Watercooling on iMac G5???

lilbandit said:
Where do you get these crazy statements mi5moav? "Portables with G5s have been spotted but they are bulky and the fans are still to loud at this point in time. 80% chance sometime between March 2006 and August 2006 for a G5 or whatever they want to call it in what we would call a powerbook." I'm not having a go, just wondering where the authoritative tone is coming from:)
Click to expand...

Heh... have you been a part of a discussion with mi5moav before? If so, I apologize for reiterating what you already know, but if not, read on:

mi5moav comes here, every now and then for a few days or a week/month at a time, makes some outrageous claims (and some just downright ridiculous) and never backs them up with any information or links or anything. He/she also rarely responds to questions like, "where did that information come from?" and "who is your source?" and "what the hell are you talking about?"

Then he/she disappears... Only to reappear sometime later. Never can tell how long the stretch between appearances will be. One time, it lasted a few months, IIRC.

My theory is that mi5moav is actually Steve Jobs, posing as a forum member and that everything said is absolutely, 100% truthful... it's one of the only explanations I can come up with to explain his/her behavior.

:D ;)

To keep this on topic: it would be silly for Apple not to have toyed with the idea of a PowerBook G5 (with watercooling is a stretch, but, still possible). As part of any testing process, mock-ups are built (remember Apple's old secret "red" PCBs? And the fact that all non-release Apple computers have red motherboards, while release computers had blue or green?) that may or may not fully function. So, the "sighting" of a PowerBook G5 is completely possible, but limited to a select, secretive few. Either mi5moav is one of, or a person close to, one of those select few and this board has a member who brings us a secret "link" deep inside Apple now, or... well, hmm... or what?
 
i was thinking about this. if you wanted some accurate market research, wouldn;t you go to the more respected forums? how high profile is this forum? if so, there must be at least one or two high-level apple people posting, or at least reading here.... wonder who it could be... obviously not fryke, or spotlight would be different...
 
Oscar Castillo said:
If manipulating large images in Photoshop is what you do, then you want plenty of RAM and fast access to that RAM. The iMac is not the system for you. The low-end dual 2GHz G5 with its fast FSB is the way to go.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree with you there. Although it's a bit slower, my iMac definitely isn't a slouch when working with large images in Photoshop. I have 2 GB of RAM installed.
 
Sounds like you're saying the same thing. Not a slouch, but the iMac is slower. Sure it's usable, but if he is manipulating large images the additional horsepower you get from the low-end dual 2GHz PowerMac can't be beat.
 
Do you think that Apple would up the processor on the 1.8Ghz Powermac now? Seems weird having a 2Ghz iMac and a 1.8Ghz Powermac.
 
Convert: some people want the expandability of a Tower but 1.8ghz is enough i guess.. and they have a "low" dual 2.0 ghz...
 
fryke said:
Oscar: By a 2.3 or 2.7 GHz duallie? ;)
Click to expand...
I think the dual 2.0 is the sweet deal. Might also get a 23" Cinema, but also considering dual 20" setup. Although I think the 20" seems vertically challenged in my opinion anyway.
 
Pengu said:
i have the dual 2.0 (PCI-X, 8 slots) and a 20". it's gorgeous.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of times the widescreen aspect would come in handy for me, but the display looks so small in the store I convince myself it's not what I want, but at $799 though I'm tempted to buy 2 instead of the 23".
 
Damn this 17" screen..... :p

I'm actually looking on eBay right now to buy a second display and using Screen Spanning Doctor to span them.... 17" just sucks when you do high-res pictures.
 
I went to CompUSA today and roughly measured it and although the width on the 20" ACD is about the same as my 21.3" Samsung, I lose a little over 2" of screen height. Now I have to think about that. The 23" ACD is just perfect, but I can't see myself spending $3k for two of those.
 
Qion said:
Damn this 17" screen..... :p

I'm actually looking on eBay right now to buy a second display and using Screen Spanning Doctor to span them.... 17" just sucks when you do high-res pictures.
Click to expand...
I thought the same after I had my 17" Apple display for a while, but it was my first LCD and I just thought it was the best thing I ever spent money on.
 
To save a new thread, how much better/worse is LCD than CRT? I've naturally seen both of the types working before, but just can't put my finger on the difference. I know that CRT's are different in that they "flicker", or don't show a constant image(IE refresh rate), but LCD's do. What are your opinions?
 
CRT is supposed to be better for colour-perfect pictures, from any viewing angle.

LCDs will remove the problem of refresh rates on monitors (which is usually the biggest cause of eye-strain using a computer), and give a much brighter, crisper, clearer picture.

that said: while i'm no design/print specialist, the colours on my 20" look as good, if not better than they did on my ADC equipped 17" Studio Display CRT..

LCDs also use less power than compareable (size) CRTs, and take up MUCH less room.

personally, i couldn't go back to CRT again. Some people at work have IBM (a few Compaq) CRT monitors, and while they aren't especially bad (we have some IPEX CRTs that are really shocking), even compared to a crappy IBM LCD (15" 1024x768, VGA connector) even looking at them for a few seconds, I can see the whole picture is a little bit blurry (if you're lucky)

Hope all of that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top