Talk:Power Mac G5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Steve Job's promise[edit]

I think that someone mention how's Steve Jobs promise related to the switch to Intel (or rather that this is supposed). -User:Wfisher

Apple no longer uses the "Macintosh" trademark to describe it's products. No model since the Power Macintosh G3 has borne that name. The correct name, at least as far as Apple Marketing is concerned, is Power Mac. That, therefore, is the correct terminology for this article. -Astrovan

Folks no longer make with the "it's" misspelling to write out the ownsome of it. No one but unreadfuls hold to that word. The straight word, at least as far as English-speakers are mindful, is its. That, therefore, is the straight wording for this talk. lysdexia 04:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dude, this is a talk page, not a doctoral dissertation. I made a typo. It happens. And, for the record, you should have a comma after "folks." Or something like that.-Astrovan
I know, miss, but I wasn't addressing the users as folks, so no. How did you typo its? lysdexia 06:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, then, your statement is incorrect, as folks such as myself still do. As for how, it's easy: add or omit the apostrophe, as inappropriate. -Astrovan

I find this a rather interesting dialogue. On the one hand, one should not correct another’s English in Pidgin English. On the other hand, “it’s” does mean “it is”, and it's not grammatically correct for use in the possessive case. One should have learned that in English 101 :^). Also, there should be no comma after the word “[f]olks.” However, when one gets to the bottom line, it’s all moot.

G5 not the first "desktop-class computer" to "implement 64-bit technology"[edit]

I removed the following sentence:

This processor is the first "desktop-class computer" to implement 64-bit technology; the AMD Opteron shipped as a 64-bit computer several months before, and DEC Alpha created a 64-bit chip in 1994.

Because it is not factually correct. See, at the very least, the MIPS Magnum (with particular reference to the Magnum 4000-PC model, marketed to run Windows NT Workstation around 1994) or DEC Jensen motherboard with EISA slots and the Alpha 21064 CPU, also sold to run Windows NT in 1994. Moreover, all MIPS-based computers of at least R4000 vintage, such as the SGI Indy (or the even earlier SGI Iris Indigo with a R4000 processor) are fully 64-bit in every sense that the G5 is today, since at least 1990 when the R4000 was released. Most would describe the Indy as a "desktop-class" machine, and even the later Sun Ultrasparc systems were 64-bit by the mid-1990s. --Ryanaxp 23:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Indy was a charming little ~$10k desktop system, perfect for those budget-minded folks that couldn't spring the ~$30k for a midrange “desktop-class” computer like an Indigo². :-p
Seriously though, the RISC versions of Windows NT were all sold for unaffordable workstations (Windows PPC didn't boot on Macs ;-) at the very minimum, and all required that their software be compiled specifically to run on that ISA, which most Windoze software obviously wasn't. Even in the case of 80x86-64, the Wikipedia article itself notes that Windows didn't do 64-bit on the Opteron until years after OS X did on the G5. That meant the Opteron “desktops” that “competed” with the G5 were exotic workstations or deskside servers running Linux, or in other words, the exact same sort of thing that had been around for decades. 72.235.10.209 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The Powermac G5 is definitely not the first "desktop-class computer" to "implement 64-bit technology". The first one was the SGI Indigo R4000, which came out in 1991(?), and which with IRIX 6.1 (1995) got a true full 64bit operating system. Then there are the already mentioned Alpha Workstations, some of which were even in the same price range as a high end PC or Mac. Windows for AXP was a 32bit version but there were 64bit OSes as well (Tru64, OpenVMS). Windowsxp is available as true and full 64bit version (64bit kernel, true 64bit memory addressing, full 64bit application support) since 2001 when it came out as "Windowsxp Professional 64bit Edition" for the Itanium (IA64) platform. It ran on machines like the HP i2000, Dell Precision 730 or SGI 750 (all of which were available to good cosutomers since 1999) which were true "desktop-class computers" with "64-bit technology", and which shortly after have been replaced by the HP zx2000 and zx6000 workstations.
It is also true that Windowsxp x64 came out a few weeks later than the first "64bit" Mac OS version (10.4), however, unlike Mac OS X it was a full and true 64bit OS while 10.4 had very rudimentary 64bit support, without 64bit memory adressing and without the capability to run any graphical 64bit applications, things that could 64bit Windows right from the start. It took Apple until 10.5 to provide the capability for graphical 64bit applications, and even today with Mac OS X 10.6 only the Xserve gets a true 64bit kernel with true 64bit addressing by default (the other Macs generally are still installed with 32bit kernel with 36bit PAE memory addressing scheme). Sorry, but Apple is no 64bit leader, in fact it is rather late to the 64bit arena. --bgawert 06:26, Dec 10, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but Benjamin - the article doesn't say it was the first 64-bit personal computer; only that it was widely hailed as the first 64-bit desktop personal computer. Hailed by whom ? The stooges in marketing, of course :-) 116.231.83.44 (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

still for sale[edit]

its still for sale http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/27.RSLID?mco=5AE5F520&nclm=PowerMac

no its not, look again --Mitch Strand Nov. 15, 2006

Trivia[edit]

Now, I'm not going to report my own original research, since the section probably doesn't belong at all, but I count 4508 holes on the front of my machine. Yeah, I counted, what's it to you? 149.169.125.202 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe, you missed at least one hole or two. Please, try counting once more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.86.41 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Last Apple Desktop to use a PowerPC Processor?[edit]

According to Wikipedia the Mac mini is a desktop machine and, depending on how you are counting, could be considered the last Apple desktop to use a PowerPC chip. The Mac mini (G4) was released in 2005, compared with 2003 for the Power Mac G5, however, the Mac mini was lasted updated with a PowerPC chip in either September or October 2005, depending on who you ask, compared with the more concrete (and later) October, for November delivery, for the PowerMac G5. jtjacques (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No mention of designer[edit]

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate.Gone ahead and mentioned Ive whose recognition is long overdue.Twobells (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Power Mac G5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Metal plate = memory controller?[edit]

"A common problem amongst single processor G5s was that the plate of metal soldered to the Logic Board connecting all eight of the RAM slots would, over time, expand and contract in such a way that the computer could not boot properly, as it would not detect any RAM. The only way known to fix this problem is for someone to re-solder the plate themselves or expose the other side of the Logic Board to heat from a Heat Gun. The latter of these two options is far easier, as to access the plate of metal one would have to totally take out the Logic Board of the computer, whereas all one has to do to expose the other side is remove a fan."

The only thing approximating a metal plate on the back of the DIMM slots in a G5 is the memory controller, which is a surface mounted component connected via BGA (ball grid array). While I'm personally aware of anecdotal reports of the memory controller breaking & cracking its solder points leading to system failure (like many BGA connected surface mount components - the 360's red ring of death is one well known example), my concern is that this isn't a metal plate, it's an integrated circuit.

Should this paragraph be rewritten to be technically accurate? Or, since it's based on anecdotal reports from owners & hobbyists maintaining these aging systems, should it be removed entirely? That paragraph is unattributed. 97.78.116.118 (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)