3.1416 said:
Actually they only said the Powerbook was a ways off. They made no such statement for the iMac, only that putting a G5 in it would be a challenge.
Macworld reports:
While Boger didn't give a timeframe for an iMac G5, he did say the company faced similar challenges getting a G5 to work with their consumer desktop.
"It's the same story -- the challenges are obvious when you look at the G5 and the size of the heatsinks and the enclosure; that would be a heck of a challenge as well."
I reiterate: "It's the same story."
That being said, the only way I can see a quiet G5 iMac showing up is if it's either liquid cooled and vastly more expensive than the current model, or if it's clocked down ridiculously low. Either way, it's not what people here are looking for, because it's not some amazing, cheap, single processor dream machine that rubs your back and cooks your dinner while making sure the dog is put out - while also paying for itself b doing tricks outside your house with that wireless display everyone yammers about, like some kind of street performer.
The G5 is competitive at dual-processor levels, and a single that isn't higher clocked is going to have the same issues that people who don't understand how system design can affect performance have always whined about. It'll be "too slow" compared to some nebulous $400 machine that, when examined, turns out to have all kinds of crippling factors about it.
Last year there was Panther, G5 towers, and iChat AV, all of which are very interesting to regular users.
Take a look at Apple's history of releasing products. Here's a hint:
It's only last year that they did a huge, sweeping show at WWDC that would interest consumers.
True, but the G3 was a competitive processor when the iMac was still using it. Today, the G4 isn't, especially at the iMac's price points.
The G4 is still competitive... just not as a single processor. People love to trot this statement out, but have never, ever managed to show me a production machine that does what Apple's design do at the same price. Once you include all the software and usability of the mac, things get even uglier on the PC, since that tends to weigh in around an extra $250-300.
I've been playing this game a long time and I haven't lost yet.
The iMac needs a G5 (and a price cut) yesterday, and Apple would be nuts not to release it as soon as possible. There's no way they'd hold off on G5 iMacs until they can go into Powerbooks as well. Unfortunately it's looking increasingly like they *can't* get a G5 into the iMac today, which is disturbing.
It's about as disturbing as realizing that no major manufacturers are offering something as tiny and
quiet as the iMac with a major desktop processor and all the goodies that come with the G5. Find something as small as the iMac, as elegant as the iMac, with the ease of use and security of OS X and iLife, the quietness, the range of external expansion options, and a nice - non-generic - LCD display.
Now show me how it can be done under the Apple price point by more than the typical PowerPC tax. Hint: It doesn't exist.
If IBM doesn't get better somewhat soon, Steve may be dusting off the x86 plan again.
Not this tired old saw again...
So, if Apple goes x86, then what happens to all the programmers who have to shift their code over to the new APIs? What happens to legacy users who don't have x86 hardware? It would be hard enough for Apple to maintain a branching 32 and 64 bit separation on their OS, but to have the two major platforms instead? Suicide, plain and simple.
This says nothing of piracy, lack of security, driver creep, bloat, support nightmares, lack of hardware revenue (which means severe lack of profit for Apple) and other concerns.
The day that they release Mac OS on x86 hardware is the day Apple truly begins to do what the media has forever claimed they would - die.