Her'e's a thought

*l++

Imagine:



No new PowerMacs at MacWorld. Apple decides that it will follow AMD's example and give names to its processors that matches their supposed speed. Hence the 733, 800 and 867 PowerMacs are renamed the G5 1200, 1400 and 1600.



How does it feel ?

ghost_user_name

Whatever.

cdhostage

Maybe. I sincerely hope Apple doesn't go to a meaningless nmbering scheme like the old Power Macs. Apparently this thread is about names rather than predictions.



Here goes (note that I also do NOT predict the advent of the G5)



Power Macintosh G4s of appropriately higher clockspeeds

New form iMacs, perhaps with a new name. iMac 2? HiMac?

Powerbook G4 (this one is getting harder to speed up without sacrificing battery time)

iBook

eman

That could be a good idea. It might shut people up about the whole MHz myth.

nathan22t

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

<strong>That could be a good idea. It might shut people up about the whole MHz myth.</strong><hr></blockquote>



Or it could catch Apple alot of crap from the industry, Mac and PC fans alike. AMD did it, but I feel Apple would not be taken as kindly if they did something similar. I'm hoping a 1.6 G5 will be able to speak for its self.

*l++

Well, this was more a than anything else. I actually do believe in a real G5 being introduced next week. That leaves the issue that no matter what the speed, the GHz rating of the chip wil remain lower than the P4. AMD's new naming convention would be problematic for Apple - they do not want to be compared to PCs. I think the better recognized benchmark they could work with are the SPEC int/fp benchmarks. While far from accurate (they are CPU benchmarks more than system benchmarks) the supposedly stellar SPEC ratings of the G5 would for the first time give them some amunition no PC zealot could deny.

jeromba

They must talk in Gigaflops...

Mine is 11.8