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.
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.)
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
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
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.