Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Pencil · Sep 1, 2007, 01:25 PM

Is it iMac G4? iMac G5? 5th generation iMac??

cherry su · Sep 1, 2007, 01:28 PM

iMac (Mid-2007)

0157988944 · Sep 1, 2007, 01:47 PM

The iMac G4s and iMac G5s are old computers. Why would they use that name again? They are officially called the iMac (mid-2007) But the boxes and documentation, etc. refer to them as just "iMac"

Chuckit · Sep 1, 2007, 02:20 PM

Well, it doesn't use a G4 or G5, does it?

P · Sep 1, 2007, 03:34 PM

They're probably going to be called "aluminum iMacs", but we don't know: they're still just iMacs. The last gen is now "white iMacs", but they never were called that until the new ones were launched.

The current iMacs are the 6th major iteration: original, slotloader, sunflower, G5, white Intel and aluminum.

0157988944 · Sep 1, 2007, 03:43 PM

Wikipedia calls them iMac Santa Rosa, but that's just an unofficial differentiating name from the Core Duos and the Core 2 Duos.

Simon · Sep 1, 2007, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

Wikipedia calls them iMac Santa Rosa, but that's just an unofficial differentiating name from the Core Duos and the Core 2 Duos.

Additionally, pedants will point out that that name is simply wrong. The iMac has a Crestline chipset, but it doesn't use the Santa Rosa platform.

Simon · Sep 1, 2007, 04:35 PM

As other have already pointed out the official name is iMac (Mid 2007).

That said, although people are now inclined to simply call them 'aluminum iMacs' that's probably a bad idea because we'll most likely see more than just one rev in the current aluminum case. Maybe we'll eventually call them 'aluminum C2D iMacs' to distinguish them from the 'aluminum Penryn iMacs'.

0157988944 · Sep 3, 2007, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Additionally, pedants will point out that that name is simply wrong. The iMac has a Crestline chipset, but it doesn't use the Santa Rosa platform.

Can you give me a link to back that up? I believe you, but I'm trying to cite is as proof on the Wikipedia entry.

mduell · Sep 3, 2007, 09:53 PM

Wikipedia's own page on Centrino details what Santa Rosa requires. Apple doesn't use Intel wifi.

Simon · Sep 4, 2007, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

Can you give me a link to back that up? I believe you, but I'm trying to cite is as proof on the Wikipedia entry.

Check the Wikipedia page yourself:

• socket P C2D processor 'Merom' - check
• Intel Mobile 965 Express chipset 'Crestline' - check
• Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN (a/b/g/draft-n) mini-PCIe Wi-Fi adapter 'Kedron' - nope

A simple hardware scan on Ubuntu revealed this:
...
0b:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications, Inc. AR5418 802.11a/b/g/n Wireless PCI Express Adapter (rev 01)
...

IOW Apple uses an Atheros WiFi card, not Kedron. Hence they don't use Santa Rosa. That's why they also don't get the Centrino label - apart from the fact that they'd never put that fugly sticker on any of their beautiful hardware.

0157988944 · Sep 4, 2007, 03:39 PM

Haha

rubaiyat · Sep 5, 2007, 01:54 AM

iShine, iShave or iStrain.

Take your pick.

ghporter · Sep 5, 2007, 09:45 AM

I call it "Vera."

0157988944 · Sep 5, 2007, 11:39 AM

OK, this is taking the thread a bit off topic, but can you guys help me get outside links together to prove that the iMac does NOT use santa rosa? The wikipedia dude keeps changing it back and now it is a pet peeve

That includes a link saying that the iMac doesn't use Intel Wifi, and a link to an non-wiki source stating what santa rosa requires. Thanks.

P · Sep 5, 2007, 01:49 PM

This is exactly what I hate about Wikipedia. The burden of evidence is not on you but on the other guy - he has to prove that a specific Intel wifi chip is used.

Intel press release defining Santa Rosa:
Intel Discloses Technologies To Make The Internet More Personal And Mobile

0157988944 · Sep 5, 2007, 01:51 PM

I know, I ended up telling him that he needs evidence as much as I do.

ghporter · Sep 6, 2007, 09:45 AM

"Santa Rosa" includes a specific wireless chipset. The iMac does not use that chipset. mduell has been pointing this out for months-"Santa Rosa" is a "Centrino" package, and Apple simply does NOT use Centrino packages in the iMac-or any other Mac for that matter. The WiFi chipset Apple uses is completely different and not made by Intel.

mindwaves · Sep 6, 2007, 01:21 PM

Raccoon iMac

Simon · Sep 6, 2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

OK, this is taking the thread a bit off topic, but can you guys help me get outside links together to prove that the iMac does NOT use santa rosa?

Oh for the love of God, it's an Atheros WiFi chipset. How the hell could that be in a Centrino/Santa Rosa notebook?

0157988944 · Sep 6, 2007, 05:35 PM

But Wikipedia needs "links" anyway, I think I got my point across to the dude. He'll probably re-edit it, but thats the problem with wikipedia.

Simon · Sep 7, 2007, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

But Wikipedia needs "links" anyway...

Santa Rosa requirements
Atheros chipset in MBP
Atheros chipset in MBP

P · Sep 7, 2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Santa Rosa requirements
Atheros chipset in MBP
Atheros chipset in MBP

Devil's advocate: That is just evidence that the MBP uses an Atheros chipset, not that the new iMac does.

Simon · Sep 7, 2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by P

Devil's advocate: That is just evidence that the MBP uses an Atheros chipset, not that the new iMac does.

Point taken. As soon as we get the new iMac here at work I'll slap Ubuntu onto it and do a lspci.

Veltliner · Sep 8, 2007, 01:48 PM

Beagle Boy.

ghporter · Sep 8, 2007, 04:40 PM

From System Profiler:

AirPort Card Information:

Wireless Card Type: AirPort Extreme (0x14E4, 0x88)
Wireless Card Locale: USA
Wireless Card Firmware Version: Broadcom BCM43xx 1.0 (4.150.19.0)
Current Wireless Network: AirPort is currently turned off

A Centrino/Santa Rosa system would NOT say "Broadcom" in ANYTHING, let alone the firmware version.

P · Sep 9, 2007, 02:14 PM

Very good. Adam, please feel free to link to this page from that Wiki piece, it should have all the info you need.

0157988944 · Sep 9, 2007, 02:27 PM

I did, the idiot told me it was original research, and I'm not investing any more time in edit wars.

Simon · Sep 12, 2007, 03:47 AM

The WP entry for the Intel iMacs is indeed a sad story. There's some twerp by the name of "GnuTurbo" that seems to stubbornly resist actually thinking and considering Intel's SR requirements. He's hiding behind the sources argument and seems to be set for an edit war with a couple of other guys. Interestingly he didn't care to answer the actually relevant question on the talk page by mduell.

It's kind of sad to see the WP page spread obvious misinformation just because a couple of Mac magazines got it wrong early on. The whole Santa Rosa moniker issue is really no big deal, but at least WP shouldn't deliberately be spreading misinformation.

We have all the facts right here. Of course forum pages don't count as WP sources, but if somebody would compile this information into a simple web page and publish it that would be good enough I guess. Anybody?

Simon · Sep 12, 2007, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by P

Very good. Adam, please feel free to link to this page from that Wiki piece, it should have all the info you need.

WP doesn't consider forum pages valid sources.

0157988944 · 03:12 PM

I'm trying something else...

0157988944 · Sep 12, 2007, 03:12 PM

I sent an email off to the Mac Hardware Press Contact about it... hopefully he will return a sourceable email.

Simon · Sep 14, 2007, 04:28 PM

There should be an article in TidBITS about the whole Santa Rosa baloney pretty soon. That should be a decent WP source to end this dispute once and for all.

mduell · Sep 14, 2007, 05:30 PM

Every time this thread gets bumped, I check the wikipedia entry to see if it has been un-corrected.

I think we've finally beaten the GnuIdiot into submission.

Veltliner · Sep 14, 2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by mindwaves

Raccoon iMac

I still like mindwave's proposal best, and my Beagle Boy.

The new iMacs really look like they were wearing a mask.

0157988944 · Sep 14, 2007, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Every time this thread gets bumped, I check the wikipedia entry to see if it has been un-corrected.

I think we've finally beaten the GnuIdiot into submission.

Yeah, he's still telling us we're wrong, but not "fixing" anything anymore.

Simon · Sep 15, 2007, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

I think we've finally beaten the GnuIdiot into submission.

Unfortunately we haven't. Actually, he's now also got a new idiot helper: Nja247.

I'll edit it once the TidBITS article comes out. And if that doesn't count as a source argument I just don't what will.

What bothers me about the whole WP:V and WP source thing is that you can find a source for anything. There are probably a million web pages that claim there never was an Auschwitz camp. Does that mean WP should consider those a 'source'? At some point people need to sit down and use their own brains. Sources need to be weighted. Some sources are simply wrong. And these twerps obviously don't understand that they're simply neglecting to do that part of the job.

butterfly0fdoom · Sep 15, 2007, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

Yeah, he's still telling us we're wrong, but not "fixing" anything anymore.

No, now he's been going after the Template. I'm new to the "Undo GnuIdiot's Edits" game, so I guess he doesn't realize not to mess with me. >D