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.
Photogenic Macs
- Thread starter Gamer9430
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes sir!
Sold it a few months back though, like most of these in this picture. I play with them, stare at them, maybe clean them up and sell them again after a few months. Just great to have owned (and used) something so rare.
I'm confused!
Is the photogenic art the Macs or the rows of neatly placed National Geographic magazines?!
I'm confused!
Is the photogenic art the Macs or the rows of neatly placed National Geographic magazines?!
Oh sure, getting those rows just right and placing the 50+ years in the right order is an art in itself. Did it five times already when reconfiguring the room, will have to do it again when I get the rest (1950 and older)
All I can say is holy crap-we've had two TAMs and a Lisa in this thread . The TAM is one in particular that has eluded me, or more to the point I haven't wanted to pay the money for it
BTW, I've spent my fair share of time cataloging Nat Geos, but gave up on trying to get all the paper copies a while ago as they take up a LOT of space. I've narrowed my collection down to probably 3 dozen copies-basically only ones that are of interest to me.
The electronic world is a double edged sword with periodicals. I have a nearly full set of Watch & Clock bulletins going back to the 1940s, but if I'm looking for a specific article I always use the online search engine to find the article of interest. It seems all too often, too, that when I do locate an interesting article, I go to the shelf to find it only to find that it's one of the ones I'm missing . Ultimately, I often end up pulling up the PDF, as much as it pains me to do so...
. The TAM is one in particular that has eluded me, or more to the point I haven't wanted to pay the money for it BTW, I've spent my fair share of time cataloging Nat Geos, but gave up on trying to get all the paper copies a while ago as they take up a LOT of space. I've narrowed my collection down to probably 3 dozen copies-basically only ones that are of interest to me.
The electronic world is a double edged sword with periodicals. I have a nearly full set of Watch & Clock bulletins going back to the 1940s, but if I'm looking for a specific article I always use the online search engine to find the article of interest. It seems all too often, too, that when I do locate an interesting article, I go to the shelf to find it only to find that it's one of the ones I'm missing
. Ultimately, I often end up pulling up the PDF, as much as it pains me to do so...
Green with envy.......!!
[doublepost=1455296692][/doublepost]One Mac - Happiness. 2 Macs - Bliss. 3 Macs (or more) 'Sheer Heaven!"
What about the naked beauty of "The World's Fastest Personal Computer" - more thought was put into the design of the inside of these than the outside of most computers
LOL! Not because Apple wanted it that way though.…more thought was put into the design of the inside of these than the outside of most computers
The G5 chip demanded an efficient design to maximize airflow. And even then, when it came to the faster G5s at the end of the run air cooling was not enough.
The inside of the liquid cooled G5s aren't so beautiful.
Don't get me wrong, the inside of the G5 is very nice. Always thought it was cool to pull that side panel off. But it was necessity that drove the beauty of the interior design.
The G5 wasn't designed because it had some magical processors that were so powerful they required insane levels of cooling. The liquid-cooled dual-socket, dual-core G5s only drew about 250 Watts at full load. And that's for the whole system. There are high-end PCs where just the video card draws more than that.
Yes, the cooling is helped by Apple's design, but it was by no means "a necessity". Just Apple going beyond what was needed in the name of "good engineering." The quad-2.5 would have worked perfectly fine without the liquid cooling. Heck, just look at the second-generation Xserve Xeon - two quad-core CPUs, each one of which had a top thermal design power of 130 Watts! That's as much power in just the two CPUs as a Power Mac G5 for the whole system - and in a thin 1U rack design...
Yes, the cooling is helped by Apple's design, but it was by no means "a necessity". Just Apple going beyond what was needed in the name of "good engineering." The quad-2.5 would have worked perfectly fine without the liquid cooling. Heck, just look at the second-generation Xserve Xeon - two quad-core CPUs, each one of which had a top thermal design power of 130 Watts! That's as much power in just the two CPUs as a Power Mac G5 for the whole system - and in a thin 1U rack design...
.. But people with a broken LCS are advised not to put an air cooled fan on the CPUs as it overheats...
I'm not arguing about power consumption, or raw CPU power. My statement was solely based on the heat that the G5 chip generates.
There were statements at the time, both online and in videos that indicate that the heat the processor generated required Apple to design the internal components for maximum airflow.
Heat is the only reason we never got a G5 laptop. Apple couldn't solve the cooling problem.
Perhaps in their design they did go beyond what was necessary for cooling to make the Mac look good, but it was heat that prompted redesign.
If not for heat, they simply could have slapped a G5 chip in an updated G4 case.
If true, that makes the interior design more beautiful in my eyes.
Because it's natural, it has a purpose. It's more than skin-deep.
Again, not true. "Apple couldn't solve the cooling problem while keeping the design looking as good as they wanted." There were laptops of the time that used high-power desktop processors on the PC side - they were huge and ugly, with large loud fans and terrible battery life. Apple wasn't willing to make those sacrifices.
The second-generation G5 (PowerPC 970FX) was available in models that used as little as 11 Watts. The original MacBook Pro's processor was a 31 Watt processor! There was a cancelled next-generation PowerPC 970GX that would have had even lower power. If Apple hadn't switched to Intel, that processor almost certainly would have been produced, and been perfect for a PowerBook G5.
The G5 wasn't this mysterious "generates ridiculous amounts of heat" processor. It was Apple choosing to make design decisions for other reasons that led to the design of the Power Mac G5 chassis, and that ruled out a PowerBook G5.
More pictures indeed.
This is being sent using the actual G4 Cube and set-up shown below. (Photo editing on an i5 iMac).
This is being sent using the actual G4 Cube and set-up shown below. (Photo editing on an i5 iMac).
My G5 Quad and 2.0 Dual Processor
[doublepost=1455473559][/doublepost]Also thought the wall behind them matched well!
And to continue getting us on track, I'm finally posting some pictures;
This set features my 1.5GHz PowerBook G4 12in, my 1GHz Titanium PowerBook G4 15in, and my 1.33GHz PowerBook G4 17in.
This set features my 1.5GHz PowerBook G4 12in, my 1GHz Titanium PowerBook G4 15in, and my 1.33GHz PowerBook G4 17in.
What app did you use? I used VSCO to make mine "photogenic"
As my old grandpappy used to say, "If you have one and it works good, use it..........
This is a rare bird from my collection.... you don't see many of these - do you know what this is?
This is still fully functional
.... it's a PowerBook G3 - the first PowerBook G3 also known as the "Kanga" or "PowerBook 3500"
Hard to believe this laptop demanded a $6000 price tag when it sold...
This is still fully functional
.... it's a PowerBook G3 - the first PowerBook G3 also known as the "Kanga" or "PowerBook 3500"
Hard to believe this laptop demanded a $6000 price tag when it sold...
Last edited: