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."

Comments

Re:Good riddance!

[avalys]

The rumor mill is currently predicting (backed up by a few off-the-record comments from Apple) that they'll be announced in January 2005 and be available for purchase shortly thereafter.

Dualies!

[funkdid]

Every now and again Apple offers it's Power Mac line in Dual only configs. (Usually when they haven't had a speed boost to offer in awhile). I always thought that, THAT was the way to go. Maybe it's cause I'm a Mac zealot, but there's something hardcore about seeing a model that is only offered in a Dual Processor config.

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!

[daviddennis]

When Final Cut Pro 3 came out, I was running a 450mhz dual processor G4. I visited the Apple Store to check it out, and I found that rendering on a single processor 867 killed the machine.

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

Re:Speculation

[javax]

I believe there are plenty of Artists and other non-techfreaking users out there who are afraid of OS-X. They stay with what they know and what supports the application they use for years now.
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:Good riddance!

[rebeka thomas]

Seriously though, when are we gonna see a G5 powerbook?

When they can get the heat down, which is a long way away. Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

All apple have done here is added water cooling to overclocked older G5s. Still no 90nm process chips in the powermacs. And I can see in 12 months thousands of these things failing when the water clogs up the radiator.

If I were forced to use one of these I'd rip out that system and replace it with a correct phase change cooling with fans that can pump a decent amount of air

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[ezraekman]

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 ports that are closed by default or installs/runs 3rd-party software. (Appleshare doesn't count, as it depends on the user/administrator A) enabling sharing and B) setting it up with no password.) While the number of these security instances is low in OS X, they do exist.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[harlows_monkeys]

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

You can't find holes in something that doesn't exist. OS 9 had no security, hence no security holes.

Re:Whither the iMac?

[Zhe Mappel]

Here's my source for the iMac G4 EOL claim. Granted, it's only a rumor; I should have been more specific about that.

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 whether the rumored metalic case redesign will turn the iMac's base itself (or some portion of it) into a large heatsink. Obviously allowing for safety limitations--after all, you can't have a big waffle iron on your desk--this might offer an alternative to a larger case. Passive cooling alone wouldn't be enough, so fan noise would be another tricky problem to solve.

Another partial solution to heat and size is an exterior, fanless PSU. Shuttle has started offering these with its very successful line of small form factor PCs. Here's a review:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article139-page1.htm l

Re:Good riddance!

[falcon5768]

hmmm I wonder.... does this liquidcooled system have anything in common with THIS

if so acourding to this it is a pump, thus proving you wrong.... something tells me based on how old the article is it most likely is this watercooling setup.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[TheRaven64]

It could also mean that Tiger will have an improved Classic layer, which will be able to run QPS without problems (yes, I know it's unlikely...)

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[beegle]

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?

Ummm... not true, at least as written. Timbuktu 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.

Good Riddance again

[Anonymous Coward]

The MDD is noisy, badly designed and too small to fit everything in. I 'upgraded' from an Upgraded Sawtooth (running a Dual 500MHz) to a Dual 867MHz MDD - and don't like it at all.

Much more noisy, inexplicable airflow design. Much more crowded too.

I'm selling it too and sticking to my PowerBook. Bring on the Rev C or D G5s - I am buying one as soon as PCI Express filters down to the low end model.

doc

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And I could counter with the New York Times, the New York Post and every Time-Life and Condé Nast magazine.

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:Perhaps instead . . .

[krray]

I not so sure I agree. OS 8, 7 and so forth are all "dead" ... and have been for a while. For me there was little or no interest in OS 9 for about the same reason as my interest level in Windows. Stability. Too many instances (OS 9) where I saw a single application bring the whole house of cards down (reboot).

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 G5, just wait until the core OS and all the various applications show up with 64 bit capabilities where applicable. It'll raise the bar yet again with no hardware purchases needed for those lucky G5 owners. Of course the current G4 line will continue to work with the 32 bit version which Apple seems to have the ability to keep making faster and better. +90% of the updates from them I've been tickled with. OTOH +90% of the updates from that other company just scare me...

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[b1t r0t]

Only because 1) there's no shell to take easy control of the system with, and 2) there's no memory protection, so buffer overflows have no way of knowing what address a given programs stack is located at.

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.

[commodoresloat]

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?

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:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Will there necessarily be driver support for anything in your new Dell configuration under Windows 98?

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 ATI graphics adaptor, you will have no problems finding drivers for your system.

"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 your Gateway had an Intel chipset (and integrated graphics), as most notebooks do, then you should have no problem finding drivers on the Intel website.

Here's a driver for the Intel 845/865/875 video chipset (for Windows 98):

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/filte r_ results.asp?strOSs=18&strTypes=DRV%2CARC&ProductID =865&OSFullName=Windows*+98+SE&submit=Go%2 1

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[commodoresloat]

All the webmasters at the DoD will be shocked to learn that their web servers don't do anything.

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.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Mac OS9 was not inherently any more secure than any other OS

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 running, and that's true of UNIX as well.

Which is, of course, crap. I mean, it's true, but it's crap. Saying "the system is only as secure as its components" ignores the slap-you-in-the-face fact that no Classic Mac OS system was ever compromised outside of a controlled test.

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.

Bogus.

Arguably OS9 is less secure as an OS than UNIX because it treats every user as root.

Go ahead, make that argument. Then cite all the countless examples of malicious intruders gaining root access to a Mac OS 9 system.

Oh, wait...

Don't compare Mac and UNIX "out of the box" because they're in very different boxes.

Bogus.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[commodoresloat]

I guess you just don't understand my point. Saying there was no example of a compromised system that we know about is irrelevant. You can just as easily make the same claim about BeOS. The point is the OS itself is in no way more secure than UNIX as an OS. You seem to be confusing the OS and the webserver (in the case of old Mac OS you're talking about WebStar, which was not made by Apple, and says nothing about MacOS security, just like apache says nothing about UNIX security). And, as I said, some people did run apache on the Mac, there were at least two versions I remember, probably more, so comparing WebStar vs. apache doesn't say anything about MacOS security at all.

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."

I hope I can score

[WormholeFiend]

a G4 case for cheap... would be great box to mod.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[falcon5768]

thats because like most of the publishing world, they are under the idea of if it works, run it into the ground even if there is a faster and easier way to do things. Preventing a problem is second to just running with what they have

I wont even begin to tell you the arguments I got into with my printer because he couldnt work with PDF's, at least at the quality I wanted him to. He was quark all the way and it was sickening because by this point it had been almost 3 years of next to zero Quark support while Adobe had gone two versions already and could run circles around Quark....

Go to any major design school right now, you know what they are running....... G3/early G4's with quark in OS 9! Its sick, even some of the teachers rip their hair out because they are running faster powerbooks on the road than most of their equipment, and are supposed to be TRAINING people on!

Re:Good riddance!

[Smurf]

Come on, it's the G5 info link in the PowerMac section of the Apple website! It specifically says:

Over 58 million, thanks to IBM's sophisticated process technology that builds them just 90 nanometers wide. Such superior technology developments turbo-charge the G5 processor to speeds of up to 2.5GHz.

(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 from the PowerMac main page).

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[gabebear]

wow, that's a bit of a Troll, but ...

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:But Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5 yet!

[Raptor CK]

Erm... if they needed to do Windows emulation for so long, wouldn't they already have a G4?

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.)

Re:Apple could build a G5 powerbook now.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The CPU isn't the issue. The issue is the system controller. In the Power Mac G5, the system controller is an Apple-designed, IBM-fabbed ASIC that connects all the components of the system via HyperTransport. It's about half the size of a pop-tart and dissipates enough heat to keep your toes nice and toasty-warm.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Anonymous Coward]

XPress is far from dead - and far behind? you must be new to the world. read will you? XPress 6 is ok, and 7 rocks.