Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel iMac disassembled...
- Thread starter yvovandoorn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mad jew said:It really is a PC on the inside.
yvovandoorn said:
2nyRiggz said:
godbout said:
OH.
MY.
GOD!!!
I have never seen so much 'tarded fanboisim as on this forum now. This is the kind of crap that gives Mac users a bad name. It's a chip, people. It has NOTHING to do with 'rush', with 'PC' (whatever you think that means), with 'getting comfortable with intel', or anything other than engineering decisions by smart people who know what they're doing.
Yes, the Rev. A iMac G5 was nice and modular inside, but I'm sure that cost them $$$ (which they pass on to you and me), and may not have been the best choice for cooling, optimal component location, RF interference, etc.
Instead of whining about circuit boards that you'll never see, product names that aren't 'cool' enough for you, and product releases that don't happen when YOU think they should, why don't you focus your energy on contacting your favourite software authors and encouraging them to release updates to their products for the new platform. That way, you'll be part of the solution rather than part of the product.
I saw this exact same reaction 12 years ago with the 68k --> PPC transition. Whatever comment you have on the matter, I guarantee it's not original - this was all whined about then, too. (waaahhh, my copy of MacWrite Pro only runs on System 6!!!! I can't run it on the new PowerPCs! What's with this 'PC' name anyway? Apple is stupid, they should do what I want instead!!!).
Baron58 said:
Truth!
Now admins....
Shame on you!!!!
The links in the title of this discussion are very deceptive..Causing people to get freaked out more than they already are..
Thats all I have to say..
12ibookg4 said:
Based on heresay: All we do know is that the mac machines use EFI. However, there are versions of intel EFI that have legacy bios support. In addition, some versions of windows support efi (Media Center Edition for example) So the question becomes, is the bios support still there; if not, will media center edition of windows work?
poe diddley said:so the intel dual core is a 32 bit processor?
um does anyone else think thats a lil loony?
i mean amd and intel have been in the pc news for the past couple years fighting over whose 64bit processor is better and/or cheaper, so wtf is apple doing downgrading us to 32bits? wasn't that part of the hype of osx? it's a 64bit operating system and whatnot.
i can only pray that they're just entry level chips for this first dance with intel.
if there's a 32bit processor in the Powermac, or whatever they decide to change that name to, then i'll just have to give up on apple. dual core or not, that would straight be ridiculous after the Quad.
the point of the Core Duo was to put duo core chips into laptops. the Core Duos are MUCH more efficient in terms of power usage comparing to Pentium M's and they use the new 65nm fabrication technique keeping the size and temperature down. 64bit will come later as it is pretty pointless right now.
also, I believe the EFI can be bypassed through some hackjob. Maybe have EFI load up a custom bootloader that emulates BIOS. Also, I believe EFI is only available on Gateway's version of MCE. If that version is bootable, maybe someone can combine the EFI elements of that version of Windows into lets say XP Professional.
The Architecture is almost identical to the G5 iMac - very slight changes - most notable is the missing "Giant Cooling Block" in the new Core Duo. The only main differences that I can see from the back is that #1. The photographer was not as good as the first and the pictures color balance is all off, and #2. The photographer didn't remove any of the plastic wrap or cables before shooting it - The G5 has the same palstic wrap and Cables as the Core Duo, you just don't see it in the final "disassembled" pictures from the other example. Now stop whinning that Apple doesn't design their internals anymore.
--------------------
8th picture down on each gallery, as an example.
Original iMac G5 gallery - http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imacg5_isight/imacg501i.html
New iMac Core Duo gallery
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/imac_intel01.html
-------------------
First image here as an example
Original iMac G5 gallery - http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imacg5_isight/imacg502i.html
2nd picture here, as an example.
New iMac Core Duo gallery
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/imac_intel01.html
--------------------
8th picture down on each gallery, as an example.
Original iMac G5 gallery - http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imacg5_isight/imacg501i.html
New iMac Core Duo gallery
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/imac_intel01.html
-------------------
First image here as an example
Original iMac G5 gallery - http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imacg5_isight/imacg502i.html
2nd picture here, as an example.
New iMac Core Duo gallery
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/imac_intel01.html
intel imac
i dont think the imac is supposed to be all taht user servicable. I think they are leaving it to the consumer to just buy a mac and live with it. they did a great job with the external apperance and the internal performance. I think they need worry little about the internal appearance now.
i dont think the imac is supposed to be all taht user servicable. I think they are leaving it to the consumer to just buy a mac and live with it. they did a great job with the external apperance and the internal performance. I think they need worry little about the internal appearance now.
I have a friend that went to MacWorld. Rosetta was slow to start up Photoshop CS. My guess is that it takes some time for Rosetta to transcode and cache the PowerPC application over to Intel. Once Photoshop CS was up and running though it was lightning was at running filters and transformations.Marvy said:Has anyone seen this?
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=281987
Seems Rosetta and Photoshop are not as slow as expected.
http://homepage.mac.com/campb124/PhotoAlbum5.html
http://homepage.mac.com/campb124/PhotoAlbum6.html
I've also heard the estimates of it taking 6 minutes to load up Photoshop CS via Rosetta. My guess is that once its cached in the next opening of the same application isn't so bad.
applekid said:They keep complaining, but keep on buying.
And, since it obviously hasn't been mentioned enough already:
THE iMAC IMAGES YOU HAVE SEEN ARE ALL FROM THE FRONT PANEL WHICH LOOKS JUST LIKE THE OLD iMAC G5's!
WHAT! I COULDN'T HEAR YOU
WELL SAIDIntel iMac disassembled
My rev A looks better, but then the Intel iMac isn't meant to be user serviceable. Does that mean we still have to put up with ugly??? This looks like the typical cheap wintel box interior. This is another sign of Apple charging more for less. The quality doesn't look like it is still there.
My rev A looks better, but then the Intel iMac isn't meant to be user serviceable. Does that mean we still have to put up with ugly??? This looks like the typical cheap wintel box interior. This is another sign of Apple charging more for less. The quality doesn't look like it is still there.
applekid said:They keep complaining, but keep on buying.
And, since it obviously hasn't been mentioned enough already:
THE iMAC IMAGES YOU HAVE SEEN ARE ALL FROM THE FRONT PANEL WHICH LOOKS JUST LIKE THE OLD iMAC G5's!
Yeah, you just twist the screw and the chip pops off. It'll more than likely need a firmware update though.javiercr said:
Baron58 said:
This is why many people believe that user dont give a rats arse about whats inside the computer because name callers like this guy here talking about fanboy crap when people are stating their opinion on the matter. I do agree with some of the things you say but you do not have to call names....you sound like the biggest retard here.
Bless
rosetta seems to be running pretty nicely as far as emulation goes. i'm wondering if it somehow was written to take particular advantage of the second core. in fact, if the intel macs from here on out are all at least dual core, i'm wondering how difficult it would be for Apple to take full advantage of them with OS X, as in actually writing dualthreaded processes, not just being able to run two seperate threads.
i actually don't know how it really works. in my head it seems to make sense.
i actually don't know how it really works. in my head it seems to make sense.
It's not emulation though. It's an active translator of PowerPC code into Intel code. I've read some articles that it also supports code caching. Code that's reused often in an application is cached so it doesn't have to be translated again.ifjake said:
ifjake said:
Mac OS X and Apple iLife and Pro applications are inherently multithreaded. They can, have and will continue to leverage systems with multiple cores (either multiple core per chip or multiple chips). All of the PowerMacs are at least dual core now (and historically dual chip) so Apple has a long history as have third-party vendors.
probably not....
Different families may require f/w upgrades (I upgraded a Compaq 2.0 GHz dual Xeon to a 2.8 GHz Xeon with HT - that needed a f/w upgrade to enable the HT).
Merom will likely need new f/w.
Of course, Apple could block upgrades via firmware or TPM....
In general, PC BIOS firmware doesn't need to be updated for different speed chips in the same family - and usually f/w supports Celerons from the same family.Eidorian said:
Different families may require f/w upgrades (I upgraded a Compaq 2.0 GHz dual Xeon to a 2.8 GHz Xeon with HT - that needed a f/w upgrade to enable the HT).
Merom will likely need new f/w.
Of course, Apple could block upgrades via firmware or TPM....