PDA

View Full Version : What should the 970s be named?


BaghdadBob
May 11, 2003, 03:56 PM
OK, I really have no idea, but there are two trains of thought here. Mine is that you want to separate the 970 from the Pentium line and the G4 line by naming it something completely different, to say to consumers "pay attention, this is new."

Another line of thinking is that "G5" clearly denotes a generation that comes after the G4 to the consumer, and makes it look like Apple beat Pentium to "5".

To me this makes less sense because while we are still losing the GHz war, we need to make it clear that this processor is nothing like the Pentium.

What do you guys think? I'm going with "Blue" something for now...to kind of symbolize the partnership between IBM and Apple (which, like Motorola, many don't even know about)... like "Blue Bomb"....no, wait, that was a broken-down old car I used to ride in as a kid...something else...

Celebrating my 200th invaluable post! Hoo-ray!

wdlove
May 11, 2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
OK, I really have no idea, but there are two trains of thought here. Mine is that you want to separate the 970 from the Pentium line and the G4 line by naming it something completely different, to say to consumers "pay attention, this is new."

Another line of thinking is that "G5" clearly denotes a generation that comes after the G4 to the consumer, and makes it look like Apple beat Pentium to "5".

To me this makes less sense because while we are still losing the GHz war, we need to make it clear that this processor is nothing like the Pentium.

What do you guys think? I'm going with "Blue" something for now...to kind of symbolize the partnership between IBM and Apple (which, like Motorola, many don't even know about)... like "Blue Bomb"....no, wait, that was a broken-down old car I used to ride in as a kid...something else...

Celebrating my 200th invaluable post! Hoo-ray!

Congratulations BaghdadBob on your 200th post, your almost half way there! I think that it should be called the G5. The Apple community has been waiting for this release for a number of years. In the end it's the performance of the PPC 970 that the critics will judge Apple. A simpler name is much better for marketing. I would not want to go back the number naming system we had prior to Steve. Let's go with simplicity! ;)

Steradian
May 11, 2003, 04:14 PM
why can't we just call them the 970's?

solvs
May 11, 2003, 04:15 PM
What's wrong with calling it the 970?

(Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound rude. I don't know why I always sound rude when I do that)

edesignuk
May 11, 2003, 04:19 PM
I think G5 would probably be best for marketing...but that won't mean a damn thing for Apple UK if they don't get off their arse and ADVERTISE IT! Apples advertising efforts over here are nothing short of pathetic :rolleyes:

...though I have seen a *little* advertising for the new PB's, that's about it, and even those are just a few posters here an there...

BaghdadBob
May 11, 2003, 04:32 PM
The last time I saw an Apple ad Yao Ming was facing off against Shaq for the first time. So don't feel too bad.

Mr. Anderson
May 11, 2003, 04:33 PM
This was mentioned in another thread - but given that the G3 is an IBM chip, the G4 a Moto chip - there's really no reason to not have Apple say the IBM 970 be a G5.

Who knows what's going to happen - we'll all be anxiously awaiting Jobs' WWDC presentation.

And if its not a G5 then I'm going to have to redo jefhatfields 'tar...;)

D

MacFan25
May 11, 2003, 04:40 PM
I think that G5 is fine, but maybe Apple will come up with something better.

pivo6
May 11, 2003, 04:50 PM
I think that G5 is probably the best bet right now. We've just had Jaguar, nad we are waiting for Panther, and not to mention that nearly every Macintosh has had its own name (i.e. Pismo,Wallstreet...) that yet another name will just muddy up the waters too much.

iGav
May 11, 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
I think G5 would probably be best for marketing...but that won't mean a damn thing for Apple UK if they don't get off their arse and ADVERTISE IT! Apples advertising efforts over here are nothing short of pathetic :rolleyes:

...though I have seen a *little* advertising for the new PB's, that's about it, and even those are just a few posters here an there...

I agree with the G5 name... it denotes another generation machine, improved etc etc... I'm not so sure that they'll go with it though just because the G5 has been discussed for so long....

As for advertisements.... well the PowerBook ad's has been on relatively heavy rotation on terrestrial and digital TV... so it's certainly out there...

As for print ad's... read Creative Review, Design Week, Campaign etc etc then Apple really do advertise.... much more than ANY other PC company....

It's not been too bad in the broadsheet magazines either... they are advertising, but only in certain area's....

rice_web
May 11, 2003, 05:00 PM
Name for the 970 PowerMacs?

Bill.

edesignuk
May 11, 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by iGAV
I agree with the G5 name... it denotes another generation machine, improved etc etc... I'm not so sure that they'll go with it though just because the G5 has been discussed for so long....

As for advertisements.... well the PowerBook ad's has been on relatively heavy rotation on terrestrial and digital TV... so it's certainly out there...

As for print ad's... read Creative Review, Design Week, Campaign etc etc then Apple really do advertise.... much more than ANY other PC company....

It's not been too bad in the broadsheet magazines either... they are advertising, but only in certain area's....
hmmmmm...looks like I've been walking round with my eyes closed then :eek: All I've seen is a few posters, and the PB add once or twice on TV....oh, and an ad in the back of T3 :) They'll need to do a lot more then that if they ever hope to win over more customers over with their next generation machine, be it G5, 970, or what ever.

BaghdadBob
May 11, 2003, 05:17 PM
OK, here's my main beef with "G5".

The 970 doesn't compare to either the G3 OR the G4 because it is 64 bit and basically totally new.

So let's say (and I think this is reasonable) that Apple goes with this architecture for the next decade or better. For those who weren't watching this soap opera for the last two decades, you would have to point out to them when the new age of Mac processors rang in, and not just by saying "yeah, I know it was G3 and G4 before the G5, but the G5 isn't even similar to those last two." A new naming convention (and yes, no 6360, 5436, 9500, 6200...etc....) would simplify making this point.

I mean, look at the Pentium. The pentium is the same damned chip as the 386 and 486, but to the uninformed they think it started with the Pentium. Why miss a chance to make that distinction when it is real?

From a marketing standpoint, a totally new name would symbolize a "new age" in Mac processors. And really, if this is the beginning of Apple regaining their marketshare through (once again) superior hardware -- as well as their OS and software strategies coming to a full head of steam -- don't they want to send a signal to the world to the regard that this is not just an incremental upgrade, but totally new?

Plus, G5 doesn't do anything to let everyone know that this is not only totally different from the G4, but also from the Pentiums. I believe a split from both of those architectures is necessary here.

I mean, I (we?) could be wrong, it could just be an incremental improvement (in performance), but if its not, wouldn't you want to shout it from the rooftops?

Note: I thought I posted this half an hour and several posts ago. Stupid "push this button" technology...

MrMacMan
May 11, 2003, 05:43 PM
I have some beef with calling it the 'G5' Gee-Four sounded decent, Gee-Five sounds cheezy, like some horry flick 'Jason 5' yeah...

No the real reason I don't like G5 is It aint IBM's 5th gen chip like the G3 was for IBM...
The 970 is derived from the Power4 Chipset, it is Gen 4, therefore it is a Gen4 chip.
It may be the apple 'Gen 5' chip but it seems a little weak.

I prefer 'The All new 970 PowerMac' over a 'The All new G5 PowerMac'

edit: Like people called the G3, the G3, people called the G4 a G4, but will people call the 970 a 'G5' ?

scem0
May 11, 2003, 06:06 PM
IMHO g5 is best.:)

wdlove
May 11, 2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by scem0
IMHO g5 is best.:)

I second that opinon scem0! It would make the best marketing sense!

britboy
May 11, 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
OK, here's my main beef with "G5".

The 970 doesn't compare to either the G3 OR the G4 because it is 64 bit and basically totally new.
..........


I agree completely. When apple moved from the G3 to the G4, there wasn't really that much that changed (apart from altivec, obviously). This time round though, the 970 is a completely different beast, and deserves a name that clearly differentiates it from what has come before. Whilst apple have to a certain extent built up a kind of brand name with 'GX', 'Powermac 970' would get my vote.

Laslo Panaflex
May 11, 2003, 07:04 PM
There is no way that they are going with "G5" for the name of the next processor. I think that apple needs to get away from the past, and look forword to the future. Sure using "G" will keep the marketing nice and clean, but really when these chips come out, G5 will be a name that assumes that its close to the "G" series processors, which on paper, these chips blow G4 and x86 out of the water, so a new name needs to be established. Apple needs to bring interest back to them and using "G5" will not do that for non-apple consumers. Think about it, if someone walks into Frys and looks at daul g4 and then dual g5, there won't be much of a megahertz difference, for the difference in price the consumer will go for the way cheaper, slightly slower (in megahertz) g4 system. If Apple want more people to "switch" they need to create a buzz and hype, and using a new name for the chip besides "970" or "G5" would be the best way to go. I think most would be upset of the discontinuation of the "G" name, but that will be overshadowed by the awsome new name for the chip. There's my 2 cents, we will have to wait and see.

pilotgi
May 11, 2003, 07:28 PM
I'm totally against the G5 name. The PPC 970 is a completely different chip from a different company. I think calling it PowerPC 970 is fine.

Or maybe "the Apple X processor", like OSX on the new X processor. Then the next one can be the XI processor.

Please not G5.

jefhatfield
May 11, 2003, 07:43 PM
970 or some boring, long, purely numerical representation works fine for the pc world...but apple needs to come up with something more creative

my pc laptop is the presario model 1272 and not much to distinguish it from other models...but my mac is an ibook, much cooler sounding and easy to remember

i like it when apple used the simple term G3, instead of the 750 model or something

yes, the ibm 970 chip is 64 bit so that G5 may not do the new machine justice

how about G-64, for generation 64, where 64 denotes the 64 bit architecture...but that may be too many numbers and not be distinctive enough

what happens when intel ends up with the pentium 11 or pentium 20...all the models will just blur into one another, as if they haven't already done that...i think the pentium moniker is dead

whatever comes next for apple, i hope comes soon

cubist
May 11, 2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
...I mean, look at the Pentium. The pentium is the same damned chip as the 386 and 486, but to the uninformed they think it started with the Pentium. Why miss a chance to make that distinction when it is real?...

That is a good point. Why did Intel change to a name? Because they tried to enforce a copyright on the name "486", and were soundly defeated because "486" is simply a number. (A rare victory for common sense in the courts.)

I don't know if Apple has trademarked "G3" and "G4", but they could run into a similar problem. Personally I'd like to see them drop the "Power". PC people like to call them "Powerless Macs", and the word "Power" has no real point anymore. "PowerMac 970" has too many syllables. My suggestion is "Mac 5".

When the iMac gets the 970, call it the "iMac 5". When the Powerbooks get it, call them the "Mac 5 Books".

The main drawback here is that the 970 is an IBM Power4 derivative. We're off by one; but due to history we can't call it the "Mac 4", and IBM will not let Apple call it the "Mac Power4".

Thus, "Mac 5". Think elegant simplicity. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

jefhatfield
May 11, 2003, 07:53 PM
hey cubist,

i like that one for its simplicity and ease of remembering

mac 5...it has a ring to it

it's better than G5 imho

BaghdadBob
May 12, 2003, 12:29 AM
On the point of the "Powerless Macs" quip, hopefully with the 970s the only laughing that will be going on will be from our side of the aisle.

How about "PowerBlue". Like "The all-new iMac, with 1.8 GHz PowerBlue processor." Or is that too close to Pepsi Blue? Which sucks?

Maybe something with "64" in it, like the Apple Jaguar 64...ohhhhhhhh wait.......

iGav
May 12, 2003, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by edesignuk
hmmmmm...looks like I've been walking round with my eyes closed then :eek: All I've seen is a few posters, and the PB add once or twice on TV....oh, and an ad in the back of T3 :) They'll need to do a lot more then that if they ever hope to win over more customers over with their next generation machine, be it G5, 970, or what ever.

I've seen the PowerBook ad's so many times on TV.... and I don't really watch alot of TV....

They've always targetted the creative industry here in the UK, and hence all the creative magazines, when it comes to this area... Mac's still seem like the de-facto.

Where they need to advertise more is for the consumer machines... iMac, eMac and iBook... these are the machines that Joe public are likely to buy, they need to advertise the services, and why things really are quicker, easier, better on the mac... rather than having iMac's spinning around in different colours etc etc... poeple need to be educated.

We also need aproper chain of Applestores in every major city... say London, Bristol, Brum, Leeds, Manchester for starters, with staff that know their stuff.... and can really demonstrate exactly what the Mac can do... Only then will we see Apple beginning to really find there way into people's homes in any decent amount of numbers.

Then they can advertise.... what's the point in advertising if you can't buy the machines anywhere?

We need Applestores..... and proper ones... :p :p

Ambrose Chapel
May 12, 2003, 07:12 AM
I think that Apple might tie the processor name into OS X somehow. Like the GX. But that kind of sounds like a car name..hmm. But yeah, I think G5 isn't the way to go. The G4 has picked so much baggage and negative connotations that I think they need to break from that naming scheme. Maybe X5? Whatever...as long as it comes soon, I think we'll all be happy to call it by whatever Steve chooses.

:)

the future
May 12, 2003, 07:24 AM
I think Apple needs a completely new name to make it as clear as possible what a huge leap forward this new generation of processors (hopefully!) is. Plus if they named it G5 they would absolutely have to stop using any G3 processors because nobody wants to be behind TWO generations.

The new ProMac.
(next generation: The ProMac 2)

Something like this.

daveg5
May 12, 2003, 08:11 AM
Steve can say it's so advance that we are skipping Moto's G5 and going directly to the G6!!

AhmedFaisal
May 12, 2003, 08:35 AM
Since the 970 is going to be the high end Apple Chip and the G3 going Gobi and maybe even Altivec for the low end and the G4 phasing out why not just name the comps after the Bits they use. PowerPC 32 for the G3 32Bit Machines and PowerPC 64 for the 970 Machines?
My 2 cents,

Ahmed

Sol
May 12, 2003, 08:39 AM
Those people saying that G5 would be inappropriate because the 970 is 64 bit and thus completely different to what came before should remember that Altivec is also a part of this chip and that gives it something in common with the G4s.

For a laugh I would like to see the 970 renamed as Big. That way we could replace our PowerMacs with Big Macs ;)

fred_lj
May 12, 2003, 09:35 AM
I still like the idea of it being called the Macintosh III (or with an exponent). We haven't had this kind of performance boost SINCE the Macintosh II realistically, and it'd be cool to drop the "Power" expression, sort of like it's not needed. And this time, it won't be.

Ambrose Chapel
May 12, 2003, 10:20 AM
I'd lve to be a fly on the wall in Apple's marketing dept and hear what names they are bouncing around.

Mr. Anderson
May 12, 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
I'd lve to be a fly on the wall in Apple's marketing dept and hear what names they are bouncing around.

I know its only Monday - but I'm betting this to be the biggest understatement of the week :D

Although, when you think about it, who came up with the 'G' prefix to begin with? Would going with something other than 'G' make sense? Only if they really want to show a break from the previous lines of processors and computers.

D

etoiles
May 12, 2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by fred_lj
I still like the idea of it being called the Macintosh III (or with an exponent). We haven't had this kind of performance boost SINCE the Macintosh II realistically, and it'd be cool to drop the "Power" expression, sort of like it's not needed. And this time, it won't be.

I don't think this performance boost will be much bigger than during the 68k to ppc transition. Also, MacintoshIII is too close (and confusing) to the G3... a Macintosh exponent 3 would have been cool for the cube, though :p

jefhatfield
May 12, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I know its only Monday - but I'm betting this to be the biggest understatement of the week :D

Although, when you think about it, who came up with the 'G' prefix to begin with? Would going with something other than 'G' make sense? Only if they really want to show a break from the previous lines of processors and computers.

D

i used to use the term G1 or G2 for earlier powerpc processors but only among other techies...but the other terms 601 for G1 and 602-604e for G2 are also terms i didn't refer to when talking to clients or non techies...i just used the speed to denote the machine's basic capabilities, like 180 mhz powermac

but when the G3 came out, that was all that was needed to let everyone know one was talking about massive computing power and the G4 was, at the time, good enough to know that you were talking about a supercomputer in a home machine

but now that the 970 promises to be just as big a jump as the G3 and G4 were, another name would be nice

hey dukestreet,

does that anderson tag denote that you are over 10,000 posts? new name for a new class of poster??:p

Mr. Anderson
May 12, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield

hey dukestreet,

does that anderson tag denote that you are over 10,000 posts? new name for a new class of poster??:p

nah, I just wanted a name change (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=26769) ...:D

but as for the Apple processor name - it would make sense for a change, but then again the arguement goes both ways. If they stick with G5 then will all the future revisions stay with G? G6, G7, G8, G9 and then maybe GX?

D

BaghdadBob
May 12, 2003, 01:25 PM
I think that's his way of saying he's "The One" (no, I didn't follow the link).

On the subject of Apple store distribution...if you live in CA, like I have for the last several years and next several days, you'll notice that they don't have an Apple store anywhere but LA area and Bay Area, but there are a few for each of those two. So from where I am it's four hours in either direction to an Apple store. Lame. Could be worse though, I'm sure. I don't think they're even in WA yet.

Anyway...howabout the Mach 3?

Flickta
May 12, 2003, 01:49 PM
PowerPC 970 is ok.
Power 970 (not 4 or 5... but 970... much more :))

But the best way is to call it PowerPC 970 "Something" officially.
...Like Jaguar or Panther in OS names.

macphisto
May 12, 2003, 02:04 PM
Well, since "G" is for generation, then why not "G5?" Although, if they used the Power4 name that the 970s stem from I think that would be just as cool.

Coca-Cola
May 12, 2003, 02:46 PM
Well, I think Steve is into surpasing our predictions lately. G5 would work, but wouldn't really blow anyones socks off.
I think it will have to be tied to nature somehow. The OS is "Panther". The browser is "Safari". I think a natural type name is in the works for the 970. Something fast and revolutionairy. Any ideas? Thesarus handy?

BaghdadBob
May 12, 2003, 03:19 PM
Cheetah!

Komodo Dragon!

Old Spice!

Dolphin....it's blue!

fred_lj
May 12, 2003, 03:32 PM
Let's see, dolphins are fast and smart. They already used a great white to market the Pismo....wasn't "Cheetah?" already a code name for something? Cheetah would sound cool, but Quantum's got their hands on that.

My gut tells me "Power" will remain in the nomenclature somehow; it's still a PowerPC proc. G5 might bring bad karma in terms of the failed Moto project. And we know Steve-o's hip to that aspect.

Yeah, to even have an idea of what pool of names they're toying around with would be the funnest thing in the world about now!

freundt
May 12, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by fred_lj
Let's see, dolphins are fast and smart. They already used a great white to market the Pismo....wasn't "Cheetah?" already a code name for something? Cheetah would sound cool, but Quantum's got their hands on that.

My gut tells me "Power" will remain in the nomenclature somehow; it's still a PowerPC proc. G5 might bring bad karma in terms of the failed Moto project. And we know Steve-o's hip to that aspect.

Taken the two ideas above we get the Power Dolphin! :rolleyes:

I do think the G needs to be retired. i also do not think the 970 will be a good name either, consdidering they already did the number thing when the power PCs first came out.. I think there was even a 9700... Perhpas I'm smoking something though...

Going with the nature theme would be bad. I think people like their tech mysterious and hard to spell.

So, I do think a new name is appropriate, but not flash in the pan name. something that will have legs and can be used far into the future, much like the pentium name.

Given all that, I think the name should be "Pantone 2728 CVC".

_f

Coca-Cola
May 12, 2003, 03:54 PM
I am thinking you go on "Safari" to see "Panther" on the "Savannah".

Introducing "Savannah".

GeneR
May 12, 2003, 04:17 PM
Why complicate things? LST: Little square thingy would be a nice departure from "G4" and "G5" and all those dang numbers.

And it's cute sounding. :D

fred_lj
May 12, 2003, 04:19 PM
Perhaps they'll try to reflect the extra 32 bits we're getting in the 970's data flow.

But at the same time it could reflect the fact that these new macs will be two times faster than their previous generation....the Power Macintosh X2

BaghdadBob
May 12, 2003, 04:35 PM
I'm sorry, but the Power Dolphin sounds like something you'd buy at that store you always try to not be seen pulling up to...

Savannah? Maybe you go on a Safari to see a Panther with a Hummer. Damn copyright laws! This could be the most popular processor name ever :p

You know, actually, Safari and Panther don't mix...neither does Jaguar, come to think of it...

Instead of Hummer, how about Anaconda?

As in "My anaconda don't want none if you aint got buns, hon." What a great tie-in!

Edit: LST sounds too much like LC. Bad karma again.

wdlove
May 12, 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by fred_lj
Perhaps they'll try to reflect the extra 32 bits we're getting in the 970's data flow.

But at the same time it could reflect the fact that these new macs will be two times faster than their previous generation....the Power Macintosh X2

I think that using that name would cause confusion with Mac OS X naming! Still think simplicity is the key, still like G5. The final decision will be Steve's and I will agree with him!

evil
May 12, 2003, 04:37 PM
STEVE!

fred_lj
May 12, 2003, 04:59 PM
Well, sure it might cause a problem. But it won't matter once we get to OS 11, right? :)

Did you guys know a variety of Apple is the "Empire?" It's a combination of McIntosh and Red Delicious. Heh, the "eMPire" from Apple. The best of both worlds.

pinks
May 12, 2003, 05:13 PM
I think that G5 would be alright, but it may be nice to see a new name to match the new incarnation (Thinks: what did the 'g' stand for anyway?) It must be simple, so I don't think we'll see a repeat of all those different performa numbers. Perhaps the "Apple 5" or something? Don't really know, but it should be short and sweet.

Originally posted by iGAV
We also need aproper chain of Applestores in every major city... say London, Bristol, Brum, Leeds, Manchester for starters, with staff that know their stuff.... and can really demonstrate exactly what the Mac can do... Only then will we see Apple beginning to really find there way into people's homes in any decent amount of numbers.

Then they can advertise.... what's the point in advertising if you can't buy the machines anywhere?

We need Applestores..... and proper ones... :p :p

Lets not be too Anglo-centric. How about Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen. You know, you can't buy a Mac any further north than Edinburgh at present (unless, of course, you buy online). This is unbelievable - people just aren't exposed to Macs in shops which is, ultimately, where people are persuaded about which computer to go for!

- pinks

void
May 12, 2003, 05:42 PM
I think that they should revamp the entire name line.
iMac=M series
iBook=I series
eMac=E series
XServe=X series
PowerMac=P Series
PowerBook=B Series
it will be the series letter then the generation
M1
I4
P8
etc...

wdlove
May 12, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by void
I think that they should revamp the entire name line.
iMac=M series
iBook=I series
eMac=E series
XServe=X series
PowerMac=P Series
PowerBook=B Series
it will be the series letter then the generation
M1
I4
P8
etc...

I think that would make it even more confusing. Apple had a problem before with confusing and multiple CPU names. Luckly when Steve came on board he steamlined the product line! Thank you Steve! ;)

shadowfax
May 12, 2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by void
I think that they should revamp the entire name line.
iMac=M series
iBook=I series
eMac=E series
XServe=X series
PowerMac=P Series
PowerBook=B Series
it will be the series letter then the generation
M1
I4
P8
etc... dear god no. that would be terrible. it strikes me as very dellesque, for one--but even dell has the sense to give their lines real names. it reminds me of Mercedes or BMW. i don't like that they only use a number to refer to their cars.

also, there is no logic to your letter scheme--why is the iBook the I series and not the B series, following the pattern you used for designations for the xServe, Powermac, and iMac?

I think apple's current naming system is more than adequate, and better than this suggestion.

Laslo Panaflex
May 12, 2003, 06:03 PM
If they call it G5 I will puke, plain and simple.

scem0
May 12, 2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Laslo Panaflex
If they call it G5 I will puke, plain and simple.

just be glad it isn't Void's idea... ;)

MrMacMan
May 12, 2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by void
I think that they should revamp the entire name line.
iMac=M series
iBook=I series
eMac=E series
XServe=X series
PowerMac=P Series
PowerBook=B Series
it will be the series letter then the generation
M1
I4
P8
etc...

ahh bland!
All PC-isk. All the PC manufatures name their computers like that...

Besides for mass confusion.

MorganX
May 12, 2003, 06:58 PM
I like Processor X, X2, X3, etc.

Titanium is a cool name for anything.

Or something powerful like Zeus, Thor, Adonis (naah), Kronos, Athena, Vulcan, Pegasus.

Niagra and Everest are interesting.

Depends on the benchmarks. If the performance increase is dramatic, the name should reflect it.

scem0
May 12, 2003, 07:14 PM
Vulcan is a cool name because he was
the greko-roman god of the forge. :)

Laslo Panaflex
May 12, 2003, 07:23 PM
How about Apples new "FF" processor. Of course the "FF" stands for Freakn Fast!

fred_lj
May 12, 2003, 07:26 PM
Or they could just pick a new Apple (no pun intended, well sort of...).

Introducing, the Jonathan. Tart and tasty, great for eating by itself and performs superbly in bake-offs!

Who says the OS name and the computer have to match?

scem0
May 12, 2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by fred_lj

Who says the OS name and the computer have to match?

marketing strategies ;)

CMillerERAU
May 12, 2003, 07:33 PM
My money's on something revolving around "X" like the X-5 or X-64 though they might also stick with the G's with G64 which is at least a bit different to "G4"

wdlove
May 12, 2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by scem0
marketing strategies ;)

That is why we have Steve Jobs at the helm! ;)

scem0
May 12, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by CMillerERAU
My money's on something revolving around "X" like the X-5 or X-64 though they might also stick with the G's with G64 which is at least a bit different to "G4"

lol, I don't think the processor is good enough
to skip 60 intervals. I think X-64 would
be good.

shadowfax
May 12, 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by scem0
lol, I don't think the processor is good enough
to skip 60 intervals. I think X-64 would
be good. i think X-64 reminds me of N64 way too much, as does 64 preceded by just about any other letter.

G5 is reasonable. i hope they stay with something normalish, whatever they do. i like 970, myself, having seen it so often. 970 Powermac, Powermac 970, something like that.

Pentium, Centrino, Hammer... these all bother me.

scem0
May 12, 2003, 08:39 PM
yeah, I didn't think about N64... They are
a lot alike. I guess I am back on my
original 'g5'. Simple, yet will cause a stir,
and it won't break any naming traditions.

shadowfax
May 12, 2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by scem0
yeah, I didn't think about N64... They are
a lot alike. I guess I am back on my
original 'g5'. Simple, yet will cause a stir,
and it won't break any naming traditions. Yeah. i think the idea with a processor name is that it needs not to suck completely. you don't want to name it something stupid, but naming it something flashy and cool is unimportant. you want something that is memorable and doesn't hold too much innate meaning--in other words, a meaningless name like "pentium" is superior to "hammer."

you want to make your processor a big hit with performance. you don't want to let critics say, "well, the name probably scared the sh|t out of Intel, till they saw the test benchmarks..."

fred_lj
May 12, 2003, 11:14 PM
G5 will probably be it, but it just sounds so corny. And like some others have mentioned, that will put it in contention with Pentium 5s once they come around (people will start leveling the two). I would go for something simple, just like:

"POWER|Macintosh 970."

I think the name should reflect the server-proc heritage of the 970, which by accounts is actually BESTING its big brother in some tests.

No silly animal names on a piece of hardware, please.

XnavxeMiyyep
May 13, 2003, 02:37 PM
They should name it something that had the word Aqua in it to go with the Aqua interface. Like the AquaX, Aqua5, Aquadyne, or something...

boskie
May 13, 2003, 02:46 PM
As it is from IBM, "G-Pro" would be a good name i think - similar but still distinct from their Z-Pro and M-Pro Xeon/P4 based Workstations.

BaghdadBob
May 13, 2003, 03:05 PM
Maybe it should be an otomotopeda (spelling must be wrong), a sound effect like "Zoom" or "Swoosh" or "Whiz"

Introducing the new G-Whiz!

Equipped with the all new Velocity Engine! Shown to have performance 110% higher than Altivec!

OK, seriously...I like names that sound like metal. I was thinking Blue Silver (there I go with blue again)....but that's kinda like True Silver...

Mythril?

Square Blue Ball of Fire?

ebow
May 13, 2003, 03:29 PM
I don't think they'll call it the 970 as in "PowerMac 970" or anything, because that gets in the way of successive processor improvements. For example, the "G4" chip has included at least the following revisions: 7400, 7410, 7440, 7450, 7451, 7455 (according to EveryMac.com (http://everymac.com/systems/apple/index.html) and may possibly include the 7457 (I think that's the rumored G4 people have been clamoring for). Granted, IBM's been more conservative with their chip labeling sceme for the G3 family (PPC 750cx and 750fx).

Logically, G5 makes sense, because it will be the 5th Generation of processor to go into a Mac. Conceptually, G1 was the 68k series, G2 was PPC 601 - 604, G3 and G4 are what they are, so G5 fits the bill for what comes next.

As for what the moniker ought to be... I say either G5 (kinda tired) or... maybe the marketing guys can take the fast cat theme somewhere.

void
May 13, 2003, 06:22 PM
Awww man i thought i had somethin goin there like some mercedes bmw thingamacrapper... DAMN YOU FLAMERS!!!! lol
-void

void
May 13, 2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
dear god no. that would be terrible. it strikes me as very dellesque, for one--but even dell has the sense to give their lines real names. it reminds me of Mercedes or BMW. i don't like that they only use a number to refer to their cars.

also, there is no logic to your letter scheme--why is the iBook the I series and not the B series, following the pattern you used for designations for the xServe, Powermac, and iMac?

I think apple's current naming system is more than adequate, and better than this suggestion. OH AND FOR YOU MR. FAXXYSHADOWCRAP, THE B SERIES IS ALREADY TAKEN BY THE POWERBOOK YOU FOOL!AND THE I SERIES JUST SOUNDS COOLER THAN SHADOWFAX SO :p :p :p !!!
-void

shadowfax
May 13, 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by void
OH AND FOR YOU MR. FAXXYSHADOWCRAP, THE B SERIES IS ALREADY TAKEN BY THE POWERBOOK YOU FOOL!AND THE I SERIES JUST SOUNDS COOLER THAN SHADOWFAX SO :p :p :p !!!
-void i knew that the "B" was taken, but there was no logic to your naming the powerbook "B" and not the iBook. I am saying, the naming system is inconsistent, for one thing. but the main of it is that it's confusing and just uncool. and i don't care if it's cooler than my name, i would never want apple's hardware to be named after my handle.
:confused:

void
May 13, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
i knew that the "B" was taken, but there was no logic to your naming the powerbook "B" and not the iBook. I am saying, the naming system is inconsistent, for one thing. but the main of it is that it's confusing and just uncool. and i don't care if it's cooler than my name, i would never want apple's hardware to be named after my handle.
:confused: SO WE AGREES!!!:D :D :D :D
-void

BaghdadBob
May 13, 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by void
SO WE AGREES!!!:D :D :D :D
-void
Dood, you sound like Gollum.

Gollum just happens to be my old Virtual Worlds handle...so it caint be that bad.

shadowfax
May 13, 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by void
SO WE AGREES!!!:D :D :D :D
-void on what? not on your naming system... :p

BaghdadBob
May 13, 2003, 07:20 PM
I dunno, Shadowfax has widespread nerd/geek appeal, and the name is now known to the masses...

It might sound a little pretentious on a processor (unless it's wicked fast), but it's one of the better ideas I've heard, despite no one actually suggesting it.

Maybe we can make it even more vulnerable to jokes when outclassed by some architecture and call it the Blue Stallion :D

void
May 13, 2003, 07:38 PM
Well actually it was from a Langston Hughes Poem called "Madam & The Rent Man"
-void