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

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!

[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

[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: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."