G5? G6? who'se running this naming scheme? Intel?

mynameisjonasmynameisjonas
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Hey everyone.



I'd just like to shout out my opinion that g5 and g6 are really crappy processor names. I mean, G3, and G4 were cool, but now it's just getting reppetitve and stupid, intel style. (pentium, pentium2, pentium3, ect, ect.)



Can't Apple come up with a better name? What would you make it?



I'd like to see something like the Latin word for speed or something, tha'd be cool...well, what are your thoughts?



-Jonas
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    mac the forkmac the fork Posts: 722member
    I never liked the name 'Power Mac'. I'd like them to ditch that and start naming their computers Macintosh [whatever] again.



    [quote]I'd like to see something like the Latin word for speed or something, tha'd be cool...well, what are your thoughts?<hr></blockquote>



    That would bring us dangerously close to Intel, actually. Celeron is apparently from the Latin word for swift, which is 'celer'.
  • Reply 2 of 43
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    Do we actually know if they'll be called the G5, G6 and so on? That's what we're all saying but when did Apple ever say it's official?
  • Reply 3 of 43
    mike egglestonmike eggleston Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:

    <strong>I never liked the name 'Power Mac'. I'd like them to ditch that and start naming their computers Macintosh [whatever] again.







    That would bring us dangerously close to Intel, actually. Celeron is apparently from the Latin word for swift, which is 'celer'. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I disagree. Completely. I would shudder at the thought of Macintosh 12000 or even worse is Macintosh Xlp or somethng strange like that. If there is a real problem with the word Power (which I think is good), then maybe something else: Super, Awesome, Knarley, Aqua, etc.



    However I just think Power is a good enough name by itself.
  • Reply 4 of 43
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I think the name Power Mac isn't that bad.
  • Reply 5 of 43
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    If anyone has crappy processor names, it's intel, not apple/ibm/motorola. Initially, they were just number: 186, 286, 386, 486. Due to a claim that numbers could not be copywritten, however, the 586 was called the pentium. So, the P2 should be the sextium, the P3 is the septium, and the P4 the octium. The G3 and G4, however, refer to the fact that they are the 3rd and 4th generation of Power PC processors (the 601 was the G1, and the 603/604 were the G2). So continuing with G5 and G6 is just a logical continuation.



    That was longer than I planned, hope it clarifies.



    [edit: grammar]



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 43
    zon7zon7 Posts: 41member
    I think they can be called xMac. It sounds x!



    [quote]Originally posted by Mike Eggleston:

    <strong>



    I disagree. Completely. I would shudder at the thought of Macintosh 12000 or even worse is Macintosh Xlp or somethng strange like that. If there is a real problem with the word Power (which I think is good), then maybe something else: Super, Awesome, Knarley, Aqua, etc.



    However I just think Power is a good enough name by itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 7 of 43
    foochafoocha Posts: 3member
    I think the GX naming scheme is becoming a problem for Apple, since there appears to still be life in the G3 series for the consumer line, whilst the professional desktops are about to migrate to "G5." It seems unlikely that consumers will be happy about buying G3 mmachines when there are "G5" big brothers sitting next to them. Intel's "Pentium" and "Celeron" naming stragtegy gives them more flexibility, and I wouldn't be suprised to see Apple doing something similiar when they launch the "G5" in January.
  • Reply 8 of 43
    markmark Posts: 143member
    "Power Mac" is just so unspeakably obtuse. I've always found the name like fingernails on a chalkboard...



    It's outlived its purpose anyhow; today's Macs are all PPC-based. There isn't even a single model named "Macintosh" left to distinguish from. And Apple now emphasizes processor technology using the names of the chips themselves as suffixes. Since iMac/iBook enjoy greater recognition among the public now than "Macintosh", wouldn't it be nice if Apple would bring a little brand equity back to the name of the platform along with that of its individual machines?



    I'm often surprised at how many people fail to realize that the Mac is actually a wide-reaching platform - much more than one egg-shaped appliance/PC. That Apple sells more than one product. When you draw this to someone's attention today, the implication is that the other 'Power' Macs are powerful, but the iMac is, uh, not. Terrific. I've seen this depressing angle in far more shallow articles than I care to recall.



    Besides, "Macintosh" is a great name. It's distinctive, sounds good, relates to "Apple," is dignified yet friendly. Time for it to return! "Power Mac" is a tacky and ham-handed (and wholly unnecessary) variation. In fact, considering the PPC clock speed woes - it seems not a little desperate as well. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    Then again, if Apple does deliver a truly magnificent G5 next month, I probably won't care two bits about whatever it's called.





    Cheers,



    Mark.



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Mark ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 43
    scheisskopfscheisskopf Posts: 13member
    [quote]Originally posted by MyNameIsJonas:

    <strong>I'd like to see something like the Latin word for speed or something, tha'd be cool...well, what are your thoughts?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    How 'bout "Karacho," the German word for "high speed," according to this <a href="http://www.carracho.com/faq/index.html"; target="_blank">web site</a>. It would inspire, well, whatever people on "Karacho" do.



    You could even shorten the word and still attach a number after it. For example, we would go from the K5 to the K6 to, no, wait...



    Okay. How 'bout something with the Macintosh nomenclature, to keep everything in focus. You can have New Mac and Classic Mac, depending on the processor. Beats sugared water. What!? It's been done..?



    Okay. Big deal. Wait that's it! BigMac! People will remember that!



    ~e
  • Reply 10 of 43
    blizaineblizaine Posts: 239member
    I am the only person at my work (20 or so) that has Mac. However the general thought among all the employees is that the "G4" = "Super Mad Fast". They all just feel that they can't afford a G4, especially when they can get a 1.1Ghz Celery processor for under $999. However they all are under the impression that the G4 would smoke any Intel chip in most tasks.



    So I think when apple releases an iMac with a G4 it will need to be called the "iMac G4". Many people will buy it because they will feel like they are getting high-end professional power in a consumer machine.



    G4 holds a lot of weight and the G5 will hold more.



    my $.02



  • Reply 11 of 43
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    I remember the old days when Apple machines were given numbers. *shudder*. How were you supposed to tell the difference between the 9200 and the 4400 and the LC 550 and the Performa 620... hmm.



    Then again, the current practice isn't so good either. Every time the lineup gets a revision, everything gets the SAME NAME! iMac six months ago is not the iMac of now! Confuses newbie customers.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member
    You know something, I think Apple may be moving that direction, since he (Steve Jobs) called the new G4 towers, "Quicksilver." And more and more people are referencing their new G4 towers as "Quicksilvers."



    I have a "Extreme Machine," might be something you'll hear come January when G5's are intro'd...



    I think you're right...the naming scheme has to be changing as to bring a breath of fresh air to Apple's imagine.
  • Reply 13 of 43
    muahmuah Posts: 165member
    [quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:

    <strong>

    Then again, the current practice isn't so good either. Every time the lineup gets a revision, everything gets the SAME NAME! iMac six months ago is not the iMac of now! Confuses newbie customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Smart by Apple because it allows them to clear out distribution channels even after an upgrade. Newbies were never concerned about the 66 Mhz bump Apple gives every 6 months (far less than Intel).



    I agree a new naming scheme is due (Powermac is since 1993 or so, Gx is from '96 or so). I think it could add some value to the marketing to sell a "new" series of processor with this new OS we got.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    cyberdogcyberdog Posts: 5member
    I for one really liked som parts of Apple's old naming scheme..."Quadra" was way cooler than "PowerMac"...and "Centris" also had a good ring to it. "Newton" was another cool name of that era



    Apple ought to use it's often ultra cool codenames instead of cryptic numbers or the name of the previous product in the same category.



    The old PB G4 could have been the PowerBook Mercury

    The new PB G4 could have been the PowerBook Onyx (or Mercury II)

    etc.



    Maybe it would also be a smart idea to append the processor speed (in MHz) to the product's name (Apple is already more or less doing this with the 2001 iMacs). In this way customers are able to easily differentiate different versions/minor revisions of the same product.



    Then Apple could call the PowerMac G5 for Macintosh Synergy (since it combines OS X as default OS, a new ultra fast G5 processor (64 bit), a new/better motherboard and possibly a new case) :cool:



    /CyberD.



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: CyberDog ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 43
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    Ideas for new names:

    xMac

    PowerMac 2k2

    PowerMac G5

    AmazingMac

    Macintosh 1600XP+ (shudder)

    Macintosh 3g (i subtle reference to it blowing away a 3ghz Pentium)

    KickAss G5

    PowerMacintosh G5 (my favorite)

    PowerMac G5 1.4 (ghz)

    PowerMac G5 1.6 (ghz)



    As you can see, there aren't really any good new names for a PowerMac. if you have one, post it. I'd like to see more people's ideas.



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: G4Dude ]



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 43
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>Ideas for new names:

    xMac

    PowerMac 2k2

    PowerMac G5

    AmazingMac

    Macintosh 1600XP+ (shudder)

    Macintosh 3g (i subtle reference to it blowing away a 3ghz Pentium)

    KickAss G5

    PowerMacintosh G5 (my favorite)

    PowerMac G5 1.4 (ghz)

    PowerMac G5 1.6 (ghz)

    TheCrusher



    As you can see, there aren't really any good new names for a PowerMac. if you have one, post it. I'd like to see more people's ideas.



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: G4Dude ]



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 17 of 43
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    ahhh, the good ol' days...



    The Performa 6200CD, 6205CD, 62190CD, 6214CD, 5216CD, 6218CD, 6220CD, 6230CD, 6260CD, 6290CD, 6300CD, 6310CD, 6320CD... which were actually just repackaged PowerMac 6200's



    The Performa 6110CD, 6112CD, 6115CD, 6116CD, 6117CD, 6118CD... which were actually just repackaged PowerMac 6100's



    The Performa 5200CD, 5210CD, 5215CD, 5220CD, 5260CD, 5260/120, 5270CD, 5280, 5300CD, 5320CD... which were actually just repackaged PowerMac 5200's



    ah, hell, you get the idea (thanks to <a href="http://www.apple-history.com"; target="_blank">http://www.apple-history.com</a>; for the above trip down memory lane)



    What people fail to remember is that the term "Macintosh" used to be a model name to differentiate itself from Apple's other offerings. But then the Operating System got dubbed the MacOS (there was never any CentrisOS), and the Macintosh was the granddaddy of Apple's lines. To the point now that Macintosh and Apple are completely synonymous (at least, as far as most people are concerned).



    The "Power" and "i" lines are as unique to Apple as the Macintosh at this point. And all other prefixes seem to be usurped by other vendors, and, as such, just sound chincy (really, would you want to use an Xtreme-Mac??? ugh).



    i personally think apple's naming scheme is fine as it is.



    though i don't get the iPod. seriously... can someone explain that to me? i suppose if it sells, they can call it iTurd for all anyone cares, but i just don't see where "Pod" came from.



    [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 43
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]though i don't get the iPod. seriously... can someone explain that to me? i suppose if it sells, they can call it iTurd for all anyone cares, but i just don't see where "Pod" came from.<hr></blockquote>



    That's something I've been wondering and would like to know where it came from too.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    From Webster's:



    Pod: -A podlike container, as a cocoon, an egg capsule of an insect or fish, etc.



    -A contoured enclosure, as a streamlined housing for a jet engine attached to an aircraft.





    I think the name implies that it's a small enclosure that holds "stuff", not just MP3s. By calling it an iPod, Apple emphasizes that it can function as a storage device for all kinds of different files.



    In the future it could be used to store photos or movies from digital camers, negating the need for lots of expensive flash memory. I'm actually surprised that it doesn't already do this, but it would certainly be easy to implement this feature.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    gumby5647gumby5647 Posts: 241member
    whatever happened to "wicked fast"



    they should bring that back for the G5 intro...
Sign In or Register to comment.