Slashdot Mirror
RIP G4 PowerMac
squiggleslash 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."
This is only the low-end of 3 configurations, leaving both dual-processor G4s still in production.
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.
And to the people that responded saying that the system is not liquid cooled, well, you are wrong. (Although you are right in that the liquid isn't water). Apple didn't use a heat pipe. 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 for the finding the last link and providing some info.)
FWIW, EDU/student pricing on the base dual 1.8 is $1799.
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?
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. 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.
Nevertheless if someone has found a way to get on your machine
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.
I write in my journal
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.
The PowerMac G4 is/was the last product in their line that ran Mac OS 9. Everything else they currently sell is incapable of running any of Apple's operating systems pre-OS X.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I guess he means when the "motherboard fries". Still, if your Mac's still under warrenty, of course Apple would replace it. If it's not, that's your problem. It wouldn't be any different with a PC.
You might want to look at the Basilisk II 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
ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.
Does the Washington Post count as "major?" How about the Wall Street Journal?
Thou shalt know what thou art talking about before thou postesth.
I write in my journal
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, and ARE NOT guaranteed to be fixed on machines currently being sold, as many were installed, and the boxes factory-sealed before the issues were resolved. I have personally received a brand-new machine that did NOT ship with the latest OS, and I was allowed a free upgrade because of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the software is available means it is always present. Of such assumptions are catastrophes made.
Also incorrect, and covered by our earlier conversations. Pretty Good Privacy is one of many utilities publicly available that are capable of such encryption, and if memory serves, they are capable of much more intensive and secure encryption than OS X is. The only difference is whether or not it's "built-in" to the OS. Regardless, regulating physical access to a machine was not the type of security issues that I meant, and I've already clarified that.
See above.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! OS 9 HAS a network interface. Several, actually. And they were, and are secure. I challenge you to show me a way that, with or without a firewall installed, you can hack into Mac OS X. Found a few? Good! Now try to find one for OS 9. Not a vulnerability in an OS 9-compatible app, but in the OPERATING SYSTEM. No luck? There's a reason for that. It's called being secure, and it has been universally recognized. You can make all the arguments you want about how OS X has more services and therefore more vulnerabilities, but again, that was not my point. My point is that, without installing updates, without changing defaults, there's one box you can hack into, and one you can't. The one that's got vulnerabilities is OS X. It's as simple as that.
I PREFER OS X. I use it daily. I am not trying to start a holy war here. You can take it personally if you want, but I've backed my statements up with links, relevant data, and verifiable facts. I use OS X, the same as you. The difference is that I am not in denial about its shortcomings, however few, and that I'm open to education, should I be presented with a legitimate argument. Are you?
Check out MudWalker http://mudwalker.cubik.org. Its open-source, cocoa native, and even provides an API to write your own plugins.
I have even written my own mudmaster/zmud compatible chat plugin with MudWalker. Also with its scriptability in Lua (and any other scripting language you wish to write an interpreter for), MudWalker is far ahead of Rapscallion.
QPS is OS X native as of this month. As with most of the Globe, it is the industry for workflow. Many contenders will try possibly take a little, but never achives what has been done by Quark. It great for a reason... and getting only better. You should have been at their summit this past first week of June. Other dont stand a chance; if you value the ROI on your workflow that is. They have re-invented workflow, again.