You've convinced me. G6 is the way to go, no question. We can reinvent G6 to mean "6th Generation Mac": G1=68K, G2=PPC601/604, G3=PPC750, G4=Altivec, G5=970, G6=Intel x86.
Well, as a mere Apple consumer I completely disagree. A friend of mine at uni, a Mac convert told me he'd heard Apple wasn't going for the G6 anymore purely on the Intel rumour. Now, whatever the arguments on semantics and generations, for him - and I'd agree with him, inspite of the lack of G6 - 'G' is integraly associated with another chip, you think 'G' you think back compatible - so you buy software for G4 or G5 and you think it'll work: it will, be its not native.
Perhaps I've been brainwashed by AI hype but I'm excited by Apple's move to Intel (partly for the tragic reason that I'll be able to play Grand Prix Manager!) but also because it suggests an embrace with the mainstream, whilst maintaining Apple idelaism - or to be more precise, a move that nods further to all those possible Mac converts who are put off by price, performance (in all its guises) and who will be comforted by the Intel brand name.
Either its just an iBook, iMac, Powerbook etc or it needs to have an Intel demarcation.
I wonder if Steve Jobs ever reads these things just to laugh at the goofy speculation. Who cares what it is called, or if it has a sticker or not... in 6 months you all will buy one anyway ~ even if it does have a sticker.
I wonder if Steve Jobs ever reads these things just to laugh at the goofy speculation. Who cares what it is called, or if it has a sticker or not... in 6 months you all will buy one anyway ~ even if it does have a sticker.
Totally.
Who gives a crap about integrity? Bring on the advertising revenue!
A negative side effect of referring to Intel in the naming, could be that some people think that Macs run PC software, which they won't out of the box. That would lead to needless disappointments.
This is a strong argument indeed. I've never thought of that.
It makes perfect sense (for Apple) to not promote *intel* too much,
As far as OS 11, I don't think its ever going to happen. ... 2011 - 10.8 ... But I am a little befuddled as to what by then could be added to opperating systems. Most improvements I see are hardware, or software directly related to hardware outside of the next 3-5 years.
Well, outside of the obvious things which Mac OS X still is missing, like display scalability and complete configurability (like, being able to not have the dock at all), there is a lot which can be added. For example, support for distributed computing, so that jobs can be managed transparently across multiple computers. Transparent on-demand virtualization, so an application can think it's running in Windows when, in fact, only as much of Windows has been synthesized to support it. Remote desktops (on iPods?) with secure private tunneling. Built-in VOIP support, and routeable audio/video.
I hope that Apple will not simply keep bundling more applications, as Microsoft has been doing, without improving the OS functionality.
As for the versions, I suspect Apple will pull a "Solaris" and start calling the OS "Mac OS X 5", "Mac OS X 6", and so on. The "10." stuff will be forgotten.
I agree that G6 might be a good name for the Intel-based Macs, but IT WON'T HAPPEN, at least not at first.
There's a really simple and logical reason: They are going to update the consumer line with Intel first, leaving the G5 in the PowerMac lineup. You wouldn't want people thinking that the consumer products are more powerful or a full 'generation' ahead of the PowerMac.
In addition, it's not clear that the initial introduction of Intel chips will be a true 'generation' ahead of the G5, as the G5 was over the G4. Apple won't herald something as the 'next generation' if it doesn't have the performance to match.
NOW, think about this. The CONSUMER line is updated first with Intel. Consumer products are (for the most part) designated by the i preceding the product name i-Mac, i-Book. Seems to me that Apple has an easy way to use that i in the product name...
Keep calling the iMac the i-Mac. The iBook the i-Book. Eventually the PowerMac G5 becomes the PowerMac Duo. Or the entire product line up retains the existing names and Apple just begins using i1, or i6 for the processor. i comes after g in the alphabet, so it would be consistent.
Either way, the core product names won't change, but I suspect form factor/looks will to help consumers understand the 'difference' of the new systems. The whole idea of running Windows natively on a separate partition of the HD will be BIG for Apple. The final strike in welcoming the world to convert. Try us, if you don't like it you can always just use Windows...But you WILL like us.
Comments
Originally posted by cubist
You've convinced me. G6 is the way to go, no question. We can reinvent G6 to mean "6th Generation Mac": G1=68K, G2=PPC601/604, G3=PPC750, G4=Altivec, G5=970, G6=Intel x86.
Well, as a mere Apple consumer I completely disagree. A friend of mine at uni, a Mac convert told me he'd heard Apple wasn't going for the G6 anymore purely on the Intel rumour. Now, whatever the arguments on semantics and generations, for him - and I'd agree with him, inspite of the lack of G6 - 'G' is integraly associated with another chip, you think 'G' you think back compatible - so you buy software for G4 or G5 and you think it'll work: it will, be its not native.
Perhaps I've been brainwashed by AI hype but I'm excited by Apple's move to Intel (partly for the tragic reason that I'll be able to play Grand Prix Manager!) but also because it suggests an embrace with the mainstream, whilst maintaining Apple idelaism - or to be more precise, a move that nods further to all those possible Mac converts who are put off by price, performance (in all its guises) and who will be comforted by the Intel brand name.
Either its just an iBook, iMac, Powerbook etc or it needs to have an Intel demarcation.
Mike
"CoreMac"
There I said it. As procrastinated by the Mac's new friend: Paul Thurrott on hisInternet Nexus site.
/u1
Originally posted by debenm
I wonder if Steve Jobs ever reads these things just to laugh at the goofy speculation. Who cares what it is called, or if it has a sticker or not... in 6 months you all will buy one anyway ~ even if it does have a sticker.
Totally.
Who gives a crap about integrity? Bring on the advertising revenue!
Originally posted by Doxxic
...
A negative side effect of referring to Intel in the naming, could be that some people think that Macs run PC software, which they won't out of the box. That would lead to needless disappointments.
This is a strong argument indeed. I've never thought of that.
It makes perfect sense (for Apple) to not promote *intel* too much,
just to avoid this kind of mess.
Originally posted by userone
Dare I say it...
"CoreMac"
There I said it. As procrastinated by the Mac's new friend: Paul Thurrott on hisInternet Nexus site.
/u1
This may be of some interest?
and the corresponding verbage (so far);
USPTO MACTEL documents
Originally posted by icfireball
As far as OS 11, I don't think its ever going to happen. ... 2011 - 10.8 ... But I am a little befuddled as to what by then could be added to opperating systems. Most improvements I see are hardware, or software directly related to hardware outside of the next 3-5 years.
Well, outside of the obvious things which Mac OS X still is missing, like display scalability and complete configurability (like, being able to not have the dock at all), there is a lot which can be added. For example, support for distributed computing, so that jobs can be managed transparently across multiple computers. Transparent on-demand virtualization, so an application can think it's running in Windows when, in fact, only as much of Windows has been synthesized to support it. Remote desktops (on iPods?) with secure private tunneling. Built-in VOIP support, and routeable audio/video.
I hope that Apple will not simply keep bundling more applications, as Microsoft has been doing, without improving the OS functionality.
As for the versions, I suspect Apple will pull a "Solaris" and start calling the OS "Mac OS X 5", "Mac OS X 6", and so on. The "10." stuff will be forgotten.
There's a really simple and logical reason: They are going to update the consumer line with Intel first, leaving the G5 in the PowerMac lineup. You wouldn't want people thinking that the consumer products are more powerful or a full 'generation' ahead of the PowerMac.
In addition, it's not clear that the initial introduction of Intel chips will be a true 'generation' ahead of the G5, as the G5 was over the G4. Apple won't herald something as the 'next generation' if it doesn't have the performance to match.
NOW, think about this. The CONSUMER line is updated first with Intel. Consumer products are (for the most part) designated by the i preceding the product name i-Mac, i-Book. Seems to me that Apple has an easy way to use that i in the product name...
Keep calling the iMac the i-Mac. The iBook the i-Book. Eventually the PowerMac G5 becomes the PowerMac Duo. Or the entire product line up retains the existing names and Apple just begins using i1, or i6 for the processor. i comes after g in the alphabet, so it would be consistent.
Either way, the core product names won't change, but I suspect form factor/looks will to help consumers understand the 'difference' of the new systems. The whole idea of running Windows natively on a separate partition of the HD will be BIG for Apple. The final strike in welcoming the world to convert. Try us, if you don't like it you can always just use Windows...But you WILL like us.
I'd suspect that the powerbooks will get the dual core chips, and the iBooks the single cores. So, why not:
Powerbook Dual
iBook Solo
What do you think?
David