlier posting...
I think we're getting WAY too technical in analyzing this...this...whatever it is.
At Apple, style and functionality have always gone hand-in-hand. Their artists spend thousands of hours on designs and refinements. Their language is one of style, elegance and symbolism.
To repeat, this thing looks like the World Trade Center.
Bearing this in mind, does anyone really believe that a design like this could move through all approval levels (and there are MANY) and be approved?
Apple designs are rightly praised because they are uniformly awesome. When dealing with artists of the caliber of Apple's, there is just no way the WTC parallel could escape their notice. They'd never want or allow that kind of negative publicity for one of their designs.
I think we're getting WAY too technical in analyzing this...this...whatever it is.
At Apple, style and functionality have always gone hand-in-hand. Their artists spend thousands of hours on designs and refinements. Their language is one of style, elegance and symbolism.
To repeat, this thing looks like the World Trade Center.
Bearing this in mind, does anyone really believe that a design like this could move through all approval levels (and there are MANY) and be approved?
Apple designs are rightly praised because they are uniformly awesome. When dealing with artists of the caliber of Apple's, there is just no way the WTC parallel could escape their notice. They'd never want or allow that kind of negative publicity for one of their designs.
Re: this it?
This particular image looks more like a possible configuration.
My only qualm about it is that it would be too easy to topple over. Those curves on the sides look like you could easy hit your foot against the tower and topple it over.
This particular image looks more like a possible configuration.
My only qualm about it is that it would be too easy to topple over. Those curves on the sides look like you could easy hit your foot against the tower and topple it over.
nizzles.
Go here to see more cool concepts that people have come up with. Beware, the site is quite slow.
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/index.html
Go here to see more cool concepts that people have come up with. Beware, the site is quite slow.
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/index.html
Another home run grabberslasher. You forgot to make the right edge verticle again though. haha
You know this bit from Arn makes absolutely no sense(no offense Arn). But think about it, we still have only one person that has given an in depth description of someone claiming to have seen it, yet we have all these people supposedley saying that this ISN'T it?
How does that work?
Why is it that these people won't tell us what it really is?
You forgot to make the right edge verticle again though. hahaYou know this bit from Arn makes absolutely no sense(no offense Arn). But think about it, we still have only one person that has given an in depth description of someone claiming to have seen it, yet we have all these people supposedley saying that this ISN'T it?
How does that work?
Why is it that these people won't tell us what it really is?
Because they probably are not violating their NDAs by telling someone what ISN'T true, but they would be if they told us what IS true.
Arn is not an idiot. He probably has sources who have in the past provided reliable information telling him that this picture is not accurate. Those people might be wrong -- who knows. But it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Arn has a basis for saying what he has said about the likelihood of fakery here.
I might be wrong, but from my understanding of NDA's this is not the case.
Why not run this image by them before showing us then?
Like I said, no offense was meant. But this is my point. I havn't heard a logical reason yet. If I am mistaken about NDA's then I am wrong, though. That also doesn't make sense though. If NDA's worked like that it would be very very easy to communicate what something was through stating what wasn't true.
Well, an NDA is a contract, and whether these people violated their NDAs would depend on what the contract says. (Yes, I am a lawyer, and I've worked with NDAs.) Whatever the contract says, if someone tried to evade an NDA by listing a hundred things that AREN'T true, implying that something not listed IS true, that person would be much more likely to be found to have breached the contract.
I don't know whether the people who have "un-confirmed" this picture to Arn violated NDAs or not (maybe they're not even under NDAs and instead fear liability for trade secret misappropriation, which doesn't necessarily require an NDA). We simply don't know. But they might have reached the perfectly reasonable conclusion that they are on stronger legal footing if they stick to denying things rather than affirmatively stating things to be true.
As for why Arn didn't run the image by these people first, who knows? He probably doesn't even have contact information for some of them. More importantly, Arn probably has dozens or hundreds of potential sources -- should he fax all possible news items to all of them for confirmation first? Of course not, especially when he may not know which ones really do know the truth or are willing to share it. No journalist would view such obsessive confirmation as a prerequisite to publication.
Here is another reason why it doesn't make sense -- He states 2 contradictory things in the same section.
I would imagine he has regular informants that have given him information regarding this subject. I would think you might run one of these photos by them before posting it on here. I would imagine he gets a ton of images like this and doubt he posts all of them. Maybe I missed what made this one so intriguing?
Btw, do you deal with patent law? If so, I would love to pick your brain about some things.
Originally posted by iSegway
Here is another reason why it doesn't make sense -- He states 2 contradictory things in the same section.
Btw, do you deal with patent law? If so, I would love to pick your brain about some things.
They're not contradictory -- there can simultaneously be reports that the picture is inaccurate and doubt about whether it is accurate or not. Not sure why you think those contradict ...
Anyway -- sorry, I'm not a patent lawyer. I don't know much about them, except not to infringe them.
what exactly is he stating when he says, "Multiple reports have now indicated that this is not real."
Maybe I am confused by the importance of the word 'multiple' and wondering why the term 'reliable' wasn't used.
What do you see this section saying? I find it extremely nebulous, to say the least. Again, I mean no offense to Arn here, I just find it incredibly confusing.