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

G 10

jefhatfield

jefhatfield

Retired
Original poster
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
why don't we call the next new os x optimized pro user machine the g 10?

before you laugh, look to amd's newest mobile chip, the athlon 4

amd had a mobile athlon chip which competed with intel's mobile pentium 3 chip...but then, on the pc desktop front, intel released the pentium 4 so amd countered with a new mobile athlon chip called the athlon 4 (there was no athlon 2 or athlon 3)...the 4 being the number which answers to intel's desktop pentium 4...and not only is the athlon 4 called such, it is a mobile chip and since intel does not have a mobile pentium 4 yet, amd looks coolest right now

there are so many mac software titles using the term x or 10 for os x optimization these days...so why not make our new pro user desktop the powermac g10?

as for naming conventions for consumer level machines, i am at a loss but simply imac and ibook with g10 processors sounds fine with me for the future when os x is all we have

just a thought?
 
I think it would be seen in a similar light to the Athlon XP/Win XP. Amd is getting quite a bit of stick for the naming conventions that they've started using. It would stand to reason that apple would be sneered at for trying name tricks like that, and the last thing apple needs is bad press!

Still, it depends if apple wanted to concentrate more on the power user (who tends to know a bit more about what they're buying), or the consumer (who still things that mhz matter).
 
How about GX13? :D.... That would be the latest chip running the latest OS X update... If they kept updating as new software updates are posted, it might confuse the peecee people into getting into Mac's.

Just a thought...
 
Originally posted by britboy
I think it would be seen in a similar light to the Athlon XP/Win XP. Amd is getting quite a bit of stick for the naming conventions that they've started using. It would stand to reason that apple would be sneered at for trying name tricks like that, and the last thing apple needs is bad press!

Still, it depends if apple wanted to concentrate more on the power user (who tends to know a bit more about what they're buying), or the consumer (who still things that mhz matter).
Click to expand...




the software titles for os x with a "10" in the title have not caught flak

and every time steve jobs opens his mouth, it is bad press
 
I say Motorola starts using a "power rating" naming scheme like AMD. AMD's XP 2000+ is only clocked at 1666 Mhz (I think), but they market it as the equivalent of a 2+ Ghz P4. If the next Moto chip came with a model number like G 6000, or something, that would be cool.

Of course, we'd then see ridiculous copying and exaggeration by Dell as they come out with their Optiplex 10^9 model...damn Mike Dell. :D
 
Originally posted by AlphaTech
How about GX13? :D.... That would be the latest chip running the latest OS X update... If they kept updating as new software updates are posted, it might confuse the peecee people into getting into Mac's.

Just a thought...
Click to expand...

good point, alpha tech

but i was just thinking of corresponding the naming convention with each "major" os release like g 10 for os x optimization...and g 11 for os 11 optimization

and i kind of like the name athlon xp for xp optimization (if there is such a thing as an optimized windows operating system) he he:p
 
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I say Motorola starts using a "power rating" naming scheme like AMD. AMD's XP 2000+ is only clocked at 1666 Mhz (I think), but they market it as the equivalent of a 2+ Ghz P4. If the next Moto chip came with a model number like G 6000, or something, that would be cool.

Of course, we'd then see ridiculous copying and exaggeration by Dell as they come out with their Optiplex 10^9 model...damn Mike Dell. :D
Click to expand...


...and here i go overposting like eyelikeart (and spikey, john123, and kela before them in the old days, he, he)...but i also like that idea of relative speed

the new powermac g-2000 or g-3000, it has a ring to it that is kind of cool and would be respected

...but mike dell calling something the dell-10000 would truly be laughed at by mac and pc users alike

at least apple is honest and their integrity would hold up almost any naming convention
 
what about a GX-2000 or GX-3000. that way you get the osx and the power in there. doesnt sound too bad, bit of a mouthful maybe, but more informative than just g3 or g4.
 
G10? thats sound sarcastic. At this time we really should be working with G10 processors. If the evolution continues at this speed we wont be a live by the time G10 comes out.:)
 
I always want to smite companies that skip increments. Eg, Netscape 5. Damn that annoyed me. I guess the only time I haven't wanted to smite a company that did that was when Macromedia took Dreamweaver UltraDev from v2 to v4 to keep it in line with the standard version of DW.

That said, I wouldn't mind a new naming scheme all together. The G is getting a bit old. And it was never all that cool sounding anyway.

How about something cool? Itanium is a cool word. But I think that one's taken. ;)
 
G5 x2 = G10

i think apple already thought of the G10, duh!
Thats why they created the dual processor.
So they can use it as a marketing tool and apply
the x2 (indicating dual processors)
to the G5 chip and market it with the OSX.

dont you know anything
 
Originally posted by Beej
I always want to smite companies that skip increments. Eg, Netscape 5. Damn that annoyed me. I guess the only time I haven't wanted to smite a company that did that was when Macromedia took Dreamweaver UltraDev from v2 to v4 to keep it in line with the standard version of DW.

That said, I wouldn't mind a new naming scheme all together. The G is getting a bit old. And it was never all that cool sounding anyway.

How about something cool? Itanium is a cool word. But I think that one's taken. ;)
Click to expand...

ok i might be wrong about this, but i dont think netscape skipped 5. one of the netscape products they sell is called netscape 5 i believe. i dont know about ultra dev, but seems like companies dont just skip version numbers, its just that consumers dont always know all the inbetween versions. of course this is assuming im right.

but skipping from g4 to g10 sounds stupid. thats why i suggested GX. through in the amd style power naming and you get GX-4000 or something. Thats not so bad is it?
 
Netscape went from the 4.7x to 6.x for versions... there has not been a version 5 released. They are still producing the 4.7's since they are at 4.79 currently for OS 9.x. Who knows how many more OS 9.x only versions they will release.
 
from mozilla.org:

Netscape has announced that Communicator Standard Edition 5.0 source code will be freely available for modification and redistribution. Netscape believes that harnessing the creative abilities of all Internet developers will be an unprecedented way to advance the features and quality of Communicator for all customers. Detailed license terms, additional information, and a developer version of Communicator Standard Edition 5.0 source code is scheduled to be available by March 31, 1998, on the mozilla.org web site.

as you can see this is pretty old. maybe before they decided to call it 6.0 rather than 5.0. im not sure.

since they are still developing 4.x maybe they plan to bring that to version 5?

but my point was simply, that usually the developer in question has some sort of plan in mind when naming and doesnt just decide to call it 6 because the other guy is in version 6 or because the rest of their products are in version whatever. it might seem that way when we cant see the whole picture but usually (certainly not always) there is some other explanation. since these sorts of changes do more to confuse than anything else i doubt a company would do it simply to appeal to customers (unless under extreme circumstance).

so bringing it back to the g10. a g10 might sound like apple skipped versions but to call it a GX might just do it (not that i think theyd actually do it). through in the idea of the amd power rating and you have a GX-3000. i think its a good idea. spices up the G chip a bit and provides some info. maybe a bit of a mouthful though. and apple might take some flak by using amd's power rating. but all in all jefhat's idea isnt a bad one.
 
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
what about a GX-2000 or GX-3000. that way you get the osx and the power in there. doesnt sound too bad, bit of a mouthful maybe, but more informative than just g3 or g4.
Click to expand...

to me, that sounds like the best idea because to go on with g5, g6, etc is getting old

on the pc front, it was "88", "86", 186, 286, 386, 486, then pentium, which had a ring to it
 
Originally posted by jefhatfield


to me, that sounds like the best idea because to go on with g5, g6, etc is getting old

on the pc front, it was the legendary 4004, then the 8008, then 8080 or z80 derivative, and finally the 8085

later on it was the 8088 or just "88", the 8086 or just "86",

...then for short, the 186 (not too good), 286 (a hit), 386, 486, then pentium, which had a ring to it
Click to expand...

so i like ambitiouslemon's naming convention for the new motorola or ibm chips for the new mac...instead of just g5

had to correct my own history for the pc geek crowd:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back