Does anyone else not like the new "Mac" computer names? [Archive]

mozmac

May 25, 2006, 04:08 AM

I would like to know if there are others out there that do not like the new names Apple has given to the Intel Macs. If you feel the same, please post here and hopefully we can help Apple understand that their customers despise the new names.

Do this test: Say..."Powerbook" then say..."MacBook Pro"
Which one rolls off the tongue better? Which one sounds like a computer that a real professional would use? Which one sounds like it's trying to pose as a professional computer, when really it says "Tyco" underneath?

Do another test: Say..."Power Mac" then say "Mac Pro"
Which one rolls off the tongue better? Which would you rather tell people you have at your desk in your office? Which one sounds like it is the followup to the original 1984 Macintosh?

Develop your owns tests for others to use to see how they feel about the new names. I think the word "power" has helped give the Power Mac and Powerbook it's high-quality feel. Who cares what processor is inside. You're Apple...you can name it whatever the heck you feel like naming it.

mozmac: "Power"
Phil Schiller: "OOOOooo....say it again."
mozmac: "Power, power, power!"
Jobs: "I told you never to use that name ever again!"
(If you didn't follow that quote, watch the Lion King again.)

Blue Velvet

May 25, 2006, 04:17 AM

Although I agree with you to some extent, I think the thinking is to more clearly differentiate the lines in many consumer's minds. It's a more descriptive title and is a clear marketing strategy that probably has been tested on a number of focus groups heavily biased towards switchers.

I've stood next to people in John Lewis (UK dept. store) looking at G5 dual 2.5 PowerMacs saying that Macs were way too expensive when you really suspect what they probably needed was a Mini or iMac.

So what it does is reorient consumers who are unfamiliar with Macs and position the Mini and the iMac as the machines for everyday use and the Mac(Book)Pros as the pro's choice, setting them above the midrange and marking them out as a little special.

reflex

May 25, 2006, 04:46 AM

A rose by any other name...

NewSc2

May 25, 2006, 06:09 AM

big macs..

risc

May 25, 2006, 06:24 AM

Can't say I care I just call them "Macs" when I say "Where the hell is my Mac?" at work people know I'm waiting for a MacBook Pro. I actually like the MacBook (Pro) name, Mac Pro though sounds a bit lame though since there isn't a "Mac" that it is the Pro version of.

MACDRIVE

May 25, 2006, 06:38 AM

First of all this is how you write PowerBook. :) To answer your question; I think the new names are fine. What was always confusing to me was; iMac and iBook. When I first got into Macs, I would always get those two names confused. :)

SpookTheHamster

May 25, 2006, 07:09 AM

I've always wondered why they didn't put the "Pro" at the beginning of the name. "ProMac" sounds so much better than "MacPro"

Blue Velvet

May 25, 2006, 07:11 AM

I've always wondered why they didn't put the "Pro" at the beginning of the name. "ProMac" sounds so much better than "MacPro"

Maybe this (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=promac&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off) is why.

Like the top highlighted entry BTW. :)

AlBDamned

May 25, 2006, 07:54 AM

I've always wondered why they didn't put the "Pro" at the beginning of the name. "ProMac" sounds so much better than "MacPro"

I like what someone suggested on here a while back, "Macintosh Pro" but they'd never go for it now as too many people would be like "what the hell's a Macintosh?" and it doesn't fit with everything else.

ProMac does sound like a painkiller and it doesn't fit with MacBook Pro which under this terminology would be Pro MacBook, right? (This sounds like a book about painkillers...).

BV is right, the Pro monikers do differentiate whereas before this wasn't the case.

Power Mac, in light of the new names, does sound a bit 90's, as does iMac, which increasingly, I feel they might drop with the next design, although it does mac a nice link to the iPod but that's a product that overrides (and is completely separate to) the whole "Mac" thing anyway.

Thus, the line up in the future (based on just current models) looks like this:

Mac mini

Mac

MacBook

Mac Pro

MacBook Pro

It makes sense. Looking at it like that though, Mac Pro is definitely the weakest name.

I love rambling....

MacBoyX

May 25, 2006, 08:09 AM

The new naming convention did not start with the Intel based Macs. Let us not forget that the Mac mini name debuted long before we knew of any Intel based Macs.

I for one couldn't care less. I did say PowerBook and MacBook Pro and they both roll off fine. It's just a matter of getting used to something different.

I do also like the fact that they've used a different name to really differentiate the products. Also I agree with Steve Jobs that every Mac should have the word Mac in it. I have had quite a few WINDOWS folks who didn't realise an iBook was a Mac.

In a year... none of the names will be strange, they'll be common place.

macboyX

Legacy

May 25, 2006, 08:54 AM

Yeah, the old names were better but you know...

The Mac Pro and Mac Mini are going to be the Pro/Consumer line-up for Apple...there will be no 'Mac'. I'd expect all the minis to sport Dual processors by August, with the Mini raising the stakes to 1.83/2Ghz Core Duos. My ideal lineup for the mini would be:

1.83GHz CD/Combo/512MB/60GB etc $599/£399 (Mini will drop in price in the UK like the MacBook Pro)

2GHz CD/Super/512MB/80GB etc $799/£549

Mac Pro:

2.67GHz C2D Conroe/200GB/Radeon X1600 128MB etc $1999

2x Faster than the PowerMac G5 2Ghz

2.93GHz C2D Conroe/300GB/Radeon X1600 256MB etc $2499

2.5x Faster than the PowerMac G5 2.3Ghz

3GHz C2D Woodcrest Quad/300GB/Radeon X1800 256MB etc $3499

2.5x Faster than the PowerMac G5 Quad

(Hopefully)

mpw

May 25, 2006, 08:57 AM

...Thus, the line up in the future (based on just current models) looks like this:

Mac mini

Mac

MacBook

Mac Pro

MacBook Pro...

I kinda agree the new naming method will make it simpler for less knowledgable consumers to navigate around Apple's product range

If it runs on the Mac OS it'll have Mac in the name and if it's high end it'll be a Pro machine obviously we'll need to know whether it's a notebook so those will be Books giving as you've said;
Mac mini
Mac (I think they'll drop the i from iMac)
MacBook
Mac Pro
MacBook Pro

I think that part of this could be to allow the seperation of the 'i' brand from MacOSX.

This would allow iLife to become cross-platform and make way for an iHome media centre that played nice with MS Windows or free to avoid connection to any PC which might please the Movie studios etc. The iPhone will need to iSync to any platform as would any iPDA that wasn't running a full version of MacOSX.

I imagine that all 'i' branded products would work seamlessly with OSX but would be one step removed from it not to discourage a Windows user to consider it. Obviously the iPod/iTunes already fit this scheme and the iPod will likely form the basis of any iPhone/iPDA/iSight portable etc.

Imagine a Nokia N93 branded as an Apple iPhone, it could serve as iPhone/iPod/iSight portable/iPDA and come with iLife for Windows (or Mac) or just iSync striaght to your iHome media centre.

Vaphoron

May 25, 2006, 09:03 AM

Well, my opinion is this. Mac Pro SUCKS! MacBook is ok and MacBook Pro has grown on me a little but still sucks compared to PowerBook. There, I said it. Mac Pro SUCKS!

wordmunger

May 25, 2006, 09:04 AM

Mac mini
Mac (I think they'll drop the i from iMac)
MacBook
Mac Pro
MacBook Pro

Sounds about right, but I disagree about dropping the i from iMac. They want people to think of the iMac as the computer that goes with the iPod.

cubist

May 25, 2006, 09:06 AM

AlBDamned

May 25, 2006, 09:15 AM

They want people to think of the iMac as the computer that goes with the iPod.

I'm split on this. On one hand yes it's the computer that goes with the iPod.

But, the iPod's a standalone Apple product and the majority of people that have an iPod actually use a Windows computer with it. The link between iPod and iMac may actually be a negative as people link the two and are scared off ("don't you need a Mac for an iPod?")

And, the "i" in iMac doesn't fit with anything other than iPod, iLife and iMac, but maybe that's the whole point. :confused:

Then again, where does the "MacBook" stand? Maybe they realised they simply couldn't call it the "iMacBook" because that truly is a terrible name so MacBook it is and we'll keep iMac as iMac. It's too much of a [brand]name to give away. Or is it? Would the majority of people care if the name iMac disappeared?

The names are fine with me. It's the Intel CPUs I can't stand... and the fact that they won't run Classic apps. Apple's taken off the mask and spit in the face of loyal users. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Go to the vendor and ask them to make a UB? OK, then, where's the UB of Apple HyperCard?

What do you really, honestly need classic for these days anyway?

mpw

May 25, 2006, 09:19 AM

The names are fine with me. It's the Intel CPUs I can't stand... and the fact that they won't run Classic apps. Apple's taken off the mask and spit in the face of loyal users. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Go to the vendor and ask them to make a UB? OK, then, where's the UB of Apple HyperCard?
I don't see any problem with Apple not supporting software written for an OS last sold, what 6years ago with new machines.

You don't HAVE to buy a new machine, surely if you are happy using six year old software on a current machine they shold be happy with that performance in another 4-5years at which point the software is a decade old. I think it's fair that decade old software can be considered 'past-it', is Windows95 still credible software?

mpw

May 25, 2006, 09:22 AM

...Would the majority of people care if the name iMac disappeared?...
*chanting*
Poll
Poll
Poll

dylanemcgregor

May 25, 2006, 09:35 AM

I think it's fair that decade old software can be considered 'past-it', is Windows95 still credible software?

I still run DOS software from the late 80's on my XP machine. Runs just fine.

AlBDamned

May 25, 2006, 09:40 AM

*chanting*
Poll
Poll
Poll

Done. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=203793) ;)

ncook06

May 25, 2006, 09:40 AM

I personally think they needed a name change. You're ushering in a new era of Macs - leaving PowerPC behind. Yes, I liked the old names better, but they needed to change.

cubist

May 25, 2006, 09:43 AM

Anyone who touts it as an advantage to not be able to run older software is deranged. This is not progress at all. Computers of the future will be able to run any program ever written for any platform - that is progress. To not be able to run older programs, especially those specifically written for your own platform, is not progress.

I have a LOT of applications software for the Mac, which I have bought over the last ten years or so. None of it would run on an Intel Mac. Apple is telling me, and my money, to go away. Fine, I will. I won't buy any Intel Macs. Is this a good thing for Apple? for me? for the community? One thing it's definitely NOT is user-friendly. Or progress.

AlBDamned

May 25, 2006, 09:50 AM

timswim78

May 25, 2006, 10:00 AM

I was really hoping that the laptops would be called, "Macintosh Laptop Computer, Professional Edition" and "Macintosh Laptop Computer, Consumer Edition."

Cloudgazer

May 25, 2006, 10:06 AM

I don't really have a problem with the new names.
But
(never forget the 'but')

I feel that there is not enough name differentiation between MacBook and MacBook Pro.
At least with iBook and Powerbook they were two distinct lines.

I quite liked the iBook name as i associated it with the other consumer products iPod, iLife, iMac, iWorks, etc.

Macmadant

May 25, 2006, 11:42 AM

No i don't like them, you can't really tell the difference between pro and consumer, as the "i" was consumer the "power" was pro:confused:

cubist

May 25, 2006, 11:49 AM

So what would you have done?

I would have made Classic work on the Intel Macs, of course. Why not?

I've thought about Apple's excuses for not providing Classic compatibility - and that's all they are, excuses. Apple must provide ROI to the stockholders, for example; it's not cost-effective to provide backward-compatibility. Perhaps not. But so what? Nobody is forcing Apple to make this transition at all, let alone to do so in such a brutal fashion.

It's eye-opening to perceive how Apple has treated their user base in comparison to how Microsoft has treated theirs. Microsoft may be a gorilla, but Apple has become a snake.

(edit) So why am I still here? ... Why, indeed. :-(

littletee

May 25, 2006, 12:26 PM

obviously
"a clear marketing strategy" that will have to try very hard not to sound clunky. But we are all suckers for advertising and our tastes will change

mpw

May 25, 2006, 12:48 PM

Anyone who touts it as an advantage to not be able to run older software is deranged...
I agree.

...This is not progress at all...
I disagree, if I understand you right.

...Computers of the future will be able to run any program ever written for any platform...
I very much doubt it.

... - that is progress...
It's an ideal, but it still almost certainly will never happen. Do you think that future Apples or Dells will revert to accepting data from tapes or punch cards?

...To not be able to run older programs, especially those specifically written for your own platform, is not progress...
But the platform has changed so should OSX run programs written for other discontinued platforms such as Atari's? or Altair?

...I have a LOT of applications software for the Mac, which I have bought over the last ten years or so. None of it would run on an Intel Mac...
What software written for a current OS, either Mac or MS Windows, in the last 5years won't run on the Intel Macs?

...Apple is telling me, and my money, to go away...
No, Apple's trying to get you to upgrade so it can have more of your money. If you're happy with you ten-year old software stick with any Mac from this time last year or better still grab a current PowerMac and you'll be good for years yet.

...I won't buy any Intel Macs. Is this a good thing for Apple?...
No.
...for me?...
Your call but from what you're saying your software won't work so keeping a system is does work on makes more sense for you than buying a system it won't work on so I'm gonna say, Yes.

...for the community?...
Can you do good work that benefits anyone on your current system? If so then, Yes. If not and you'd be able to on a new Mac then, No.

...One thing it's definitely NOT is user-friendly. Or progress.
If you choose not to progress you can't blame Apple or anyone else. You not having to do anything doesn't sound un-friendly to me.

QCassidy352

May 25, 2006, 01:15 PM

No, I don't like the new names. I really liked the i/power distinction. Now they all sound too alike, and clunky/awkward to boot. Oh well, given the speed increases we've seen, it's worth it.

As for supporting very old software, I don't have a problem with apple not doing it. It would be nice if they did, but anything more than 5 years old is fair game to drop support for, IMO. If you're happy with older hardware and software, as many people are, then so much the better for you. But apple's decision to drop classic support makes sense from a business standpoint, and apple is a business.

dpaanlka

May 25, 2006, 01:21 PM

too many people would be like "what the hell's a Macintosh?"

I generally refer to them as "Macintosh" rather than "Mac" but I'm old skool like that.

"Look at my new Macintosh?"
"Don't touch my Macintosh"
"This is a Power Macintosh G4"
"Go buy a Macintosh!"

Everybody seems to know what I'm talking about.

dpaanlka

May 25, 2006, 01:24 PM

It's eye-opening to perceive how Apple has treated their user base in comparison to how Microsoft has treated theirs. Microsoft may be a gorilla, but Apple has become a snake.

The fact that Windows essentially works with every version of every PC software title ever written since DOS 1.0, on thousands of different types of machines from hundreds of vendors is the very reason why Windows is not elegant or user friendly or seamlessly integrated to anythng.

I personally do not understand what you're complaining about. How much faster do you want to run that old software from 1998? Why don't you just keep the Mac you have now, which I'm sure runs that software much faster than it was ever intended, as a second computer whose sole purpose is to run that software? Does buying a new Intel Mac automatically mean you must set fire to your existing system and toss it out the window?

Mac (I think they'll drop the i from iMac)

I really doubt it. One other factor that nobody mentioned is how synonomous "iMac" is with the Macintosh platform. Almost everybody I know that doesn't know anything about Macs refers to all Macs as iMacs.

mozmac

May 25, 2006, 02:43 PM

Wow, a lot of people have replied to this post. Awesome

I totally agree with the i/Power naming model. I thought it was great. It provided a great distinction between consumer and pro models. Just adding "Pro" onto MacBook makes it sound like you're getting a slight upgrade from a MacBook, when really you're getting an entirely different computer. I might even go as far to say that adding "Pro" to a computer name sounds like Apple's taking a page out of Microsoft's book....which isn't a good thing here.

I'm all for them coming up with a new naming stucture for their amazing new computers, but I do not like the one they've come up with. I think Apple is far too creative to stick with these crappy names.

Give consumers some credit. Three years ago, before Apple was a household name, of course people wouldn't know what an iBook and PowerBook were. However, now that people know a lot more about Apple, they are beginning to understand. Having a name like "PowerBook" helps them feel like they are part of an elite group, like they really understand. Whereas "MacBook Pro" is so obvious that any joe schmoe on the street knows what you're talking about. What's the fun in that?

If anyone has eaten at In-N-Out burger and knows about their "secret menu" (animal style, flying dutchman, etc), you'll know what I'm talking about here.

mozmac

May 25, 2006, 02:45 PM

By the way, it just occurred to me that I often don't even refer to the PowerMac G5 by its name. Usually when I'm talking to people, Mac User or not, I just say "G5." They often use the same name. So even if Apple does go with the horrid name of "Mac Pro" maybe they'll give us something cool like "G5" to go by so we don't have to be embarassed all the time. :rolleyes:

AlBDamned

May 25, 2006, 03:35 PM

justin216

May 25, 2006, 03:52 PM

All software comes and goes with time; you cannot progress with an OS and keep everything 100% compatible with what it had before. Xbox 360 can't play all Xbox games perfectly, PS2 can't play all PS1 games perfectly. Same thing applies to an OS.

For example, I have many apps and games that ran just fine on Windows 95, but they do not run well/at all on my Windows XP box. Do I blame MS? Heck no! It is now a more robust OS, and although it has its own problems, it is substantially better than 95. Vista comes out before too long, likely early next year, and I can guarantee there are some apps that simply won't work with the new architecture without a patch.

Same concept applies to Mac OS. Classic was not cost effective to keep implimented, and with the current architecture with the new chips, would have cost substantial money to give acceptable emulation for these applications. I'd much rather Apple pour R&D money into something for the future, rather than trying to support 5+ year old applications.