Really, 4 core 2.26 Ghz is not good enough for music?

rabidz7

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 24, 2012
1,203
2
Ohio
I just downloaded spotify on my g5 imac today and it did not run. Does anyone know how to hack a new version of spotify to run on my imac. Spotify sucks make your code work on super computers, not on 32 bit xp crap netbooks!
 

Nyy8

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2011
510
126
New England
Hello Rabidz7, and welcome to MacRumors. Now to start off, Your iMac G5 is a single core 2.26 GHz G5 Processor, not a quad-core. Quad cores are found on the newer macs (2009-2011 era). Since Apple killed off PowerPC 6 years ago, software support is very limited and users like you will have to use older versions. Since, the Architecture of the processor (PowerPC) is different then a modern Architecture (Intel), Software Programmers cant be bothered coding in 2 architecture and PowerPC is a dying era, so They don't even waste there time.

As far as spotify, you can download the latest version for PowerPC here,

http://powerpcsoftware.com/downloads/Spotify-0.6.6.10.dmg
 

Zeke D

macrumors 65816
Nov 18, 2011
1,006
156
Arizona
I just downloaded spotify on my g5 imac today and it did not run. Does anyone know how to hack a new version of spotify to run on my imac. Spotify sucks make your code work on super computers, not on 32 bit xp crap netbooks!
Did you accidentally post this to the wrong forum?
 

Nyy8

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2011
510
126
New England
Did you accidentally post this to the wrong forum?
No, he is trying to say "Make Spotify work on my "Supercomputer" iMac G5, not on a crappy XP netbook" When he doesnt understand architectures and how a XP netbook is running on an Intel Processor.
 

LeoTheLion89

macrumors 6502
Feb 14, 2012
353
0
the only G5 to have more than one processor or a Dual Core and Quad Core G5 were the PowerMac G5s the fastest G5 PowerMac was indeed a dual 2.7GHz which was the early 2005 model. I cannot seem to find it now but somewhere i read there was a Liquid Cooled Quad Core G5 but i need someone to verify that i also heard of a Dual Core G5 (NOT dual Processor). iMac G5s only are single core single processor units. All though i do find it odd how they can make a iMac G5 which is as thin as a laptop but couldnt make a Mini G5 or iBook or PowerBook G5.
 
Last edited:

andyriot

macrumors member
Jul 1, 2010
72
0
this is not true the fastest G5 PowerMac was indeed a dual 2.7GHz which was the early 2005 model. PowerMacs have no iSight or display built-in. I cannot seem to find it now but somewhere i read there was a Liquid Cooled Quard Core G5 but i need someone to verify that i also heard of a Dual Core G5 (NOT dual Processor)
This thread is about the G5 iMac not PowerMac.
 

Davy.Shalom

macrumors 6502
Dec 23, 2008
465
1
the only G5 to have more than one processor or a Dual Core and Quad Core G5 were the PowerMac G5s the fastest G5 PowerMac was indeed a dual 2.7GHz which was the early 2005 model. I cannot seem to find it now but somewhere i read there was a Liquid Cooled Quad Core G5 but i need someone to verify that i also heard of a Dual Core G5 (NOT dual Processor). iMac G5s only are single core single processor units. All though i do find it odd how they can make a iMac G5 which is as thin as a laptop but couldnt make a Mini G5 or iBook or PowerBook G5.
Yep I have a Quad G5 sitting in my closet.

They were able to make the iMac G5 thin by using single core chips with slower FSB and clock speeds. The higher frequency G5s require some pretty extreme cooling, so that and the power usage were really the only limitations regarding thickness. The PowerBook G5 never existed because of the cooling problem and the power usage of the G5 chip itself.
 

LeoTheLion89

macrumors 6502
Feb 14, 2012
353
0
Yep I have a Quad G5 sitting in my closet.

They were able to make the iMac G5 thin by using single core chips with slower FSB and clock speeds. The higher frequency G5s require some pretty extreme cooling, so that and the power usage were really the only limitations regarding thickness. The PowerBook G5 never existed because of the cooling problem and the power usage of the G5 chip itself.
how come there was no Mini G5?

----------

You read correctly, I'm typing this reply on just such a machine.
does it run YouTube without MacTubes?
 

Davy.Shalom

macrumors 6502
Dec 23, 2008
465
1
Then learn to fix. I learn a lot by fixing things. Not by asking so much on the forums, I only ask if I don't have the resources anymore and facing a blank wall.
^ This.

If you're a big enough nerd like I am then you'll actually like fixing broken things like that. People give me broken iPods, Macs, etc...and I love fixing them up! If you find it for free or for a nominal price then by all means get it and learn how to repair your equipment! Although stressful at times, learning how to repair your own equipment is extremely rewarding. You'll have fun.
 

Davy.Shalom

macrumors 6502
Dec 23, 2008
465
1
how come there was no Mini G5?

Because Apple decided to go with the design of the initial Mac Mini, which housed a G4 chip. This was due to the power issue. Back when the mini came out, the PSU was external. A Mac Mini G5 with similar specs to the iMac would have been possible, but it wouldn't have filled any gaps in the product strategy.

You have to remember that to you the computer may be a tool that you may come to love, but to the company you bought it from it is and will always be a product. The Mac Mini G4 used technology that was growing old, but by doing so Apple was able to release it at a cheap (by Apple standards) price, and fill the consumer desktop gap. A Mac Mini G5 would have detracted from iMac and PowerMac G5 sales. In addition, it wouldn't be able to fit the consumer gap filled initially by the Mini G4 due to the costs of the G5 processors and chipsets themselves. I mean Apple could have had IBM produce a cheaper variant of the G5 running at a low frequency (say..1.3-1.5), but at that point it would be wiser to go with the G4. Also, it would have been a mess to try and fit all the components and adequate cooling inside something smaller than the G4 cube's enclosure. Apple wanted to make something truly mini. A G5 (even a low frequency one) requires either a large heatsink or a LCS. Had Apple produced one, I would have bought it. I like Cubes..

Anyhow,
People have messed around with custom fabricated aluminum enclosures and created some pretty cool stuff. Attached is an image of a G4 cube some Asian guy fitted into a mini PowerMac G5 style case (it's the fatter one with the optical drive). Also attached is an image of a mac mini fitted into a miniature Mac Pro case. Both computers are fully functional.

>>You could always make a mini mac pro using macbook innards. Go buy a macally enclosure and gut it! Better yet, it has no space for an optical drive! It'll blend right in with the new generation of macs..

:D
 

Attachments

LeoTheLion89

macrumors 6502
Feb 14, 2012
353
0
^ This.

If you're a big enough nerd like I am then you'll actually like fixing broken things like that. People give me broken iPods, Macs, etc...and I love fixing them up! If you find it for free or for a nominal price then by all means get it and learn how to repair your equipment! Although stressful at times, learning how to repair your own equipment is extremely rewarding. You'll have fun.
that woukd work but when it comes to a mac i pretty much know jack $h!t when it comes to its internals expecially a iBook
 

LeoTheLion89

macrumors 6502
Feb 14, 2012
353
0
how come there was no Mini G5?

Because Apple decided to go with the design of the initial Mac Mini, which housed a G4 chip. This was due to the power issue. Back when the mini came out, the PSU was external. A Mac Mini G5 with similar specs to the iMac would have been possible, but it wouldn't have filled any gaps in the product strategy.

You have to remember that to you the computer may be a tool that you may come to love, but to the company you bought it from it is and will always be a product. The Mac Mini G4 used technology that was growing old, but by doing so Apple was able to release it at a cheap (by Apple standards) price, and fill the consumer desktop gap. A Mac Mini G5 would have detracted from iMac and PowerMac G5 sales. In addition, it wouldn't be able to fit the consumer gap filled initially by the Mini G4 due to the costs of the G5 processors and chipsets themselves. I mean Apple could have had IBM produce a cheaper variant of the G5 running at a low frequency (say..1.3-1.5), but at that point it would be wiser to go with the G4. Also, it would have been a mess to try and fit all the components and adequate cooling inside something smaller than the G4 cube's enclosure. Apple wanted to make something truly mini. A G5 (even a low frequency one) requires either a large heatsink or a LCS. Had Apple produced one, I would have bought it. I like Cubes..

Anyhow,
People have messed around with custom fabricated aluminum enclosures and created some pretty cool stuff. Attached is an image of a G4 cube some Asian guy fitted into a mini PowerMac G5 style case (it's the fatter one with the optical drive). Also attached is an image of a mac mini fitted into a miniature Mac Pro case. Both computers are fully functional.

>>You could always make a mini mac pro using macbook innards. Go buy a macally enclosure and gut it! Better yet, it has no space for an optical drive! It'll blend right in with the new generation of macs..

:D


speakin of cubes how come the G4 Cube was a major product failure?