Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

~Shard~

macrumors P6
Jun 4, 2003
18,377
48
1123.6536.5321
whocares said:
I think it should stick with G3, 4 & 5. Apple never used the 750 and 7xxx names, at least not from a marketing point of view.

Um, and Apple used the 65816 from a marketing point of view?! :p

G3, G4, etc. are all marketing names, it makes absolutely zero sense for them to be used as rankings here. MacRumors uses actual processors, not marketing names, and I don't see why they would change that. :cool:
 

skoker

macrumors 68000
Aug 6, 2005
1,839
0
I say we change the Banned ranks to the names of early PC processors, what spammed wouldn't love being called a 486?
 

whocares

macrumors 65816
Oct 9, 2002
1,494
0
:noitаɔo˩
~Shard~ said:
Um, and Apple used the 65816 from a marketing point of view?! :p

G3, G4, etc. are all marketing names, it makes absolutely zero sense for them to be used as rankings here. MacRumors uses actual processors, not marketing names, and I don't see why they would change that. :cool:

True. I guess I wasn't thinking all that much. :eek:


skoker said:
I say we change the Banned ranks to the names of early PC processors, what spammed wouldn't love being called a 486?

That's not low enough. Aim for the 8088.
A propos, 10 Mac fanboy points to whoever knows where 2nd quote in my sig comes from. :D
 

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
whocares said:
A propos, 10 Mac fanboy points to whoever knows where 2nd quote in my sig comes from. :D

Job's intro for the Macintosh? Well, before the Mac 128K introduces him.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.