PDA

View Full Version : It's unanimous. Bloggers hate 'MacBook Pro' name


MacBytes
Jan 14, 2006, 04:10 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Hardware
Link: It's unanimous. Bloggers hate 'MacBook Pro' name (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060114171033)
Description:: For all the excitement surrounding Apple Computer's first Intel-based computers, which CEO Steve Jobs announced Tuesday at Macworld 2006, there's been a surprising amount of attention focused on analyzing the name of the newest line of laptops, the MacBook Pro.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by arn

Mitthrawnuruodo
Jan 14, 2006, 04:20 PM
Well, the examples in that "article" may not have been written by the sharpest knives in the drawer... :rolleyes:

The one from Breaking Windows even has the misconseption that "Power" in PowerBook has something to do with the "Power" in Power PC... :rolleyes:

I think MacBook Pro (and later an introduction of a plain MacBook or a MackBook Mini or whatever) is a very good move by Apple... :)

Now don't make me start a blog just to state that... :p

PlaceofDis
Jan 14, 2006, 04:21 PM
its just a name that we aren't used to yet. give it time and it will come as naturally as PowerBook.

while i'm not fond of the new name, i totally understand the direction Apple is going with it.

nagromme
Jan 14, 2006, 04:32 PM
I like the name PowerBook better.

I'm used to it.

But MacBook is equally good and I'll get used to that too.

MacBook has a very important advantage: it has "Mac" in it. There truly are a lot of people who don't know what a PowerBook is, or that it is compatible with Macs. They know what a Mac is though--in general terms.

Unifiying all Macs together at last is a good move.

As for the "Pro"--seems silly and unnecessary. Except, of course, that it's necessary! It means more MacBooks will be coming.

Think how silly "iPod Mini" would have sounded for the FIRST iPod. But it makes sense because there are more than one iPod.

I can easily see there being several different MacBook names, not just "Pro" and "regular." Just like we have iPod Shuffle and Nano.

Maybe:

* MacBook Express - thin, light ultraportable

* MacBook or MacBook Something - 13" primary iBook replacement

* MacBook Pro in 13" and 15" sizes

* MacBook Pro HD in 17" or 20" size

Mord
Jan 14, 2006, 04:33 PM
what did people think when apple changed their desktop name from mac II to power macintosh? it probable annoyed them, although i was in the "wtf, thats a stupid name|" crowd, and to a degree still am it's growing on me/

iGary
Jan 14, 2006, 04:34 PM
The name is as lame as the chip inside it.

Mord
Jan 14, 2006, 04:44 PM
so you'd rather see apple get owned by intels conroe based cpu's in the next couple of years untill apple is forced to make a switch much less gracefully than they are now.

architecture does not matter now, intels dident beat RISC they joined it, newer intel chips are essentially RISC designs with hardware emulation and now intel is not clock speed mad they can really start to own everyone elce useing their size and R&D budget to make some kick ass chips, not just add clock speed to the ****** P4.

Lacero
Jan 14, 2006, 04:45 PM
iPod nano sounded pretty dumb, but it's okay now.

MacBook Pro sounds pretty dumb too, but it's perhaps more natural than PowerBook.Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

iGary
Jan 14, 2006, 04:46 PM
so you'd rather see apple get owned by intels conroe based cpu's in the next couple of years untill apple is forced to make a switch much less gracefully than they are now.

architecture does not matter now, intels dident beat RISC they joined it, newer intel chips are essentially RISC designs with hardware emulation and now intel is not clock speed mad they can really start to own everyone elce useing their size and R&D budget to make some kick ass chips, not just add clock speed to the ****** P4.

Freescale has a dual core G4 chip, and you don't see anyone bitching about the Quad.

2nyRiggz
Jan 14, 2006, 04:55 PM
like i said several "MBP lame name" threads ago....its a name that will take some getting use to but we will.

i dont like it much but it already settled in so whatever!


Bless

grapes911
Jan 14, 2006, 04:59 PM
I just hope they don't release a "MacBook Home". It will remind me too much of XP Home/Pro.

PlaceofDis
Jan 14, 2006, 05:02 PM
I just hope they don't release a "MacBook Home". It will remind me too much of XP Home/Pro.

i doubt they would ever make that mistake, but if they do. :eek: shame on Apple.

ethernet76
Jan 14, 2006, 05:09 PM
Freescale has a dual core G4 chip, and you don't see anyone bitching about the Quad.

I do however see everyone bitching about missed deadlines and slight performance increases.

2 ghz to 2.5 dual cores in three years? No G5 laptop? IBM wasn't ever suited to supply Apple with the kind of chips they would have liked at the pace they would have liked. Intel and AMD are really the only two suited for the job.

The G4 has been a crappy chip for a long time. To claim the dual core G4 might actually make a decent computer is laughable. Apple has been getting killed on the portables. There about as good as celerons.

I love my powerbook, but my sister's AMD notebook crushed it. It was kind of pathetic. Hopefully with these new chips, the level of disparity between Apple desktops and portables won't be that great anymore.

Spanky Deluxe
Jan 14, 2006, 05:11 PM
* MacBook Pro HD in 17" or 20" size

Are you serious?? A 20" laptop?? Nevermind a desktop replacement, that would be a DESK replacement!!

Essefgy
Jan 14, 2006, 05:11 PM
Big deal. MacBook is not only a perfectly good name, it was pretty much inevitable.

Mord
Jan 14, 2006, 05:27 PM
Freescale has a dual core G4 chip, and you don't see anyone bitching about the Quad.

freescale is still sampling them and wont ship in quantitiy for a long long time, also they were not suited for apple use, not enough pcie lanes, and the G4 core was virtually unchanged just a new bus and dual cores, the G5 i have no issue with as it stands, but in Q4 intel will launch covertown a quad core yonah based xeon 64-bit, SMP, 8MB L2 cache 2MB per core, one of those will outperform a current quad by a fair margin even if IBM got the dual core 970 to 3GHz it wouldent be able to compete.

if you've read my posts before i've aruged endlessly for the G5, sure it could have gone in the powerbook, but it'd just get owned by yonah, the G5 is competitive now sure and it's a good investment to buy one now but apple made the right call switching when it did because over the next yeah intel will be getting up to speed and apple wants to get on the train when it makes sense, not two years down the line when it's back at 1.5% market share.

if intel was going to own the G5 in 2005 apple would have switched earlier, they dident, everyone knows the P4 sucks ass now is the time to switch as intel transitions the desktop and server to a sensible architecture, if IBM had the R&D budget on the G5 that intel does on conroe it'd surely be just as fast if not faster, but they dont have the architecture advantage anymore seeing as at hearth everything is RISC these days or the intel MHz addiction advantage anymore.

now quit your whineing have fun with your mac just as you would and maybe santa will bring you a 8 core 3GHz intel mac for christmas 06.

KREX725
Jan 14, 2006, 05:30 PM
I remember the same discussions when an odd looking Mac was debuted years ago, but most people came to love the iMac...and iBook...and iTunes...and iPod...etc, etc.

Give it time, people. Does anyone actually expect Apple to be like, "Whoa, let's strip the name before the next variations come out"? Just like any other change to Apple's line, it will go like that comic that was posted awhile back (after the announce of the Intel chips) where the Mac fans go through outrage, disappointment, acceptance, and finally excitement.

Personally, they can call it anything they want as long as it actually rocks with OSX like they claim.

redAPPLE
Jan 14, 2006, 06:14 PM
The name is as lame as the chip inside it.

i second that, sir.

redAPPLE
Jan 14, 2006, 06:17 PM
i doubt they would ever make that mistake, but if they do. :eek: shame on Apple.

well, they removed the modem in that new intel notebook of theirs... this might not seem to be too far fetched.

Fredo Viola
Jan 14, 2006, 07:01 PM
i second that, sir.
what's lame about the chip?

iMeowbot
Jan 14, 2006, 07:18 PM
i second that, sir.
So what would you have called it, the EmesisBook? :confused:

solvs
Jan 14, 2006, 08:17 PM
Yeah, the name sucks. But really, who cares? It's just a computer people.

Peace
Jan 14, 2006, 08:19 PM
It's a Mac..

A Mac's a Mac is a Mac..

Mac Mac Mac..

Get used to it.We've been calling them Mac's for years..:rolleyes:

Heck...This site is even called "MAC"rumors!

macnulty
Jan 14, 2006, 08:20 PM
I would have preferrd "Mactop". :D

sjk
Jan 14, 2006, 10:20 PM
* MacBook Pro HD in 17" or 20" sizeAlthough I would like it maybe MacBook Extreme would be a more fitting name for a 20".

DrNeroCF
Jan 15, 2006, 01:07 AM
I personally think that having iBooks and ProBooks would be nice.

Then again, ProBook sounds like a great nickname for MacBook Pro.

And for all those dissing the processors, are you getting 100 fps in WoW with settings maxed out? What about on your PowerBook? 10 fps you say? :D

2 cores with the same battery life as the old ppcs? And it's thinner? And enough room left over for a decent video card finally?

And we get them NOW instead of waiting for Freescale to actually make these mythical procs with the same old FSB?

Now, what's wrong with these processors again? :rolleyes:

Abstract
Jan 15, 2006, 01:17 AM
MacTop Pro. Better name, non? Oui?

24C
Jan 15, 2006, 02:43 AM
MacTop Pro. Better name, non? Oui?
Definitely non... Not so fussed about the new name, but I had a PowerBook before, so I'm biased, and it felt like it was old hat as soon as Steve uttered those new words...aaaargh, but the truth is the PB was old hat.

Time for me to get real and wake up:)

greatdevourer
Jan 15, 2006, 03:17 AM
2 cores with the same battery life as the old ppcs? And it's thinner? And enough room left over for a decent video card finally? It's not that there's "not enough room", but that Apple didn't upgrade it. Also, the MBPs use more power than the PBs, so while they get more "performace per watt" (by the way, what the hell is a "performance"? Because, apparently, the MBP get's a whole 10.32 Performace per watt. Call me mad, but wtf are they on about?), they're hungry chips.

I do however see everyone bitching about missed deadlines and slight performance increases.

2 ghz to 2.5 dual cores in three years? No G5 laptop? IBM wasn't ever suited to supply Apple with the kind of chips they would have liked at the pace they would have liked. Intel and AMD are really the only two suited for the job.

The G4 has been a crappy chip for a long time. To claim the dual core G4 might actually make a decent computer is laughable. Apple has been getting killed on the portables. There about as good as celerons.

I love my powerbook, but my sister's AMD notebook crushed it. It was kind of pathetic. Hopefully with these new chips, the level of disparity between Apple desktops and portables won't be that great anymore. This isn't entirely IBMs fault - they were spending a lot of time dealing with M$, Sony and Nintendo getting the consoles ready, hence the lack of progress with the 970. It's not that IBM couldn't do it, but that their time was taken up with other people. The reason Intel and AMD did it is because who in their right mind would stick one of their chips in a games console (don't say origional XBox - that scraped it's lead over the other 2 because it had double the clock speed)

Are you serious?? A 20" laptop?? Nevermind a desktop replacement, that would be a DESK replacement!! Someone made a custom 21" out of the guts of a 17", a 21" LCD and a custom-made aluminium case.

lexfuzo
Jan 15, 2006, 05:09 AM
"MacBook Con" - now THAT would be it! :cool:

nagromme
Jan 15, 2006, 09:02 AM
Freescale has a dual core G4 chip, and you don't see anyone bitching about the Quad.
Do two G4 cores outrun Core Duo?

Can Freescale supply dual core G4s in large quantities?

Can Freescale supply another big leap forward later this year to match Intel Merom?

The G5 is a great chip, and a quad PowerMac is a great system today--but can IBM deliver another big leap forward later this year to match a quad Intel Conroe?

Do IBM and Freescale even WANT to stay in the personal computer processor business at all?

The above answers range from "no" to "highly unlikely."


Are you serious?? A 20" laptop?? Nevermind a desktop replacement, that would be a DESK replacement!!
It's unlikely, but it's just within the realm of possibility: 20" laptop prototypes and laptop screen components have been shown by other companies. Sounds too big to be portable, but don't forget the "desktop replacement" niche: big superthick Windows laptops that aren't meant to travel often, but are portable. A thin superwide MacBook could serve the same way. And since it's a long shot anyway... I'll speculate that there would be room for quad cores :) The extra Core Duo would just shut off during battery use. Just a thought :)