First Look Inside A New iMac

WOW! one day...

Looks cool.

it is beautiful. this makes me not want to build my next pc.

EDIT sry for the spam

Makes me wonder if we will be able to upgrade the processor since it is removable and of the ziff or bga varity.

wow wow weee. did he already owns one and show all the gutts out.... lucky fellow....

Hmmm. This guy should to connect HDD to other PC and check out

Now, why would 945GM chipset be used, instead of 945PM, since there is an ATI involved?

Now, why would 945GM chipset be used, instead of 945PM, since there is an ATI involved?

Where do you see the chipset number? It is 945PM as far as I have been informed.

I'm looking at the ioreg output that someone took on the macbook

i've noticed two things

| | | +-o yukonosx

| | | +-o IOEthernetInterface

| | | | +-o IONetworkStack

| | | | +-o IONetworkStackUserClient

| | | +-o IOKernelDebugger

| | | +-o IOKDP

sounds like the network card is a marvell yukon

and

| +-o TPM

so it still has the tpm chip

http://appleintelfaq.com/imac/ioreg.html

http://appleintelfaq.com/imac/kextstat.html

bigger pics

http://www.disgruntled-dutch.com/2006/gene...el-disassembled

Compare G5 and intel.

G5: http://www.kodawarisan.com/imacg5_isight/imacg501i.html

Intel: http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/%7ekodawarisan...ac_intel01.html

bigger pics

http://www.disgruntled-dutch.com/2006/gene...el-disassembled

Compare G5 and intel.

G5: http://www.kodawarisan.com/imacg5_isight/imacg501i.html

Intel: http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/%7ekodawarisan...ac_intel01.html

If I'm not mistaken you can't really compare these two pictures, since the G5 is from the back and the Intel is from the front (that's why the Intel picture seems much more "messy", it's the same with the G5 front picture).

meh thinks what will be the inside of a MacBook Pro, if that's the inside of an iMac Core Duo, it's messy. And i'm sure that in the coming months the iMac Core Duo will be cleaner like the iMac G5, since it's the front of iMac Core Duo.

I'm looking at the ioreg output that someone took on the macbook

 

i've noticed two things

 

 

sounds like the network card is a marvell yukon

 

and

 

 

so it still has the tpm chip

 

http://appleintelfaq.com/imac/ioreg.html

http://appleintelfaq.com/imac/kextstat.html

Very interesting indeed, as I have a marvel yukon Asus lappie. I wonder if Asus still makes these Apple powerbooks.

Where do you see the chipset number? It is 945PM as far as I have been informed.

This pic is of a NH82801GB (ICH7)

EDIT:

That iMac G5 is the first generation iMac G5, the latest iSight models look almost exactly like the Intel ones inside and out. The reason why the G5 looks so tidy is that it was made to be user serviceable (it has diagnostic lights, hard drive, ram all right there) and the new iMacs are meant to be RAM upgradable but not necessarily open-able.

And yes, Asus does manufacture the new MacBook Pro. I know this for a fact.

This pic is of a NH82801GB (ICH7)

 

EDIT:

That is still 945PM. All that is is the ICH7-M component.

http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/307013.htm

That is still 945PM. All that is is the ICH7-M component.

Umm... what is the story with the 945GT chipset? Intel says that is the only one for Core Duo (Yonah) here:

http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/express_flyer.htm

Intel also says that a a 677 MHz front side bus is not an option on the 945P chipset either, but rather 1066/800/533MHz.

And yes, Asus does manufacture the new MacBook Pro. I know this for a fact.

Seems I did a wise decision buying one after all

Umm... what is the story with the 945GT chipset? Intel says that is the only one for Core Duo (Yonah) here:

http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/express_flyer.htm

 

Intel also says that a a 677 MHz front side bus is not an option on the 945P chipset either, but rather 1066/800/533MHz.

Intel 945 is a desktop chipset for the P4s and P-Ds. 945[/b]PM is a mobile chipset for the Core Duo. 945GT is Intel's intended chipset for using the Core Duo in a desktop situation.

Ok, the 945 PM (as well as GM) chipsets show up on this Intel price list under the Centrino platform, the specs check out too: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

Hi,

german Heise-news just wrote what kind of TPM chip it is. And if you know Heise, you know they are not wrong

So what we see here is the Infineon SLB 9635 TT 1.2., a compatible module of the TCG-TPM-1.2. Heise wrote

that they wonder, why Apple did not wrote about this in the iMac specs.

The chip has been heavily criticised by the anti TCPA/TCG inititiative. also it seems to be a little diffused how the

Chip will be used. By now, its function has only been used as a kind of hardware dongle. But - the chip is

capable for heavy DRM. You can read about it as it is exactly described in the faq of the trusted computing

group (https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/faq) where Apple actually is NOT a member.

You can view the german heise link http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68398 'babelfished' to english here: http://tinyurl.com/c33oy

Hi,

 

german Heise-news just wrote what kind of TPM chip it is. And if you know Heise, you know they are not wrong

 

So what we see here is the Infineon SLB 9635 TT 1.2., a compatible module of the TCG-TPM-1.2. Heise wrote

that they wonder, why Apple did not wrote about this in the iMac specs.

 

The chip has been heavily criticised by the anti TCPA/TCG inititiative. also it seems to be a little diffused how the

Chip will be used. By now, its function has only been used as a kind of hardware dongle. But - the chip is

capable for heavy DRM. You can read about it as it is exactly described in the faq of the trusted computing

group (https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/faq) where Apple actually is NOT a member.

 

You can view the german heise link http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68398 'babelfished' to english here: http://tinyurl.com/c33oy

This is the one complaint I've about Apple. Why use TPM dongles in the first place? Cann't it just be deattached? ...also the built-in iSight camera should have a physical closure.

Good link btw.

If only ...

It's clear from this article (I had to read the babelfish version) that TPM is basically a Digital Rights Media device, but its use could conceivably be tied to more than it does currently - which is block OS X installs on non-TPM equipped machines.

If you're an optimist, you can think of this as being the security chip that makes sure you are licensed for the media on your machine, and perhaps also protected against unauthorized media and code.

If you're a bit more paranoid, you can see this chip as absolute control over what your system can and can't do. "Big brother" is used in association with TPM by a group that protests its use. Since TPM could identify your system in such a way that the OS could decide to deny functions, people could have their apps, OS and files arbitrarily locked depending on TPM. Consider the Windows XP activation method - you have only so many days to register your system (usually over the Internet). Change enough of your PC hardware and Windows will want to be activated again. Until you comply, functionality is virtually nil. TPM can take this one step further, where each application on your system, every file, could have access control - and whomever controls the access permissions has true control over your computer.

Look up the complaints and worries when Intel put unique processor ID codes into every Pentium III - ultimately, BIOS manufacturers disabled the reading of this code, because enough people objected to having their PC personally identified.

Having a machine code that can be associated with its owner does open the door for various kinds of spying. Basically, any software that can read it (including web applets) can trace your every move.

Time will tell whether the TPM is going to be a speedbump in the access road to installing OS X on regular Intel platforms, or whether it is going to be something a lot more fascist in its use.