or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › I think new iMac HAS to = G4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I think new iMac HAS to = G4

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
here is why. It is one thing to buy a new machine and have it speed bumped by XXX number of megahertz in 4 months, but a whole other thing to have a brand new kind of processor in there. I would think sticking in a G3 would keep the iMac and most likely the iBook with said processor for at LEAST a year. And would Apple then sometime this year (maybe even this keynote?) bump the PowerMac to a G5, leaving the TiBook as the ONLY model with a G4 in it?

Just a random thought. My brain is mush after reading here WAY too much today.
post #2 of 36
Well I think it is a given that the iMac will get a G4 if the Power Mac gets a G5.
post #3 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Well I think it is a given that the iMac will get a G4 if the Power Mac gets a G5.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think they both can have a G4.

Especially if the new G4 Pms have multiple processors and DDR ram and all that jazz...

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #4 of 36
I think if the Power Mac doesn't get a G5 then both the iMac and PM should have G4s but I don't know if Apple's gunna do it.
post #5 of 36
i think its feasible for a g4 imac if it was not an LCD all in one thingamagig

This is the way i see and its purely raw and has little fact behind it but...

Okay the powermac g4 733 cost 1699 ... that thing is EOL with friggin new g4s so those chips wiht cube stuff shoved into an imac for 1499 i think is feasible lets remember guys that the 733 just a few months ago was the top of the line at 3500 bucks and then was dropped to the bottom of the line.

733 g4 imacs would be cool but i dunno with an lcd display it could be feasible just not sure how economicly plausible it would be though
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
post #6 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by O and A:
<strong>733 g4 imacs would be cool but i dunno with an lcd display it could be feasible just not sure how economicly plausible it would be though</strong><hr></blockquote>

If Apple wnated to do it then they would. The G4 isn't that much money that it'd stop them from having an LCD if it was used.
post #7 of 36
I think the iMac has to have everything bumped up if is to be a three year deal. DDR and so on. Maybe this would mean a g3 to keep prices down for the time being but would mean the iMac would remain relevant for a decent period of time. Just like the original was.
X <--------- Nobody forge that
Reply
X <--------- Nobody forge that
Reply
post #8 of 36
The current iMac is completely played out. The next iMac needs to have an LCD screen and a G4 processor. The iBook needs to move to the G4 ASAP as well.
post #9 of 36
When Steve introduced the first iMac, he said that it was not a computer with last year components...

So... Revolution 2... here we are !
Blow us away!
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #10 of 36
Exactly how fast can IBM get the G3's clocked?

Is there an incentive for them to really take it more than 1 GHZ?

If that were the case, a G3 iMac could well be maxed out by the 2nd rev.

If they started on the G4 at say, 700, they will be able to get a good number of revisions from the G4's, especially if they get them to the rumored 1.4-1.6 range.

G4's in the iMac seem to make more sense really.

And for the length of time the G4 has been out, I just cannot seeing it costing so much more than a G3 that it makes it impossible to incorporate a G4 in the iMac. Whew!

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Cobra ]</p>
post #11 of 36
Good point, Cobra.

But they still have to up ALL the specs, otherwise even a G4 will not cut it for long.
X <--------- Nobody forge that
Reply
X <--------- Nobody forge that
Reply
post #12 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Ape_Man:
<strong>I think the iMac has to have everything bumped up if is to be a three year deal. DDR and so on. Maybe this would mean a g3 to keep prices down for the time being but would mean the iMac would remain relevant for a decent period of time. Just like the original was.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Would DDR for the consumer make all that much sense? I mean I would rather have the cheaper PC 133 (It is cheaper right, I havent looked @ DDR ram prices lately, errr ok at all.)

Plus, are people in the iMac really going to push the computer all that much to need DDR. G4 makes sence b/c of AltiVec, but DDR just seems like gravy.

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #13 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by psantora:
<strong>

Would DDR for the consumer make all that much sense? I mean I would rather have the cheaper PC 133 (It is cheaper right, I havent looked @ DDR ram prices lately, errr ok at all.)

Plus, are people in the iMac really going to push the computer all that much to need DDR. G4 makes sence b/c of AltiVec, but DDR just seems like gravy.

-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes DDR ram is definitely more expensive. I don't think the added performance would be worth the extra expense for the average iMac user.
post #14 of 36
I see no problem with the new imac coming with a G3. As long as it comes in with a 1Ghz G3 it will be sweet. There is really not all that much difference between the G3 and G4. In OS X you would notice it a little, but a 1Ghz G3 would be pretty kick ass. Also the cost of G4's are really high right now. Like around 450 per chip for the 7450. It would be very difficult to have a decent sized LCD (like 14inch and up, remember that the iMacs current monitor only has like a 13.8 viewable screen at its pretty crappy. So a 14.1 or higher flat display would be a major step up) and a G4 in the same comp. Along with all the other components. I would rather have a iMac with a 15 inch LCD or so and a 1Ghz G3 and a Geforce2MX (or equivilent.) Than a smaller LCD to compensate for cost, and some 733mhz G4 with a Geforce2MX.
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
post #15 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Falcon:
<strong>I see no problem with the new imac coming with a G3. As long as it comes in with a 1Ghz G3 it will be sweet. There is really not all that much difference between the G3 and G4. In OS X you would notice it a little, but a 1Ghz G3 would be pretty kick ass. Also the cost of G4's are really high right now. Like around 450 per chip for the 7450. It would be very difficult to have a decent sized LCD (like 14inch and up, remember that the iMacs current monitor only has like a 13.8 viewable screen at its pretty crappy. So a 14.1 or higher flat display would be a major step up) and a G4 in the same comp. Along with all the other components. I would rather have a iMac with a 15 inch LCD or so and a 1Ghz G3 and a Geforce2MX (or equivilent.) Than a smaller LCD to compensate for cost, and some 733mhz G4 with a Geforce2MX.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Umm the g4 is not that much more exensive to make think like $50 MAX more per chip.
Yeah, a 1GHz G3 would be better then a 733G4, but I don't think we will see a 1GHz G3.
G4 makes a BIG difference in OSX and apps like iMovie and iTunes. Also if the iMac were to ever get a superdrive, iDVD basicaly all but NEEDS a G4 to run decently.

Also, the more computers that have AltiVec the more programmers will code for it. Giving Apple a boost in speed ACCROSS THE ENTIRE G4 LINE!!!
This is the kicker as to why the iMacs will get G4s

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #16 of 36
psantora i totally agree


g4 would totaly make the iMac an OSX machine and again THE SUPERDRIVE IS COMING TO THE IMAC EVENTUALLY LIKE JOBS HIMSELF SAID

SO IT NEEDS A G4 EVENTUALLY

why not start now?
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
post #17 of 36
DDR RAM DOES NOT COST A LOT MORE THAN PC133 RAM.

a few bucks at most. most of the time the prices are nearly the same
post #18 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>DDR RAM DOES NOT COST A LOT MORE THAN PC133 RAM.

a few bucks at most. most of the time the prices are nearly the same</strong><hr></blockquote>

How come so many people think it costs more?
post #19 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

How come so many people think it costs more?</strong><hr></blockquote>

probably because they think faster must= more $
post #20 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

probably because they think faster must= more $</strong><hr></blockquote>

Makes sense.
post #21 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

How come so many people think it costs more?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Probably because it DOES cost more. The only person who said A LOT more is applenut.
post #22 of 36
sure it cost not much more but whatabout implementing it? does that cost much more?
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
post #23 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by ryukyu:
<strong>

Probably because it DOES cost more. The only person who said A LOT more is applenut.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Alright, I guess I didn't read carefully enough in this thread, but I knew there were plenty of times when people said that it costs A LOT more.
post #24 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by ryukyu:
<strong>

Probably because it DOES cost more. The only person who said A LOT more is applenut.</strong><hr></blockquote>

tis true

prices have skyrocketed for DDR RAM since I last looked. anyone know why?

Apologies for misleading anyone and posting false info
post #25 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>DDR RAM DOES NOT COST A LOT MORE THAN PC133 RAM.

a few bucks at most. most of the time the prices are nearly the same</strong><hr></blockquote>

How does it compare with difference between G4 and G3?

Which would you rather have DDr or a G4 in an iMac?

I'd go with the G4 hands down.

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #26 of 36
Well the 750fx is supposed to support up to a 200MHz system bus (SDR) so it would have plenty of bandwidth for a 266MHz DDR memory bus. So who knows. I wonder if the Apollo is supposed to offer system bus improvements. Anyone know?
post #27 of 36
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by jeromba:
<strong>When Steve introduced the first iMac, he said that it was not a computer with last year components...

So... Revolution 2... here we are !
Blow us away!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wasn't it originally introduced with a 33.3 modem? That would qaulify for "yesterday's components." (I understand they made the switch to 56k ratehr fast though).

Anyway, I wanted to expand on my original comment. I should have said if it has a new form factor it would be a mistake not to go with the G4. If it was still CRT it would be no big deal, but I guess all of you figured out what I meant.
I still believe the point remains valid that IF they used a G3, no matter the Mhz, then I would believe they would HAVE to go with that until at least MWSF 2003. I mean, wouldn't it suck to get it and in Tokyo or MWNY they get a G4? Does Apple really want to go into 2003 with some of their machines still running on G3s? I can understand if the iBook is not updated to a G4 until Tokyo or MWNY, but with OSX becoming a more stable and faster OS, with all new apps coming out, I cannot believe they want to go a whole year with any of their machines, especially if the get an "earth shattering" new form factor, using a chip that cannot take full advantage of what OSX can offer (short of dual processors which are of course more than likely reserved for the Pro macs, at least for a while).
post #28 of 36
I think the iMac will, if not should, have a G4 processor. It would be a reason for so many people to upgrade to a new iMac even if the low end is "only" a 733 Mhz G4. Think of how many G3 iMac users will want to upgrade! The iMacs and Pro Desktops can both coexist with G4 processors and G4 iMacs will not cannabalize Pro G4 sales as long as there is a performance gap...like was said about DDR, faster bus, bigger drives, more expandability, etc on the Pro Desktop G4's only. As far as the G5 is concerned, I don't think Apple is ready for its release and they shouldn't be rushed with it because it will only mean a cut-back features for the G5. I remember when I got my B&W G3, all the computers across the line had a G3 processor before the Pro desktops got the G4's in Aug '99...I think we're going to be entering a transitional period where all machines will have the G4 processor and later this year we'll see the G5's in the Pro Desktops.

-Adolfo
post #29 of 36
Another thing that could differenticate (SP? wow that is way off) the G4 iMacs for G4 Towers could be the amount of L3 (L2) cache.

All of the iMacs even after the G4 was introed were hobbled with a tiny L2 cache, the pro towers all had 1MB. Same thing with the PB. It made them MUCH faster. This technique could be used again.

I'll say again the iMac NEEDS a G4!! OS X as default is coming soon, and the iMac has to be able to run it decently. That means AltiVec.
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #30 of 36
wouldn't this be nice:

iMac G4 - 800, 900, 1000
Powermac - G4 866x2, 933x2, 1000x2
Powerbook G4 - 667, 733, 800
iBook G4 - 700, 700, 800

This is more likely* than any G5.

SdC

* (footnote) - which is like saying that a snowball has a better chance in a blast furnace than it does in hell.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #31 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>wouldn't this be nice:

iMac G4 - 800, 900, 1000
Powermac - G4 866x2, 933x2, 1000x2
Powerbook G4 - 667, 733, 800
iBook G4 - 700, 700, 800

&lt;&lt;yadda yadda yadda&gt;&gt;

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You think they can make that many G4s at those speeds?
Going back to an all dual PM line would be cool. ::Thinks back to MWNY2000:: Say didnt the low end not have dual processors? I think they'd keep the low end single for a lower cost...

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #32 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by psantora:
<strong>

You think they can make that many G4s at those speeds?
Going back to an all dual PM line would be cool. ::Thinks back to MWNY2000:: Say didnt the low end not have dual processors? I think they'd keep the low end single for a lower cost...

-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>


Nah. Check my footnote. I think the G5 is 2Q 2002 stuff, so I think this is the absolute best that could happen. I'm sticking to my predictions <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000421" target="_blank">here</a>.

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #33 of 36
in response to what was said about imac customers buying ram, they dont. i am serious if they do they are willing to pay the extra money. the people who dont update their ram are schools, because they are cheap, trust me i know. then they are the people who want just a simple computer for surfing etc, and a few light games here and there. the people who do buy ram are into high gaming and/or graphics. don't tell me that if someone was into graphics they would get a pro machine. actually that is complete b.s. alot of people like photoshop just to play with and have access to the internet. a quick download(or an eight hour download if they are on a modem) and they have the software. if you were a kid or a teacher wouldnt you pay an extra $20 to get a kick out of your new hobby?

p.s. i dont like the shift key :-)
If you had game like me You would still have your girl.
Reply
If you had game like me You would still have your girl.
Reply
post #34 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>wouldn't this be nice:

iMac G4 - 800, 900, 1000
Powermac - G4 866x2, 933x2, 1000x2
Powerbook G4 - 667, 733, 800
iBook G4 - 700, 700, 800

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

wow.. that's probably the best and most possible lineup i've seen so far. however, i think they'll keep the ibook on G3 for now, this is the only way an iMac would be able to sell? otherwise, why buy a flat screen imac when you can get a portable with the same components for about the same price. the same reasoning makes me think apple must give the iMac a G4!

in response to psantora, about a low-end PM with just one processor.. i think this is a good idea, but i'd like to see 4 options for the PM, one single processor and 3 duals. (fast, faster, fastest, and the new too fast!)
post #35 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by psantora:
<strong>

How does it compare with difference between G4 and G3?

Which would you rather have DDr or a G4 in an iMac?

I'd go with the G4 hands down.

-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>

Crucial prices today

256MB PC133 $60.29
256MB PC2100 (DDR 266) $71.99

Not a huge difference, nor is there much additional cost (if any) in implementing the motherboard, other than a new northbridge (memory controller).

Strangely, I would expect to see DDR appearing in iBooks and PowerBooks pretty soon, as it has lower power dissipation than SDR (Interface runs at 2.5V instead of 3.3V).

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #36 of 36
Honestly, who cares what comes after the "G"? So few consumer-level applications are Altivec-enabled ... Apple really doesn't need to go to the expense. Not to mention that IBM is closing in on Altivec performance in its PowerPC chips without the need for extra code. I know we're mostly pro users here, but seriously you don't need Altivec to use Internet Explorer, AIM, Office, Appleworks, iTunes, and most games don't take advantage of it anyway. Think about it as an option of having a 1GHz G3 or a 733 G4. The extra MHz one could have by going with G3 will first of all make up for some of the difference, since OS X IS written to take better advantage of the G4, etc. And from a marketing standpoint it has more of an impact with consumers who don't give to sh*ts about the MHz-myth. Apple will sell more with a faster G3, and the performance difference would be zero as far as Joe Internet could tell.

-S

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]</p>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › I think new iMac HAS to = G4