Apple decided to disable full dual head video in the new iMac in firmware, but intrepid hackers will not be daunted. The leading German language computer magazine c’t has put an OpenFirmware hack into an Applescript for easy use.
Apple decided to disable full dual head video in the new iMac in firmware, but intrepid hackers will not be daunted. The leading German language computer magazine c’t has put an OpenFirmware hack into an Applescript for easy use.
Maybe we should recognize the real authority in getting artificially crippled Mac hardware to work correctly:
http://www.rutemoeller.com/mp/ibook/ibook_e.html
Several people claim to have thermal issues with their machines, after applying this patch. So be careful, ymmv.
So its a defective design on the part of the iMac G5?
the design is not defective, apple intentionally cripple this feature on ‘consumer level machines’ Why is beyond me, I can only assume its due to them thinking that you will pay the extra for a pro-line if you really need this feature
No, the “i”-Products are considered consumer products and as such don’t get certain features the “Pro” products have.
I applied this patch a few months ago and it works beautifully. I can’t say if my iBook is hotter or not, but I think that having a 1600×1440 instead of a 1024×768 (at least at home) is more useful.
I’ve been runninng the patch for nearly a year on my iBook G4 and have never had any problems.
Harj
I’ve also been running the patch for awhile on my iBook G4, and it seems to work fine. Love the iBook’s portability with all the travelling I do, but it’s really nice to have a nice big 19″ LCD to use at home, and combined with a wirless keyboard and mouse there really is no reason to own a bulky desktop.
How is it defective design on Apple’s part if a hack makes the machine overheat?
My 12″ iBook 900 G3 works beautifully w/ the hack. It is no hotter than normal.
Bless the authors soul.
A 12″ screen just doesn’t cut it at home.
How the marketing types at apple can believe that crippling an iMac will entice you to buy a powerMac is beyond me.
As noted, their markets are different.
It seems to me the iMac has a place in the living room as the ‘digital hub’ touted by Steve Jobs. Therefore, why not let it display and play music on your home theater setup at a resolution of 1366?
A tangent: We moved from the US to Australia. My wife is japanese, I am french. We have legit DVDs from everywhere. Well DVD regions wreak havoc with our collection. It is another form of crippling, which borders robbery, pure and simple.
Sorry I had to vent this out….
I’m a self-professed Mac Zealot (see my website), but in no uncertain terms do I NOT support actions like this by Apple. I hate that a company decides what is best for me. The hardware that I’ve purchased works perfect for a certain feature, but then they intentionally disable it. Who do they think they are?!
Dude thanks for the URL. I was about to post a question asking how to unlock my iBook!
Apple have a long and rich history of crippling hardware for different levels of consumer. There were processors like the 68020 and 68030 which are full 32-bit chips, running on a 16-bit memory path. Every memory access takes twice as long. (memories of my LCII back in… ’91)
And then there was the use of the 68040 minus the maths co-processor. That hit any numerical tasks very hard. About the time that games started using floating point for 3D calculations…
I’m typing this on my 14″ iBook, a machine which I’m extremely happy with. Except for the monitor circuitry being crippled. (Oh, and the Radeon9200…)
Apple seem to want to distinguish between consumers through hardware. It’s a poor practice and one that I’ve never seen defended.
A tangent: We moved from the US to Australia. My wife is japanese, I am french. We have legit DVDs from everywhere. Well DVD regions wreak havoc with our collection. It is another form of crippling, which borders robbery, pure and simple.
At least you picked a decent country then. Here, restricting DVD players via region codes is considered anti-competitive, so region-free DVD players are a dime a dozen.
“I hate that a company decides what is best for me. The hardware that I’ve purchased works perfect for a certain feature, but then they intentionally disable it. Who do they think they are?!”
I think you missed why they do this. They do this to differentiate products. It has nothing to do with “what is best for you” . It’s about what is best for their product line.
I was pissed when I got my Powermac home and found out that it only has 4 ram slots, not 8. It actualy takes more work for them to do it since it means making differant boards from the dual 2.0s (basicly leaving parts off). But it’s something to keap track of. But why do they do this? Simple, if you realize this is the case, it gives you a reason to go for the dual 2.0, cause otherwise there is less reason to buy the dual 2.0, it gets you a bit faster, a bit more ram from the factory and a bigger HD. So it’s not a big reason to spend 500 extra bucks when you can do the ram and HD far cheaper and the speed you won’t notice. But a limit in what it can do, that will effect people.
Apple isn’t doing this for my benifit cause 8 slots would be confusing and overwellming (if it was apple would make all computers with one ram slot). They did it to make a better product line. All about them.
Thermal issues may have nothing to do with this. The imacs i saw in the store were warped in the back over the cpu and vent.
GaryP: Apple have a long and rich history of crippling hardware for different levels of consumer. There were processors like the 68020 and 68030 which are full 32-bit chips, running on a 16-bit memory path….
…
And then there was the use of the 68040 minus the maths co-processor. …
First, I’m pretty sure that it was cheaper to design/build a motherboard with a 16-bit bus than a 32-bit one. The 16-bit version of the other chips (I/O etc) were cheaper and the design simpler. Note that not all 020 and 030 Macs ran on a 16-bit bus, only some of the cheapest ones (LCs, Performas). Before these machines, the cheapest Macs were like 2000-3000$.
As for the 68LC040, it was a 68040 that had the math co-processor disabled because it was defective. Instead of throwing them in the trash, Motorola sold them for a much lower price. Intel did the same with the 386 and 486, cheap wintel PCs at the time didn’t have a math co-processor either.
This is nothing like the disabling of monitor spanning (which I don’t approve). Though Apple did other things like this in the past, it was mostly in software (like the original iTunes refusing to install on OS 8) and could be worked around with patches and hacks.
“Apple have a long and rich history of crippling hardware for different levels of consumer.” is a myth perpetuated mostly by some pro-Wintel guys because this is what they fear about the fact that Apple produces the whole widget (OS and computer).
Can you provide any other examples of hardware crippling?
“Apple have a long and rich history of crippling hardware for different levels of consumer. There were processors like the 68020 and 68030 which are full 32-bit chips, running on a 16-bit memory path.”
Apple used 24-bit addressing in the beginning and went to full 32-bit adressing in System 7 I believe.
“And then there was the use of the 68040 minus the maths co-processor. “
That was a cost issue. The CPU with the co-processor was considerably more expensive at the time. Also there were very, very few applications in the beginning using the co-processor (later on some CAD apps and games needed it though).
“I’m typing this on my 14” iBook, a machine which I’m extremely happy with. Except for the monitor circuitry being crippled. (Oh, and the Radeon9200…) “
Yes and the apparent crippling of the iBook via Firmware is something I really hate and it’s pointless indeed. They could add value by leaving that functionality in. I have never heard about anyone who chose a PowerBook over an iBook because of the mirror-or-not issue.
On looking for evidence to back up my memory of the early ’90s, I didn’t find a lot! I guess the history wasn’t as rich as I’d thought.
Both the LC and LCII had the 16-bit data path and a 10MB maximum RAM (built into the ASIC). The former was a cost-cutting exercise, and both were to avoid sales of the high-end Mac II line being cannabalised by consumer level machines (I believe).
The Mac II line was nearly always the high-end line, but the IIvx was a turkey (I had a second-hand one, but it was a big step up from my LCII). The IIvx ran the CPU on a data bus running at half the CPU frequency, giving it terrible performance.
Some fun here:
http://www.insanely-great.com/features/010806.html
(the 24-bit addressing is a seperate thing from the 16-bit data paths)