I think they should just call it the PowerMac X. Then, instead of the silly parenthetical qualifiers they use to differentiate lines, they could use a versioning scheme, but for consistency it would have to start with 10.0. So a few years down the road we'll have PowerMac X 10.2.4 models running OS X 10.4.2.
I think they should just call it the PowerMac X. Then, instead of the silly parenthetical qualifiers they use to differentiate lines, they could use a versioning scheme, but for consistency it would have to start with 10.0. So a few years down the road we'll have PowerMac X 10.2.4 models running OS X 10.4.2.
That shouldn't cause any confusion at all.
That reminds me of when Finder and System were different versions. I think you could run Finder 7.3 on System 7.1. Or something whacko like that.
I agree there's a bit too much X going around. I think it'll stay PowerMac... I mean, PowerMacs have been around since 1994 and I don't think that's going to change soon. But we may as well look at the more creative names Apple's come up with for their product lines:
Quadra (kinda catchy, I suppose the "quad" part is for the 68040 processor)
Duo (nice, dual-purpose machine and the name says so)
Centris (short lived, symbolized the "center point" between the Quadras and the cheapers stuff)
Performa (sounds like a frickin' stupid car)
And of course, iMac. The iMac was a pretty cool name when it first came out - I think it was not only symbolizing the Internet with the i, but also it was a take-off of eMail, e-mail, e-Mail, eCommerce, eBay, that sort of stuff. Now using a lowercase vowel in front of a word is commonplace, but at the time I don't remember any companies using it (other than the stuff I mentioned and those used e instead of i).
Do we need Ned Flanders in here to chastize you guys about gratuituous use of the letter X?
I'm kinda partial to "PowerMac 970", myself...
What happens when IBM revises the chip? Will future PowerMacs becalled the Power Mac 970CX? Power Mac 980? Power Mac 64 is simple, to the point, and emcompasses these possible chip revisions.
And then there are some people that would say Power Mac Nine-Hundred and Seventy...
What happens when IBM revises the chip? Will future PowerMacs becalled the Power Mac 970CX? Power Mac 980? Power Mac 64 is simple, to the point, and emcompasses these possible chip revisions.
And then there are some people that would say Power Mac Nine-Hundred and Seventy...
And what are they going to name the PowerMac when the 970+ or the 980 ships?
They could name it the PowerMac 64 only with this gen to make sure that everybody know it has a completely new processor. Then, with the next generation processors they could start a with a new naming scheme? What do you thing about that?
And what are they going to name the PowerMac when the 970+ or the 980 ships?
They could name it the PowerMac 64 only with this gen to make sure that everybody know it has a completely new processor. Then, with the next generation processors they could start a with a new naming scheme? What do you thing about that?
How about starting with one, new naming-scheme when the 970 macs arrive, and keep it until another huge architectural change comes? G4 -> 64 -> anothernamingsceme will generate confusion, I think, and confusion is not very good for marketing.
Powermac will most definitely stay. I agree with Eugene about how "Performa 6013" kinda lacked a symbolic ring to it,and therefore caused confusion for Apple's customers. X1-- maybe. Sounds *kinda* stupid, but with all of this "extreme" business at Apple, it seems likely. (Quartz Extreme, Airport Extreme., etc.)
Kudos to Apple for not taking the "e" away from extreme. Xtreme?
By the way, how do you make a poll on a thread in the AI forums?
I think they oughta drop the "Power" part. After all, we know it's not a 68K chip in there by this time.
How about we call it the "Apple Mac Tower"... or maybe the tMac. Actually, in the other thread there are some really nice photoshop concepts. One of them is a really rugged looking tower; another is a pizza box. I doubt towers are going away, because you need something you can put a lot of drives in.
What happens when IBM revises the chip? Will future PowerMacs becalled the Power Mac 970CX? Power Mac 980? Power Mac 64 is simple, to the point, and emcompasses these possible chip revisions.
For future chips in the same family, it could still be called the PowerMac 970. If the PPC980 is another generation of PPC processor, then I think changing the name would be justified.
The Problem with PowerMac 64 is that it's too general. How do you differentiate future Macs with 64 bit processors? Think of it this way-- if all previous Macs with 32 bit processors had the same name, they'd all be called... Macintosh.
For future chips in the same family, it could still be called the PowerMac 970. If the PPC980 is another generation of PPC processor, then I think changing the name would be justified.
The Problem with PowerMac 64 is that it's too general. How do you differentiate future Macs with 64 bit processors? Think of it this way-- if all previous Macs with 32 bit processors had the same name, they'd all be called... Macintosh.
The question is "Why do we need to know?" The only reason I'm even appending a "64" to "Power Mac" is because I'm pretty sure Apple will be selling 32-bit and 64-bit Power Macs concurrently for a while, and it really is a big jump...
But why do they need to know the type of processor before looking at the tech specs, especially when all the Power Macs available at that time will be exactly the same? Good thing Apple didn't call the Power Mac G4 the Power Mac 7400, eh? In comes the 7450, and the 7451, and then the 7455...!
As for "G5," it's a meaningless designation to most. At least "64" means something.
"Tower of power" do have a unfortunate meaning. If the person who explained the lyrics of a Frank Zappa song "Bobby Brown" to me was right it better be avoided both the name and the tower!
Kall the next tower "Red Herring"...
Did you get it even if it was far fetched? It is from Fishkill
Comments
"PowerMac X1"
hey, i like it.
-walloo.
Originally posted by willywalloo
....It's the all new PowerMac X1, the first of a long line of 64-bit powermacs....
"PowerMac X1"
The name of PowerMac X1 has a certain appeal to it. Plus it makes it sound like its cutting edge.... Sort of like the original X1 Spy Plane!!
"Macintosh X1", "Mac X1", "Mac XI" or even better, "Macintosh IIx2.3"!
Originally posted by willywalloo
....It's the all new PowerMac X1, the first of a long line of 64-bit powermacs....
"PowerMac X1"
hey, i like it.
-walloo.
"PowerMac X1"
Not bad, but it could be better.
"PowerMac EX-ONE"
My English may be bad, but it seems a little hard to pronounce, doesn't it?
That shouldn't cause any confusion at all.
I'm kinda partial to "PowerMac 970", myself...
Originally posted by Amorph
I think they should just call it the PowerMac X. Then, instead of the silly parenthetical qualifiers they use to differentiate lines, they could use a versioning scheme, but for consistency it would have to start with 10.0. So a few years down the road we'll have PowerMac X 10.2.4 models running OS X 10.4.2.
That shouldn't cause any confusion at all.
That reminds me of when Finder and System were different versions. I think you could run Finder 7.3 on System 7.1. Or something whacko like that.
I agree there's a bit too much X going around. I think it'll stay PowerMac... I mean, PowerMacs have been around since 1994 and I don't think that's going to change soon. But we may as well look at the more creative names Apple's come up with for their product lines:
Quadra (kinda catchy, I suppose the "quad" part is for the 68040 processor)
Duo (nice, dual-purpose machine and the name says so)
Centris (short lived, symbolized the "center point" between the Quadras and the cheapers stuff)
Performa (sounds like a frickin' stupid car)
And of course, iMac. The iMac was a pretty cool name when it first came out - I think it was not only symbolizing the Internet with the i, but also it was a take-off of eMail, e-mail, e-Mail, eCommerce, eBay, that sort of stuff. Now using a lowercase vowel in front of a word is commonplace, but at the time I don't remember any companies using it (other than the stuff I mentioned and those used e instead of i).
Originally posted by Gamblor
Do we need Ned Flanders in here to chastize you guys about gratuituous use of the letter X?
I'm kinda partial to "PowerMac 970", myself...
What happens when IBM revises the chip? Will future PowerMacs becalled the Power Mac 970CX? Power Mac 980? Power Mac 64 is simple, to the point, and emcompasses these possible chip revisions.
And then there are some people that would say Power Mac Nine-Hundred and Seventy...
Originally posted by Eugene
What happens when IBM revises the chip? Will future PowerMacs becalled the Power Mac 970CX? Power Mac 980? Power Mac 64 is simple, to the point, and emcompasses these possible chip revisions.
And then there are some people that would say Power Mac Nine-Hundred and Seventy...
And what are they going to name the PowerMac when the 970+ or the 980 ships?
They could name it the PowerMac 64 only with this gen to make sure that everybody know it has a completely new processor. Then, with the next generation processors they could start a with a new naming scheme? What do you thing about that?
Originally posted by NETROMac
And what are they going to name the PowerMac when the 970+ or the 980 ships?
They could name it the PowerMac 64 only with this gen to make sure that everybody know it has a completely new processor. Then, with the next generation processors they could start a with a new naming scheme? What do you thing about that?
How about starting with one, new naming-scheme when the 970 macs arrive, and keep it until another huge architectural change comes? G4 -> 64 -> anothernamingsceme will generate confusion, I think, and confusion is not very good for marketing.
Kudos to Apple for not taking the "e" away from extreme. Xtreme?
By the way, how do you make a poll on a thread in the AI forums?
-os10geek
If it were up to Sadaam it would be called "Mother of all Macs"
Sorry....i got the sad little war on me mind
Originally posted by Whisper
My vote is for "PowerMac 970", but I don't think Apple will use it.
I'm also with this name. It's simple and to the point.
--Alexis
Originally posted by keyboardf12
PowerMac X1
How about "Tower of Power" that's what I call my G3...
Probably have a hard time getting "The Big Mac" away from the CJD merchants, but that's what my wife calls it.
How about we call it the "Apple Mac Tower"... or maybe the tMac. Actually, in the other thread there are some really nice photoshop concepts. One of them is a really rugged looking tower; another is a pizza box. I doubt towers are going away, because you need something you can put a lot of drives in.
Originally posted by McCrab
...perhaps not entirely out of the question:
eMac
iMac
xMac
Gotta go with xMac since I primarily use mine for dowloading porn
What happens when IBM revises the chip? Will future PowerMacs becalled the Power Mac 970CX? Power Mac 980? Power Mac 64 is simple, to the point, and emcompasses these possible chip revisions.
For future chips in the same family, it could still be called the PowerMac 970. If the PPC980 is another generation of PPC processor, then I think changing the name would be justified.
The Problem with PowerMac 64 is that it's too general. How do you differentiate future Macs with 64 bit processors? Think of it this way-- if all previous Macs with 32 bit processors had the same name, they'd all be called... Macintosh.
Originally posted by Gamblor
For future chips in the same family, it could still be called the PowerMac 970. If the PPC980 is another generation of PPC processor, then I think changing the name would be justified.
The Problem with PowerMac 64 is that it's too general. How do you differentiate future Macs with 64 bit processors? Think of it this way-- if all previous Macs with 32 bit processors had the same name, they'd all be called... Macintosh.
The question is "Why do we need to know?" The only reason I'm even appending a "64" to "Power Mac" is because I'm pretty sure Apple will be selling 32-bit and 64-bit Power Macs concurrently for a while, and it really is a big jump...
But why do they need to know the type of processor before looking at the tech specs, especially when all the Power Macs available at that time will be exactly the same? Good thing Apple didn't call the Power Mac G4 the Power Mac 7400, eh? In comes the 7450, and the 7451, and then the 7455...!
As for "G5," it's a meaningless designation to most. At least "64" means something.
Kall the next tower "Red Herring"...
Did you get it even if it was far fetched? It is from Fishkill