Because it's a way to differentiate from what's come before? Why else would you change the name?
Quote:
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...
They will? You mean they'll be selling Power Mac G4s along with whatever the new ones are called? Wouldn't calling the new machines "Power Mac 970s" be just as good at distinguishing them from the Power Mac G4s?
Quote:
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?
Didn't you just say they'd be selling G4s at the same time? Again, it's just a way to differentiate them from what's come before.
Quote:
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...!
Why? What difference would it make if Apple called machines with 7450s "Power Mac 7400s"? You could make the arguement that they're all "7400 series" processors, so it would make sense...
Apple has refered to the processor type in model names since at least the Power Mac G3s (an arguement can be made about "Quadra" refering to the processor as well). If the next Power Macs use the 970, then "Power Mac 970" makes sense. If revisions after that use chips that are derived from the 970 or considered to be in the same family of chips, then I think the name still makes sense, and would certainly be less confusing that changing the name every time there's a revision.
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.
for me that's a VERY good point: as many other posters say, the internal structure of a computer or a chip is just for nerds. BUT the form factor (bauhaus: form follows function. function follows form, jonathan does know this) is maybe the key to find the name:
iMac, eMac, tMac - why not? probably, 'cause the new g5 is not a tower... ok, professional machines DO need expandibilty, and the size of PCI cards and drives are industrial standard - but, perhaps, jonathan comes up with a nice idea. plain and simple.
Because it's a way to differentiate from what's come before? Why else would you change the name?
You missed the point. Jumping from G4 to the 970 willl be a big jump, that's why a name change will be necessary. And yes, I think Apple will still offer a lower-cost G4 tower for a while.
Quote:
They will? You mean they'll be selling Power Mac G4s along with whatever the new ones are called? Wouldn't calling the new machines "Power Mac 970s" be just as good at distinguishing them from the Power Mac G4s?
No, because "970" is less revealing than "64." That and AMD will also use the same "64" in naming its products, so it helps to have them on the same marketing wavelength.
Quote:
Didn't you just say they'd be selling G4s at the same time? Again, it's just a way to differentiate them from what's come before.
I was referring to future incarnations of the 64-bit IBM PPC chips, like a 975, or 970CX or 980 or whatever.
Quote:
Apple has refered to the processor type in model names since at least the Power Mac G3s (an arguement can be made about "Quadra" refering to the processor as well). If the next Power Macs use the 970, then "Power Mac 970" makes sense. If revisions after that use chips that are derived from the 970 or considered to be in the same family of chips, then I think the name still makes sense, and would certainly be less confusing that changing the name every time there's a revision.
Apple has used PPC 750s, 750CXs, 750CXes and 750FXs in its G3 products. There's no good reason for them to use the numeric scheme since the processors are different anyway. 750, 7400, 7450, and 970 aren't really buzzwords like G3, G4 and 64-bit are anyway. Quadras consisted of 68LC040s and 68040s too...
I think the first 64-bit Power Macs should be called Power Mac 64s...and then when the G4 based Power Macs are phased out, then they should stick with it or go right back to "Power Mac."
"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
... They say I'm the cutest toy around... My bus is fast, my case is shiny, I tell all the PCs they can kiss my hiney... Oh god I am the American dream rendering 3d images I frickin scream, and I'm a handsome son of a b*tch...
Apple has used PPC 750s, 750CXs, 750CXes and 750FXs in its G3 products. There's no good reason for them to use the numeric scheme since the processors are different anyway.
Actually, I think "Power Mac 750" would have worked just fine. Notice what the first three characters are for each of those designations?
Quote:
750, 7400, 7450, and 970 aren't really buzzwords like G3, G4 and 64-bit are anyway.
I beg to differ-- mention "970" in any conversation about processors and people know exactly what you're talking about. It's come to be a moniker akin to G3 & G4... Besides, "IBM's new PPC processor derived from the Power4" just doesn't have the same ring.
Quote:
Quadras consisted of 68LC040s and 68040s too...
Which is more or less my point. Single computer name derived from the name of the processor, covering multiple models which used different processors.
Eugene, at this point I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Besides, a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet, right?
With the changes in the iMac line we will probably see a new style case for the new towers (I hope), so how about something along the lines of the Power Pyramid or the Apple Octagon.
From a marketing point of view, they shouldn't drop "PowerMac". Because its a wellknown brand, marks and differentiate the Pro-line.
BUT they should drop the [silly] Gx-naming scheme. Even in the G3 & G4 area it doesn't work sencefully.
Actually, i like the MacOS naming paradigma: "Jaguar", "Panther" aso.
What about adopting that schema for their Pro-Desktops?
In future you'll buy a PowerMac "Panther".[Listen, this is just one example]
Apple is wellknown for its mythological aspires. Why not presenting Towers with mythological names. Another example: "PowerMac Prometheus" e.g.
No technical terms needed! No 970 or other technical numbers at all. That would fit the Apple Brand. Clients will know what they want and what they could expect and finally get.
I actually think they should call them what they are, Macintosh.
The phrase Power Mac or Power Macintosh was only needed to distinguish 680x0 machines from the newer PowerPC models.
I understand PowerBook as they always been Power-Books, books of power, that rocks! If anything the iBook should be the PowerBook Lite or something.....
Can't we just have 'Macintosh' on the front of all the desktops...
Maybe we should have.....
Macintosh G4 - for the eMac
iMacintosh G4 - can't really throw away such a known brand can we?
Macintosh G5 - for the 970 powered boxes
for portables....
PowerBook G3 - for the iBook
PowerBook G4 - duh...
PowerPad G4 - for this tablet thing
and lastly for the top, top end...
XServe - duh...
XStation - for the mighty 970 powered video/media/3d top beast
Simplicity and a recogntion of the fact that it's Macintosh, the platform.
It takes a long time to get this type of recognition, they have worked hard at it
iMac
Powerbook
iBook
PowerMac
eMac
they have defined the market by this simple designations for each market type
they might modifiy something like
Powermac 64, or g5 whatever but the names will remain. why cause confusion
just by the name you know what market and who uses it.
Power users
education
consumer line
it's simple, effective, and easy to remember.
the names will stay how come this wasn't an option in the poll.
look at all the confusion with intel p4 p4m pm bm, celeron, they are so confusing try and have a circuit city or bestbuy salesdroid explain these things. my nephew just wanted a laptop to play games, he bought 3 laptops and returned them all because the way the chip has or has to share video memory matters for full screen vs small screen and actiion. what a mess. we call HP and the service guy explained it. apple don't do this, straight easy simple.
Comments
The question is "Why do we need to know?"
Because it's a way to differentiate from what's come before? Why else would you change the name?
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...
They will? You mean they'll be selling Power Mac G4s along with whatever the new ones are called? Wouldn't calling the new machines "Power Mac 970s" be just as good at distinguishing them from the Power Mac G4s?
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?
Didn't you just say they'd be selling G4s at the same time?
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...!
Why? What difference would it make if Apple called machines with 7450s "Power Mac 7400s"? You could make the arguement that they're all "7400 series" processors, so it would make sense...
Apple has refered to the processor type in model names since at least the Power Mac G3s (an arguement can be made about "Quadra" refering to the processor as well). If the next Power Macs use the 970, then "Power Mac 970" makes sense. If revisions after that use chips that are derived from the 970 or considered to be in the same family of chips, then I think the name still makes sense, and would certainly be less confusing that changing the name every time there's a revision.
Originally posted by cubist
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.
for me that's a VERY good point: as many other posters say, the internal structure of a computer or a chip is just for nerds. BUT the form factor (bauhaus: form follows function. function follows form, jonathan does know this) is maybe the key to find the name:
iMac, eMac, tMac - why not? probably, 'cause the new g5 is not a tower... ok, professional machines DO need expandibilty, and the size of PCI cards and drives are industrial standard - but, perhaps, jonathan comes up with a nice idea. plain and simple.
btw:
4 x 4 x 4 is 64!!!
? maybe, just maybe, we will see a cube again
Originally posted by Gamblor
Because it's a way to differentiate from what's come before? Why else would you change the name?
You missed the point. Jumping from G4 to the 970 willl be a big jump, that's why a name change will be necessary. And yes, I think Apple will still offer a lower-cost G4 tower for a while.
They will? You mean they'll be selling Power Mac G4s along with whatever the new ones are called? Wouldn't calling the new machines "Power Mac 970s" be just as good at distinguishing them from the Power Mac G4s?
No, because "970" is less revealing than "64." That and AMD will also use the same "64" in naming its products, so it helps to have them on the same marketing wavelength.
Didn't you just say they'd be selling G4s at the same time?
I was referring to future incarnations of the 64-bit IBM PPC chips, like a 975, or 970CX or 980 or whatever.
Apple has refered to the processor type in model names since at least the Power Mac G3s (an arguement can be made about "Quadra" refering to the processor as well). If the next Power Macs use the 970, then "Power Mac 970" makes sense. If revisions after that use chips that are derived from the 970 or considered to be in the same family of chips, then I think the name still makes sense, and would certainly be less confusing that changing the name every time there's a revision.
Apple has used PPC 750s, 750CXs, 750CXes and 750FXs in its G3 products. There's no good reason for them to use the numeric scheme since the processors are different anyway. 750, 7400, 7450, and 970 aren't really buzzwords like G3, G4 and 64-bit are anyway. Quadras consisted of 68LC040s and 68040s too...
I think the first 64-bit Power Macs should be called Power Mac 64s...and then when the G4 based Power Macs are phased out, then they should stick with it or go right back to "Power Mac."
It's KISS.
Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
Gotta go with xMac since I primarily use mine for dowloading porn
Is it more enjoyable with a higher clock speed?
I couldn't resist.
Originally posted by DrBoar
"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
... They say I'm the cutest toy around... My bus is fast, my case is shiny, I tell all the PCs they can kiss my hiney... Oh god I am the American dream rendering 3d images I frickin scream, and I'm a handsome son of a b*tch...
(Appologies to the late great Frank Zappa)
M1
M2(dual)
M4(quad)
Apple has used PPC 750s, 750CXs, 750CXes and 750FXs in its G3 products. There's no good reason for them to use the numeric scheme since the processors are different anyway.
Actually, I think "Power Mac 750" would have worked just fine. Notice what the first three characters are for each of those designations?
750, 7400, 7450, and 970 aren't really buzzwords like G3, G4 and 64-bit are anyway.
I beg to differ-- mention "970" in any conversation about processors and people know exactly what you're talking about. It's come to be a moniker akin to G3 & G4... Besides, "IBM's new PPC processor derived from the Power4" just doesn't have the same ring.
Quadras consisted of 68LC040s and 68040s too...
Which is more or less my point.
Eugene, at this point I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Besides, a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet, right?
BUT they should drop the [silly] Gx-naming scheme. Even in the G3 & G4 area it doesn't work sencefully.
Actually, i like the MacOS naming paradigma: "Jaguar", "Panther" aso.
What about adopting that schema for their Pro-Desktops?
In future you'll buy a PowerMac "Panther".[Listen, this is just one example
Apple is wellknown for its mythological aspires. Why not presenting Towers with mythological names. Another example: "PowerMac Prometheus" e.g.
No technical terms needed! No 970 or other technical numbers at all. That would fit the Apple Brand. Clients will know what they want and what they could expect and finally get.
my 2 cents
best
What does the G in Gx stand for?
The phrase Power Mac or Power Macintosh was only needed to distinguish 680x0 machines from the newer PowerPC models.
I understand PowerBook as they always been Power-Books, books of power, that rocks! If anything the iBook should be the PowerBook Lite or something.....
Can't we just have 'Macintosh' on the front of all the desktops...
Maybe we should have.....
Macintosh G4 - for the eMac
iMacintosh G4 - can't really throw away such a known brand can we?
Macintosh G5 - for the 970 powered boxes
for portables....
PowerBook G3 - for the iBook
PowerBook G4 - duh...
PowerPad G4 - for this tablet thing
and lastly for the top, top end...
XServe - duh...
XStation - for the mighty 970 powered video/media/3d top beast
Simplicity and a recogntion of the fact that it's Macintosh, the platform.
Originally posted by CubeDude
Off-topic.
What does the G in Gx stand for?
Generation.
Originally posted by gorebug:
Test drive the new Apple M Series:
M1
M2(dual)
M4(quad)
The Apple M1
That is quite funny for us Brits (it is the main motorway through England).
The Apple XI - 'ours go up to eleven'.
[I have no sensible suggestions I am afraid - that is why I am not paid for my ideas]
We have
- iPod
- eMac
- iMac
- iBook
- Xserve
- Xserve Raid
...
without any addition.
So, why don't just drop the G-thing and leave them simple like the others?
- Power Mac
- PowerBook
Just my idea.
Originally posted by DaveLee
The Apple M1
That is quite funny for us Brits (it is the main motorway through England).
The Apple XI - 'ours go up to eleven'.
[I have no sensible suggestions I am afraid - that is why I am not paid for my ideas]
Don't knock it though....M for Macintosh....
Originally posted by amarone
So, why don't just drop the G-thing and leave them simple like the others?
- Power Mac
- PowerBook
Just my idea.
I like it! Thats what I'm trying to get across: KISS! Keep it Simple, Stupid
Originally posted by Robster:
Don't knock it though....M for Macintosh....
No, I know. And I didn't mean to sound rude. It just conjours up some bad associations (and probably not just for me).
My vote goes with maintaining the simple 'PowerMac' branding and dropping the 'G4'.
Originally posted by robster
I like it! Thats what I'm trying to get across: KISS! Keep it Simple, Stupid
That is way to simple to make its way trough Apples PR-dep!
Jobs: "And here is the new PowerMac ........? And by the way, it has this new ultra fast processor...."
It takes a long time to get this type of recognition, they have worked hard at it
iMac
Powerbook
iBook
PowerMac
eMac
they have defined the market by this simple designations for each market type
they might modifiy something like
Powermac 64, or g5 whatever but the names will remain. why cause confusion
just by the name you know what market and who uses it.
Power users
education
consumer line
it's simple, effective, and easy to remember.
the names will stay how come this wasn't an option in the poll.
look at all the confusion with intel p4 p4m pm bm, celeron, they are so confusing try and have a circuit city or bestbuy salesdroid explain these things. my nephew just wanted a laptop to play games, he bought 3 laptops and returned them all because the way the chip has or has to share video memory matters for full screen vs small screen and actiion. what a mess. we call HP and the service guy explained it. apple don't do this, straight easy simple.