RIP G4 PowerMac 187
A user writes "An a not entirely surprising move, Apple has taken the PowerMac G4 out of production (see the last few paragraphs of this interesting article in Mac Central about the new G5s.) The PowerMac G4 had continued to be in production largely for users of Mac OS 9, and it had been speculated it might be kept as a lower-end headless entry-level Mac. You can still buy them from the Apple Store, while stocks last. On a seperate note, it looks like the 3GHz G5 is a while away, and G5 PowerBooks are no nearer production."
Grammar Nazi (Score:4, Funny)
That this post is on Apple doesn't mean that 'I' should be kicked out and replaced with an 'A'.
Re:Grammar Nazi (Score:4, Funny)
iN a not entirely surprising move
Re: (Score:2)
Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is taking an obsolete machine out of the market, that means they're dying!!!!
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:3, Informative)
Apple is taking an obsolete machine out of the market, that means they're dying!!!!
Apple is taking away the only lifeline for people who use QPS (try every Gannet paper in the world). QPS only runs under OS9 because in classic mode you get sporadic corruption.
Not that Apple should support OS9 forever, but basically they've just end-of-lifed a majority of newspaper's CMSs. This is a very big deal.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:3, Funny)
Idiot."
No, actually he's right on target.
Apple is no longer producing systems. What happens when the mobo fries on one of the old PowerMacs? What happens when you need to buy more computers?
That's one of the reasons many businesses are reluctant to choose Apple. They don't want to be at the whim of Jo
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Insightful)
You call Apple and have them replace it. (I'm assuming. I have no idea what "mobo fries" means. Is that anything like chili fries? 'Cause I like chili fries.)
Apple's got the same basic support policy as every other vendor: five years after end-of-production to end-of-life.
What happens when you need to buy more computers?
If you're still stuck on five-year-old software and have no intention of upgrading, I'm pretty sure you're not anticipating a monster corporate growth spurt.
Can you dual-boot into Mac OS 9 for that legacy application that Classic won't run?
Can you name one such application? And QPS obviously doesn't count; we've already covered how (1) it's poop, (2) Quark in general has become poop, and (3) the industry is migrating away from Quark products. Let's talk about applications that people still actually use.
Gotta run. I'm desperately craving chili fries for some reason.
Mobo Fries (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Insightful)
Very possibly not.
Hell, I remember when I tried to take a Gateway laptop back from Windows Me to Windows 98 - total disaster. There was no display driver in existence for it under 98.
So this argument overstates the case rather dramatically.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:3, Interesting)
Very possibly not.
Hell, I remember when I tried to take a Gateway laptop back from Windows Me to Windows 98 - total disaster. There was no display driver in existence for it under 98."
If you Dell has an Intel chipset (like every single Dell produced), then, yes, you will be able to find drivers for Windows 98.
If your system has a VIA, NVIDIA, Intel, or ATI chipset, and an Intel, VIA (S3), NVIDIA, or AT
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Funny)
I've got a G4 I'll swap for a G5, runs OS 9 beautifully.
I've also got an OS 9 capable iBook I'll gladly swap for a new PowerBook.
Let me know if you're serious and not just blowing hot air.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:4, Interesting)
HP, for example, can deliver hardware that's tested, warranteed, supported, and, most important, homogenous. When a school system buys 2000 new PCs to run Windows 2000 (which predates OS X), they know that every PC will be the same, every PC will be working out of the box (or will be replaced quickly), and that every PC will be supported in two years.
I'd love for someone to point to ANY company still selling new computers with waranties still offering support for Windows 98. Even in the much larger world of PCs you have to EOL stuff. Companies who stay current, stay current. Companies that wait for something to break, massively upgrade. Every OEM supplier offers warranties(HP is not usually rated very highly). How are HPs any more homogenous than any other computer? Macs are a LOT more homogenous when it comes to drivers/system software.
They also know that any applications they buy will still work in five years.
Not all apps are happy to go between 2000 and XP, and a lot of apps broke between 98/ME and NT/2K.Windows XP SP2 is going to break a shitload of apps(many developers are getting ready for this). Hell, any update can break almost anything, a stupid video card update broke our terminal emulator(Reflections) on our Win2k boxes. P.S. Biege and AIO G3s were discontinued over 5 years ago*.
Most teachers won't even notice the change. XP is that compatible. OS X is not. OS X requires new training, new applications (unless you want to use Classic, which isn't exactly a great solution), new servers, and new machines.
Soooo, Windows hasn't ever changed and will never change their GUI? OSX was a huge change, but that was years ago. If you are still bitching about that, then I'll bitch about Windows 3.1 to 95! Wah! Wah! As far as new servers and machines, WTF? Any Mac produced in the last 5 years* is officialy supported by Apple with OSX and OSX will hook up to pretty much any server.
It would be impossible for a 100% OS 8/9 district to become a 100% OS X district. The all-in-one (and beige) G3s simply do not work correctly on OS X. The PII 233s work fine under Windows XP.
This is silly, OSX will install in a biege G3* as much as XP will work on a PII 233, both machines are on the fringe of being usable even with upgrades. People have to retire machines if they want to stay current.
*Apple officialy stopped supporting beige computers running OSX, but you can still install it, and it works well if you upgrade the video card and RAM. These machines were discontinued back in 1998.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:2)
Not in my experience. ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Informative)
Does the Washington Post count as "major?" How about the Wall Street Journal?
Thou shalt know what thou art talking about before thou postesth.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:2)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Interesting)
Your information is out of date. Time Warner made the decision to migrate nearly a year ago. Conde Nast did it earlier this year.
I've got fifteen years in the industry. How about choo?
Twenty-one, if you broadly define "the industry." You want to compare resumes, or should we just drop our pants and get a ruler?
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:2)
Hmm. My friends who work there have told me different.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:2)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:5, Funny)
Not in my experience. ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.
So, what you're saying is that in major newspapers, Carmack's FPS aren't all that popular... figures. ;)
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club (Score:2)
They're not. Ergo, there isn't. Ergo, it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It still lives... (Score:5, Funny)
Now that we're into the second generation of G5's I think an icon update is in order.
Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first got my 17" Powerbook, I was dreading my inability to boot into OS 9. After the first couple of months, I stopped missing my OS 9 apps, having found better OS X replacements. Every once in a while, I'd accidentally launch a Classic app, but that was rarely an issue. The only problems I see with OS X now is that it's slightly less secure (though much more stable and powerful), and power users such as myself may run into a lack of available applications for specific tasks. (Rasterizing NOAA vector maps, for example.)
I imagine we'll hear a few people here and there complain about needing to migrate to OS X, but I think the pros for dropping G4s from the line outweigh the cons. Besides, I have a feeling that, unless they require very specific compatibiliy with a legacy app that's no longer available, they're going to be fine. Now we're going to see price drops increase on these suckers dramatically, and suddenly a bunch of students and other low-income folks be able to afford a machine that they didn't think possible for their budget. I'll bet DealMac [dealmac.com] will be listing some price slashing within a couple of days.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2)
The best MUD client ever written for Macintosh is Rapscallion. It hasn't been updated in like 6 years, but it still has twice the features of newer clients. (The website is at www.rapscallion.co.uk
Anyway, when I find a MUD client as good as Rapscallion I'll delete my Class
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
OS-X is less secure then OS-9???
- OS-X has preemptive multitasking, OS-9 got cooperative
- OS-X has memory protection, OS-9 doesnt
- OS-X has an encrypted file system, OS-9 doesnt
- OS-9 has to be used as super-user (delete the system!), OS-X hasnt
- etc.
...
forget about it, OS-X is far more secure then OS-9.Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not referring to the usability of the system; I'm referring to the number of security holes found in OS X vs. the number found in OS 9. Only one of the examples you gave has anything to do with security, and that one only applies once someone has gained access to the machine in question. I'm referring to the ability to access and/or run code on a box with a basic system left to its defaults.
I'm not aware of a method for remotely executing malicious code in OS 9 unless the user/administrator opens up
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't find holes in something that doesn't exist. OS 9 had no security, hence no security holes.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:4, Informative)
You're kind of talking apples and oranges. You're right that security is not limited to the front door, but it's not necessary to put a portcullis inside the door if you know the door is secure. If you're particularly worried about your files in OS 9, download PGP [pgpi.org]. But my point is that, unless you screw something up on your own or let others access your machine, you just didn't need that kind of support.
OS 9 didn't have a built-in firewall because OS 9 didn't have a bunch of services running that needed one. Even the built-in mini web server only served files out of a specific directory that most people never touched. Regardless, the firewall in OS X isn't on by default, and therein lies the problem. OS 9 didn't have any security issues (that I know of), that were a part of the operating system. As far as the I.E. security issue goes, that's a problem with an application, not with the operating system. In addition, it's a 3rd-party app, though it ships with the system.
Sure, Appleshare is INSTALLED by default, but it is not ENABLED by default. When you first install your OS, you are asked if you wish to have a Shared Folder, and you then have to go through the steps of creating it. Think of it this way: your house has a lock on the door, and is locked as a default. When you want to get into your house, you need to unlock the door. Now, you're able to unlock it and leave it unlocked, but that's a problem with the user, not with the door.
The point that I'm trying to make is that is was damn hard to get into an OS 9 box unless the user did something really dumb, like leave their password blank. If memory serves, you'd even get a warning if you did so. OS X has had a not insignificant number of security vulnerabilities that existed BY DEFAULT. That is, the box (assuming it was on and had a network connection) was insecure just sitting unused unless the user downloaded a patch. OS 9 did not have these vulnerabilities. It's that simple.
I'm not complaining about OS X; I'll never go back to OS 9 unless I need to run a classic app. I'm just pointing out a relevant fact: that OS 9 was inherently more secure by default than OS X, given recent security issues that have been brought to light. I'm also not advocating less security over more... but in this case it wasn't necessary, and to tell users that they need to keep adding more and more levels of security to a box that's already plenty secure is a waste of your time and theirs.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:3, Informative)
You really should read this entire thread; your comments have already been covered. However, I shall recap:
That wasn't the point. The point was that, regardless of how quickly the issues are resolved, they are issues that NEVER EXISTED in OS 9. There were no holes to plug, ever. It doesn't matter if the problems in OS X are gone now; they WERE present, ARE present on many machines still in use, a
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:5, Informative)
You do know that there's never been a recorded instance in the wild of a remote compromise of a Classic Mac OS machine, right? You could cook one up in your basement, I'm sure, but it's never happened out there in real life, ever.
come on, Appleshare is installed by default on OS-9!
Installed... but off. It has to be manually turned on.
You'd better back the hell off OS 9, man. As far as network security goes, it's top of the list.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm... not true, at least as written. Timbuktu [netopia.com] and the like have been responsible for plenty of compromises, and lousy network security and setup has been responsible for others.
The big "advantage" of 9 is that there's really nothing to do once you have remote access. You need a control interface -- either GUI or shell -- and 9 doesn't have one built in.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2)
You can hardly count flaws in a piece of third-party software against the security record of the OS.
lousy network security and setup has been responsible for others.
Name one?
Seriously: there has never been a recorded instance of a compromised Mac OS 9 machine in the wild. Look it up.
Classicurity (Score:5, Funny)
Best quote I've ever heard about the state of Classic Mac OS security, from a friend who really knows his shit:
"Sure, you're right, I can't break into OS 9. But I can't telnet into a fucking rock now, either, can I?"
True story.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not entirely true. Somebody broke into the Mac running WebStar that was hosting the "Crack-a-Mac" contest. But they did it by exploiting a vulnerability in a filemaker script that was running alongside the webserver. But a remote compromise is a remote compromise.
As someone else pointed out, an app like Timbuktu gives you remote back-office-style control over a Mac if you can install the program; I used to have an installer program that installed an invisible version of the Timbuktu on any Mac, making it easy to gain access if you could get physical access to the machine once (or get someone to run the file). More troubling was the application distributed at the time by securemac.com (I forget the name of the app) that opened an obscure port on the mac for a user to telnet into and the user could issue commands via a simple command language. The commands allowed a user to open programs, files, delete files, etc; most things that you could do sitting in front of the machine.
Of course the latter two aren't really exploits as they require a user to actually install them (once). But the lack of a firewall means that if they are installed once they do damage; whereas a firewall would head off the damage they might do (assuming the apps are installed by trickery rather than by a malicious user sitting at the machine, who could also turn off the firewall of course.
But all this is academic -- os9 was more secure "out of the box" because it didn't do anything. Like someone else wrote, you can't telnet into a rock either. Once you make the os do things, like run webservers, or cgi scripts (like the filemaker one that got exploited), or remote access apps, or ftpd (I believe there was a vulnerable ftpd program under os9, actually more like os7.1 or 7.5), etc., you open up the potential for exploits. The same with any services you open up under UNIX. If you run OSX without any network services turned on and with all ports closed, it is just as secure as OS 9 "out of the box" -- and just as useful.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Their web servers weren't "in the box" when they bought OS9. The very first sentence of the article you linked points out that the Army was running WebStar, which certainly wasn't part of OS9, and isn't running "out of the box."
No, NOT the same. Because nothing runs on a Mac under OS 9 unless you explicity enable it. Unlike UNIX, where services run by default out of the box.
Right - including webservers. That was exactly my point. An OS9 (or 8 or 7) out-of-the-box install didn't "do anything," as far as the internet is concerned, so it didn't introduce any vulnerabilities, whereas most UNIX out-of-the-box installations do have network services running. When the Mac is running the same or similar services it is much more vulnerable. It is this -- and not some mysterious design feature of the OS itself -- that makes the Mac more secure -- and less useful -- "out of the box."
Look, I'm a huge MacOS fan, even OS 9,8,7 (actually 8.5.1 was my favorite; it was downhill from there in my opinion until X), but there is no sense in pretending things that aren't true. Mac OS9 was not inherently any more secure than any other OS; it was more secure in practice because all network services were disabled and not too many people used them (and not too many used Macs anyway), so the hunt for Mac security holes was never as vigorous and popular as the hunt for UNIX and Windows exploits. There was a Mac hacking community, and it came up with some pretty clever things (including that remote control program that I wish I could remember the name of), but the few Macs running WebStar were never an attractive enough target for hackers with acres of apache & IIS servers in front of them to play with.
I guess my point is that the OS is only as secure as the services it is running, and that's true of UNIX as well. There is nothing inherently more secure about OS9; UNIX can certainly be installed without turning on vulnerable services but nobody bothers because these machines are meant to be used on the internet.
There were versions of apache for Mac, for example, vulnerable to whatever exploits were around for the version of apache they were based on. And WebStar was a damn fine server, but its big selling point was that it was a freakin' workhorse, not that it was any more secure than apache, except perhaps through obscurity. And either way it says nothing about the inherent security of OS 9. Arguably OS9 is less secure as an OS than UNIX because it treats every user as root.
Don't compare Mac and UNIX "out of the box" because they're in very different boxes. Compare Mac + network services to UNIX "out of the box" or Mac "out of the box" to UNIX with all network services turned off if you actually want to compare them for this purpose.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
You're spewing a lot of pseudo-theoretical claptrap and ignoring the point: no Mac OS 9 box was ever compromised in the wild. Ever.
the few Macs running WebStar were never an attractive enough target for hackers
Oh, okay. I see. Now we finally get to the heart of your argument. It's the old "Macs aren't more secure; they're just less common" thing.
Bogus then, bogus now.
I guess my point is that the OS is only as secure as the services it is r
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
You keep repeating the claim there has been no successful exploit "in the wild" (that you know of) -- which may be true if you ignore the crack-a-mac contest, but it is irrelevant. A mac running insecure services is no more secure than a UNIX box running insecure services, and a Mac that is not connected to a network at all is as secure as a UNIX box not connected to a network. And, again, it is probably less secure, since once the service has been compromised, the attacker now has root access to the Mac. At the OS-level the Mac is probably less secure.
I realize that you think your claim that there has been no successful compromise of os9 is some kind of self-evidently significant argument, but it is basically just interesting data until you suggest some actual hypothesis (other than obscurity) as to what might make OS9 more secure.
My hypothesis is that OS9 was more secure simply because out of the box it didn't do anything (as far as the network is concerned). And the majority of users left it that way. It's a simple hypothesis, and all you can say is "Bogus."
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fucking dumbass, what the hell does multitasking have to do with security? Not a damn fucking thing!
I believe what the original poster refers to is the fact that OS 9 is much more secure on the network. This is a FACT. It doesn't support telnet, ssh, etc - there's no way to get a remote shell of any sort on OS 9 to run malicious applications. You can't 0wn an OS 9 box remotely. In that sense alone, OS 9 is much more sec
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2)
On OS9, because there is no preemptive multitasking, and no protected memory, *any* program can:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2)
You need to work on your reading comprehension, I simply stated that multitasking and unprotected memory could be related to security. Nor have I argued that OSX is more secure than OS9
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
The system will crash rather than be taken over. So while it's more "secure" from being taken over, it would be much easier to DoS into crashing.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is the same problem that MS faces, trying to get people off of Win98 (and 95!). You can talk about making a break with backwards compatability all you want, but in reality, stuff sticks around for *decades* after you thought it would...
Basilisk II (Score:3, Informative)
You might want to look at the Basilisk II [bigpond.com] port for OS X. It will emulate an old machine, and you can run up to System 8 I believe (never ran System 8 myself - I ducked out of Macs at 7.5.5 and came back in at Jaguar).
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Not surprising, and not bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that statement is mostly speculation. There are people, like myself, who need a low cost Mac that doesn't saddle them with a built in monitor. I have a single processor 1.25ghz G4 with 2 gigabytes of RAM and I am totally happy with it.
Hopefully, Apple will one day offer something like the eMac without a built in monitor.
Re:Speculation (Score:2)
If I knew I could put my B&W G3's motherboard in one of those G4 cases, I would order a case as a replacement part (if they still sell them).
Re:Speculation (Score:4, Interesting)
Nerds like us get the most recent OS version of whatever gets thrown at us. We even buy stuff like the BeBox or the new Amiga, that dont have any real apps.
Re:Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
A wild concept, huh: people actually use their computers for WORK. ;-)
The OS X phobes will eventually have to make the move. In the end, they'll appreciate the additional productivity of faster hardware and a more stable OS. But I understand their reluctance to switch gears.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, an LC for the new millenium... (Score:2)
Re:Speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
They did and it was called "the cube."
INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made (Score:5, Informative)
This is only the low-end of 3 configurations, leaving both dual-processor G4s still in production.
Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made (Score:2)
Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made (Score:2)
Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made (Score:2)
Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made (Score:3, Informative)
Apple hasn't made or sold Dual G4 machines since the G5 was introduced. Apple still sold one configuration of G4, a single 1.25Ghz unit, so some people could still boot OS 9. Now they are discontinuing this unit and the only PowerMacs sold will be G5 units.
Well, you're just plain wrong. Apple never stopped selling dual-processor G4s. I don't know where you think you got your information, but just go to the Apple Store and look, they're still listed there today, as they have been,
Dualies! (Score:4, Interesting)
I know a lot of people that were hoping dual G4s would come down in price when the G5s came out. I think it would be nice to have a low-end *upgradeable* (not iMac or eMac) tower offering from Apple. Perhaps the G4 could have filled that niche. Dual G4s in a mini tower maybe, plus the G5 powermac. Kind of like the iBook Vs. Powerbook. (Oh yeah there isn't much difference between them now.)
I know, I know. Apple needs to sell G5s in order for IBM to make faster ones, cheaper ones etc. Still an only dual processor offering from Apple would be neat.
Re:Dualies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy, is that ever not true.
Remember, we're talking about Mac OS X here. Mac OS X uses a task model that's very similar to the UNIX model you're probably familiar with. (It's Mach, not UNIX, but the gist is the same.) That means there's support for dual processors at the thread level, sure, but there's also support at the process level.
Right now, on the G4 I'm using to type this, I have 69 processes running. Not much: just the base OS, Safari, Mail, iChat, and iTunes. But on my machine, whatever task is next in the run queue gets run on whichever processor is free. (Yes, there's processor affinity. That's not important right now.)
The net result is that the amount of time a given process is runnable but not running is reduced, because I've got two, two, two Macs in one.
Bottom line? My Mac is faster and more responsive than an equivalent single-processor Mac. Not just sometimes, but always.
Two processors are better than one, period.
remember, the new machines are 4 months late because the CPU has hard to get
First, WTF? Please don't pull things like "4 months late" out of your butt and expect to be taken seriously. You haven't seen Apple's product release roadmaps. You don't know what you're talking about.
And secondly, the 2.5 GHz G5 isn't hard to get; it's hard to MAKE. IBM had lots of problems with their 90 nm fab process. It's not like supplies were constrained. The suckers just weren't coming out of the plant.
Re:Dualies! (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't pull it out of my butt. I pulled it out of what Apple said in their conference call explaining their first quarter results. Apple says that these machines were supposed to be out at the end of February, but were delayed because of CPU availability.
Re:Dualies! (Score:2)
Re:Dualies! (Score:2)
Very true. To go off on a tangent...
I guess what confuses people is that there is a lot of research into trying to make two processor systems exactly twice as fast as a single processor system. Keep in mind this is for a single application. When a single application (or process) is spread across multiple CPUs, the CPUs often must communicate information to complete the computation. The cost of this cross-CPU communication is high. A single CPU system, however,
Re:Dualies! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrongo. If you get up and walk away, maybe, but not if you're actually, you know, USING your computer.
Whether my computer is faster than a single-processor equivalent when both are doing nothing is a question I've never bothered to ponder.
Re:Dualies! (Score:3)
Re:Dualies! (Score:2)
1993 called. They want their definition of "general work" back.
"General work" includes audio and video playback, the manipulation of tons of high-resolution bitmaps, checking for email periodically, processing both incoming and outgoing network traffic, regular interrupts for scheduling reminders, managing incoming and o
Re:Dualies! (Score:2)
Re:Dualies! (Score:5, Interesting)
I was disappointed since I waas hoping to at least surf the web while rendering as a major benefit of MacOS X. (Previous versions of Final Cut Pro were MacOS 9 only). So it was with a heavy heart that I bought back my shiny new upgrade and installed it on my dual 450.
Worked like a charm. No problem multi-tasking at all during rendering. So in some cases, a dual 450 outperforms a single 867. I would never buy a single-processor PowerMac.
D
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
Whither the iMac? (Score:5, Informative)
The G5 heatsink is too big to put in a laptop
The G5 heatsink is too big to put in an iMac
Putting the big G5 heatsink anwhere but inside a Power Mac is a "heck of a challenge," according to an Apple marketing director
But we have also heard, in the past week, that the G4 iMac is no longer being shipped to Apple stores. So, is Apple just being coy here? Or is the iMac line going into hibernation?
Re:Whither the iMac? (Score:3, Informative)
They stopped production of the G4 powermac, but the G4 iMac is still around
Re:Whither the iMac? (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider also that for a while, Apple had "pro" processors and "consumer" processors--G3 iMacs and iBooks, G4 towers and Powerbooks. I doubt we'll be seeing G5s in the iMac before the Powerbook, at the very least.
Re:Whither the iMac? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=476
In short, Apple Insider claims that Apple "has told several resellers not to expect any further shipments of its iMac G4" and that "iMac G4 inventory is nearly depleted, and it appears that manufacturing of the entire line has halted."
Quite apart from whether that is true, your point about G5 heat is well taken. This leads me to wonder whet
Re:Whither the iMac? (Score:2)
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you do that needs more than 1.25GHz? I do a lot of coding and video editing on my 1.25GHz PowerBook. The incremental build features in XCode means that it spends hardly any time compiling. I sometimes have to wait for a few seconds while it renders large sequences of effects in Final Cut Express, but not very often (most things can be done in realtime).
This is a serious question. I'd really like to be able to justify buying mysel
Perhaps instead . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps instead . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
OS X is THE reason I use a Mac mixed with my Linux world. That is, perhaps, notable point number one. Have you compared Linux running 64 bit compared to 32? Wow. If you think OS X is nice today, on a
But Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5 yet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who relies on a Windows-only product, and who could previously accommodate that need on a G4 running Virtual PC, will in the future need to buy a Windows PC.
Unless Apple is about to announce at WWDC its own G4-friendly Windows emulation, this could be a MAJOR step backwards for Apple among cross-platform users who prefer Apple but NEED access to Windows
Re:But Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5 yet! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like the G4s out there are suddenly going to forget how to run VPC, and by the time Apple runs out of G4 stock, the G5 version of VPC may very well be out.
Honestly, if MS can't be asked to sell a few more Windows licenses for a system they'll never port to, then there's something pretty silly going on. (Remember, for most VPC users, it's a way to run Windows. MS wins.)
I hope I can score (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a case in which Apple could build them (faster G5's, and a laptop with a G5 in it) if they wanted and they're just holding out for a business case. And this isn't a case where they're making incremental improvements to the design to get it just right.
Both a 3 GHz G5 and a laptop with a G5 in it are TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES at this time.
When they cease to be impossible, Apple will make them.
This whole "they'll be announced in January" thing is crap. Utter, utter crap. It's not a rumor. It's just a guess.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and the exact same problem exists for 3GHz G5s. The current ones still use the 130nm 970, which was expected to be phased out in favour of the lower power and higher speed 90nm 970FX by now.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
The G5 puts out a decent amount of it. And it's great that they could cram it into an XServe. But the Xserve is about an inch and a half thicker, and can have 3 very loud very fast fans running to cool it off (sorry, Xserves just aren't quiet). By contrast, people bitch and moan about the low hum that comes from their powerbooks when the fan kicks in. So while it may be possible to cram a g5 into a powerbook, it isn't possible to release a G5 powerbook until stylisticaly and operationaly it runs better than the current powerbooks.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple could build a G5 powerbook now. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:2, Redundant)
Right after the iPod supports Ogg. ;)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:2)
I'd put money on 3rd quarter 2005 or later.
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Informative)
And to the people that responded saying that the system is not liquid cooled, well, you are wrong [apple.com]. (Although you are right in that the liquid isn't water). Apple didn't use a heat pipe [heatpipe.com]. In heat pipes the liquid is evaporated (taking the heat away) and the resulting vapor is condensed by releasing the heat to the outside. The fluid motion is produced passively. In Apple's design apparently the fluid is always in liquid state and is actively pumped (controlled by the processor).
(Credit goes to TamMan2000 [slashdot.org]for the finding the last link and providing some info.)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's quoting. "Mac OS X dynamically adjusts the flow of the fluid and the speed of the fans based on temperature." How can you adjust the flow in a system that lacks any mechanism to regulate the flow?
The Apple diagram you linked to shows no pump.
LOL. The "diagram" is an illustration from a marketing brochure. You might as well say, "The diagram shows no floor. Therefore, the G5 floats unsupported above your desk."
This is hardly innovation.
So?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good riddance! (Score:3, Interesting)
(They are referring to the 2.5 GHz G5 in the top of the line PowerMac).
If you want further proof, take a look at either the PowerMac White Paper or the Technology and Performance Overview. (Both are linked