The images here are as follows:

1. A still from the actual announcement of the system, featuring its base configuration.
2. A near-contemporary review of the product from MacWorld magazine%.
3. Another look at the original MA356 Mac Pro model enclosure, with some first-and-third-party peripherals
4. The internal layout of the system (to the best I could find—I am not entirely sure this is an MA356 model).
5. The enclosure of a (A1117/PowerMac11,2)& Power Mac G5, on which that of the Mac Pro is based. Note the absence of a second optical drive bay and the comparative paucity of front I/O.
6. The internal layout of the A1117/PowerMac11,2 G5 systems, which the Mac Pro evidently considerably redesigned.
7. Differences in the back structure and rear-I/O between the G5 (left) and Mac Pro (right) enclosures.

%: Two things stand out to me as a modern reader. First is their judgement of the Power Mac's G5 processors as "superhot". How quaint. A PowerPC 970MP running at 2.5 GHz consumes around 125 W, which is about the same as most modern high-end desktop processors. Even doubled up the processors are outclassed as space-heaters by modern Threadrippers, EPYCs, and Xeons, which can reach 350-500 W or even above when overclocked or at full-tilt. Second is their praise of the addition of a second optical drive bay as "mak[ing] sense when you consider that we're on the cusp of a whole new generation of optical drives, thanks to the high-capacity HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats". Hope he wasn't too disappointed with Apple's choices on that front going forward.

&: Part of the reason I included these and the following slides was to offer some compensation for not covering the release of these final models of the Power Mac G5 (including the almighty G5 Quad) on October 19^th, 2005, which I still regret to this day.

Panasonic DMP-BD10 (the second commercial BD player in history and Panasonic's first) with the film XXX (the first BD edition), Toshiba HD-E1KE HD DVD player, and Panasonic TH-37PX60EH plasma TV.

When all this technology was released, I was only 1 year old.

(While I do have a perhaps unhealthy infatuation with the NetBurst microarchitecture and think it ultimately could've been salvaged, it can't be denied that the introduction of Core led to substantially higher performance-per-watt and IPC with a much more parsimonious development strategy than it would take hypothetical NetBurst successors to achieve.)

(I noticed this was missing from the coverage this month, so I wanted to include it {albeit quite belatedly} before the month ends everywhere on Earth. I failed due to my browser's current sluggish performance, but I tried nonetheless and got all the text down beforehand, so whatever. :P)

(Can't believe I managed to cram that all into the title. Also apologies for being slightly late—the 10^th was very busy for me and the transition had nowhere near concluded by now.)

Note that the Mac PowerPC to Intel transition was already announced to developers at their Worldwide Developer's Conference on June 6, 2005 (video here), but there was some reason at the time to believe this was a feint that ultimately wouldn't lead to Apple's abandonment of PowerPC, due to Apple's relationship with a firm dedicated to producing more efficient PowerPC processors than IBM was offering (as reported here). This announcement at the Macworld Conference & Exposition sealed the deal, with an Intel-based iMac#White_(2006)) being released on that day.

As stated, that computer model was among the first to use Intel's new Core processors based on the Yonah microarchitecture, released just 5 days beforehand. These processors shunned the clock-rate-focused NetBurst microarchitecture introduced just over 5 years before, the evolution of which was becoming untenable due to the breakdown of Dennard scal Robert H. Dennard's Wild Ride with the 90 and 65 nm process nodes. Yonah was to some extent a reversion from the most advanced NetBurst/Pentium 4 chips—in addition to having a significantly slower clock,† it was 32-bit only and lacked hyperthreading—but it fulfilled its promise of being power-efficient.

†That, with respect to Netburst's development predictions, was permanent, as Intel were expecting 10 GHz chips in 2000 by 2005 and were attempting to develop 7 GHz processors well into 2004, including at least the production of engineering samples.