Talk:iMac G5

IMac G5 is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk at 17:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: All-in-one personal computer that was designed, manufactured and sold by Apple Computer, Inc.

Apple Inc. Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, 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.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

impetus

Is there any impetus to the Walt Mossberg quote in the article? He's not really a universally accepted unbiased computer design critic. It really detracts from the rest of this article's professionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.236.40 (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i removed this one from the category:Industrial design examples

Dis computer was not successful enough.

Aye, aye captain

Still, what a beautiful looking machine! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder

Will there be a G6? --BlooWilt 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. G5 refers to the PowerPC chip. Now that Apple is using Intel the Generation numbers have been dropped. 206.73.5.30 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early problems with the iMac G5

Some iMac G5 computers have been shipped earlier on with poorly seated RAM, so, when the iMac G5 with poorly seated RAM was turned on, the user would hear three beeps, and then the fan inside it would turn on and go full blast. You would not be able to boot it from any disk or external hard drive, because the RAM needs to be seated right.

Also, some iMac G5s had been locking up their system after at leat 40 minutes out of the box. Not many of these incidents have been reported.

The most rare problem ever recorded with the G5 iMac is when the screen seemed to "melt" everytime it was powered on. No boot disk or hard drive would solve this.

Where I work we have nine first run iMac G5s, most of which have exhibited one or more of the following:

Some units run hotter than others.

Lockups that apparently cause CPU, power supply, and fans to run at full load to the extent where the power supply and motherboard are destroyed.

Capacitors exploded on the motherboard that died in the above scenario, and at least two other still functional machines have swollen capacitors.

Five of the units have new power supplies and two died with a glorious burning smell. "Soot" was visible inside one of the machines.

Lockups like those described by the parent where Macs would never revive from sleep mode--this may be an indicator of a faulty/dying power supply. The workaround is to disable sleep mode.

Every once in a while, a random iMac will refuse to boot. Usually unplugging the machine, pressing power (to discharge the capacitors I guess), then plugging back in does the trick. This is possibly another indicator of a defective power supply. Other times an iMac won't turn on because it has overheated; only time (and perhaps a fan) fixes this one.

The office is climate controlled and most power down their units at night. Upon every service (which is frequent), I ensure the iMac's innards are clean. An associate of mine claims to have gotten AppleCare to admit there was a "silent recall" on first generation G5 power supplies and motherboards and specifically mentioned a faulty batch of capacitors, but Apple has never spoken any such language to me. Their site admits a recall for power supplies for 20" G5s, but the issue affects models of all screen sizes:

http://www.apple.com/support/imac/powersupply/repairextension/

While originally researching these issues I recall finding confirmation for each, though I don't have detailed notes. However, here is a reference for the most egregious accusation: "iMac G5 catches on fire":

http://db.tidbits.com/article/8080

The article also makes references to swollen capacitors and the mysterious "bad batch" mentioned by my associate.

Whelkman 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPC

The lede describes this computer as: "...using the PowerPC chip architecture." AFAIK, PowerPC refers to the PowerPC instruction set architecture or PowerPC-branded microprocessors. "Chip architecture" implies microarchitecture, which PowerPC is not. It needs to be clarified. Rilak (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like an advertisement

The G5 Imac did not have "advanced cooling". They had "inadequate" cooling. The GPU and CPU were 130 nanometer components that were intended for desktops, not a design like this. The capacitors would literally cook inside of the computer. Another issue is that the combined power used by the CPU, GPU, chipset, LCD monitor, multiple case fans, DVD-ROM, network card, and USB devices was nearly what the power supply was capable of providing at peak capacity only. The CPU alone was about a 50 watt part. This means that the power supplies would quickly deteriorate. The G5 iMacs were the worst iMacs ever made. This is well known and as a result they are the cheapest on the used market. As of 2019, a used 233 MHz iMac goes for twice as much as a G5 iMac. There is a reason for that. 184.88.69.182 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IMac G5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Zippybonzo (talk | contribs) 09:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this is an interesting article to review :) As usual, I've added the boilerplate template I use to review, and further reviews or comments are encouraged. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 09:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: