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

New Apple Computer Name?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cappy

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 29, 2002
402
18
I don't know that anyone has considered this but I wouldn't put it past Apple to introduce a new system with a different name. There are various reasons we could see that.

1. Apple has pretty much said that no G5 systems will be out this year. This can be a twist on words where the system could have the cpu that everyone refers to as a G5 and yet they would be telling the truth that there will be on G5's.

2. The G naming scheme has been around quite awhile going back to what? 97? 98?

3. Apple(under different management) has had different names before for systems in different markets. We all are aware of the Performa which the iMac pretty much replaced. There was the Quadra line for the high end folks which again is where the G5 would fit in.

4. The PowerMac G4 has been around quite awhile now and is in need of a name change just to help spur some sales. A similar system with the same cpu but other hardware differences under a different name would keep Apple from looking stagnant.

I'm really not saying that G5's are around the corner but regardless of whether we see G5's or new G4's, a name change could(in my opinion should) occur. It's gotta be cool though. ;)
 
The Gx in the PowerMac name is for the processor... Hence the PowerMac G3, G4, and (hopefully soon) G5 (when moto gets off their thumbs and gives up the chips).

Apple fixed all the naming differences because they confused people. There was little to no consistency in the naming conventions.

Do you remember how 'well' Apple was doing under that 'different management' as you put it?? When they simplified the computer lineup, things improved. The G3 tower was a G3 tower you got to select the speed of the chip inside it, but you didn't have to decide if you wanted a 6500, 7500 or such and figure all that junk out.

Apple would do VERY WELL to keep the naming conventions they have in place. They do give different code names to the systems, such as PowerBook G4 (also known as Titanium and DVI by Apple). There are other code names, such as Mercury and Onyx for the first two TiBooks with none designated yet for the latest (rev. C). THAT helps the people that know, distinguish between the different models (other then using the speeds).

Apple has other methods for making sure they don't appear to be 'stagnant' as you put it. For one thing, they update the enclosures of the computers. Remember what the G4 looked like early on?? How about now (the QuickSilver and QuickSilver 2002 models)?? They have done very similar things with both the iBook and iMac systems. I fully expect Apple to release a new case/enclosure for the next generation (the reason for the G in the name :rolleyes: ) tower. We won't know what they do until it is released... but people are guessing anyway (and making some svelt 3d models too).
 
Originally posted by AlphaTech
The Gx in the PowerMac name is for the processor... Hence the PowerMac G3, G4, and (hopefully soon) G5 (when moto gets off their thumbs and gives up the chips).
Click to expand...

That's what many folks believe. There is also the contingent who have stated that Apple follows along with that but that it really stands for the generation of the system. I believe the latter is what Apple officially goes by.

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Apple fixed all the naming differences because they confused people. There was little to no consistency in the naming conventions.
Click to expand...

That is true; however, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. There are other methods and terminology that their marketing can come up with and still keep it simple.

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Do you remember how 'well' Apple was doing under that 'different management' as you put it?? When they simplified the computer lineup, things improved. The G3 tower was a G3 tower you got to select the speed of the chip inside it, but you didn't have to decide if you wanted a 6500, 7500 or such and figure all that junk out.
Click to expand...

There were issues with naming and models but some of what you listed were not the issue. The Performa line many times were virtually identical to the PowerMac line. This created confusion. The 7xxx, 8xxx, and 9xxx series really didn't confuse too many folks unless they flat out couldn't read. In the end the naming really got simpler because they widdled down the number of models they had. That was they're true problem.

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Apple would do VERY WELL to keep the naming conventions they have in place. They do give different code names to the systems, such as PowerBook G4 (also known as Titanium and DVI by Apple). There are other code names, such as Mercury and Onyx for the first two TiBooks with none designated yet for the latest (rev. C). THAT helps the people that know, distinguish between the different models (other then using the speeds).
Click to expand...

Most folks don't keep up on the codenames. Marketing has to play a role when selling systems. Remember also Apple went with the G3 naming convention for marketing reasons. It sounded cool and catchy...very sporty. That matched up well with the snail commercial with the PII on its back.

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Apple has other methods for making sure they don't appear to be 'stagnant' as you put it. For one thing, they update the enclosures of the computers. Remember what the G4 looked like early on?? How about now (the QuickSilver and QuickSilver 2002 models)?? They have done very similar things with both the iBook and iMac systems. I fully expect Apple to release a new case/enclosure for the next generation (the reason for the G in the name :rolleyes: ) tower. We won't know what they do until it is released... but people are guessing anyway (and making some svelt 3d models too).
Click to expand...

I do remember the early G4 systems. They used two different motherboards for those that confused the hell out of many folks. You had to look at the back and know what to look for to discover which version was sitting in front of you. Not one of their brighter moves. Your other comments about the case design hold for anyone attempting to sell based on style. Naming also plays a role...it's called marketing :rolleyes:. With your thought process you probably had a fit when they came out with the iMac. Simplicity would have kept it as a G3 All In One which Apple already had. Marketing folks(Steve included) stepped forward and said we need a new start with a new name for the new system.

Don't be so closed minded about it. I never said that they would do it and frankly I wouldn't complain if they left it alone since it does make some sense. I just pointed out some facts that you didn't even refute. And sure folks are guessing. It's part of the whole gossip/rumor stuff. Maybe I posted to the wrong board. This is a rumor board is it not? ;)
 
That's what many folks believe. There is also the contingent who have stated that Apple follows along with that but that it really stands for the generation of the system. I believe the latter is what Apple officially goes by.
Click to expand...

The G IS for the processor generation, NOT the system... Hence the differnet names for the updates to the PowerMac G4 (AGP, Gigabit, QuickSilver and QuickSilver 2002).

The first G4 motherboard (codenamed Yikes) was a stopgap measure until they could produce the real motherboard for the G4 processor (codenamed Sawtooth). THAT is pretty common knowledge, and was not hard to come by even then. WHEN I was looking at getting a G4 tower, even the store where I was going to get it knew that the Sawtooth motherboard was on it's way.

I personally know many people that know the codenames to the different systems (many of them post here).

With your thought process you probably had a fit when they came out with the iMac. Simplicity would have kept it as a G3 All In One which Apple already had.
Click to expand...


[Admin warning: Please avoid personal attacks that incite flamewars. Future posts like this will be deleted without warning

arn
]

You DO NOT want to start...

I have been following the Mac system for ages, and have seen the progress of the systems from way back. The iMac was one of Apple's better moves, as was placing the processor generation into the systems name... Like PowerMac G3, PowerBook G3, and so on.

For them to suddenly switch to something different would be about as moronic as the handle you selected... what is it again 'Crappy'??? Sounds about right.

Going by YOUR limited thought processes, they never should have moved away from the beige towers and developed both the iMac's (past and present generations or revisions as they are known) the G3 blue and white, or G4 (original and quicksilver variations) towers. Apple incorporates cutting edge enclosure designs with their systems, so that people have eye candy along with the power of the systems. I bet you can't remember far enough back to when the peecee makers were trying to copy the first iMac's enclosure to capitalize on the look (you could recognize it as being from Apple with a glance, just as you can with the current versions of systems). I can scan a room full of computers and immediately see the Apple systems, even when surrounded by peecees.

Don't come in here spewing moronic sludge from your orfice and not expect to get your ass handed to you.

[Admin warning: Please avoid personal attacks that incite flamewars. Future posts like this will be deleted without warning

arn
]
 
The "Gx" name comes directly from Motorola's processor roadmap and CPU designations, not the system generation. As long as Apple is using Moto chips it makes no sense for them to abandon this naming scheme.

It also nicely parallels the Intel processor naming, which, unfortunately, Apple needs to keep in mind for converting PC users and comparing to current PC hardware.
 
Oh, please...

Is it really THAT hard to allow people to have a different opinion?

Why is it that a different enclosure couldn't be accompanied by a different name? I rather like the idea. Gives a computer more of a personal character, instead of just making it the next box in a long line. And yes, it does spur sales. Why did you think they didn't call OSX OS10?

And there I was, thinking that discussion forums were about rumors, not about flaming others.
 
Re: Oh, please...

Originally posted by Gloria
Why did you think they didn't call OSX OS10?
Click to expand...

But it's pronounced OS10........

I can't complain about the current naming system..... PowerMac G5 and PowerBook G5 would sound just fine to me....... ;)
 
Re: Oh, please...

Originally posted by Gloria
Why did you think they didn't call OSX OS10?
Click to expand...

Erm, perhaps because apple like to do things with a bit of style, rather than just following set patterns. Remember that X is the roman numeral for 10.


And there I was, thinking that discussion forums were about rumors, not about flaming others.
Click to expand...

He he, you got that part wrong :p
 
I think it's interesting the way the 'mac' tag comes in and out of focus across the current product line.

The iMac, eMac and PowerMac all put the 'mac' up front.

With the iBook, PowerBook and Xserve, it goes under ground.

The Apple Site's pages for the Xserve only mention 'mac' in conjunction with the operating system: 'Mac OS X'. The actual enclosure doesn't say anthing about 'mac/macintosh' (or at least it's not in the pictures).

If the new tower comes out at MWNY without a 'mac' in the name, then I think Apple is trying to distance the pro line from (perhaps damaging?) associations with Emilio-era machines and the consumer models -- in order to lure a new slew of pro users...

And yes, I do realise the fact that the iBook is a consumer machine doesn't support the theory.;)
 
well. i'm not going to resort to name calling, but...if we're going to stammer on about marketing - you might want to put some more thought into it.

there *is* some cohesion in the naming conventions of Apple's line up. portable computers are 'books', desktops are 'macs', and the server is 'serve'. consumer products are 'i', professional products are 'power', educational products are now 'e', and the X in Xserve is just to remind people that it runs on OSX.

OSX's moniker deviates from the previous naming conventions of the operating system for obvious reasons: there would be laughable consumer confusion if apple had two operating systems OS9 and OS10 on offer at the same time...the X further indicates a BIG difference - i think given the circumstances it's a fairly elegant way of dealing with it - without having to resort to calling the operating something like 'AlphaTech' or 'Cappy'.

Will we see a new name for the PowerMac line? not likely. Why? why would they? the names they have for their products are so paired down and straight-forward that they're almost not there. to suddenly switch to some glamazon name would seem a little strange. especially since i get the sense that their new enclosure for the powermac series will bring it in line with the PowerBook and Xserve...ie: titanium, or shiny metal. it's almost too obvious to bother pointing out, but: look at the cohesion in the consumer line, would you like your computer in white plastic, or white plastic? they're becoming even more minimalist and codified with their product line conventions.

but, we'll see.
 
ohhh Alpha~

Alpha , that was a scalding retort!

I was taken back as if there was hot water thrown upon me.

And now onto the counter blow.

As for renaming the Powermacs. There hardly seems to be any reasoning that would point to this happening when you take hardware into consideration. Even if a new G series chip arrived , i think that it would still be PowerMac G something.

Cappy~ despite whatever animal has nested within the catacombs of your vestible called loosely "your brain" I think thats it should be easy to see that no new names will be arriving soon. :)
 
Re: ohhh Alpha~

Originally posted by Grokgod
As for renaming the Powermacs. There hardly seems to be any reasoning that would point to this happening when you take hardware into consideration. Even if a new G series chip arrived , i think that it would still be PowerMac G something.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if they change the chip - I know the issues here and don't really want to get into, I don't think it will happen- but that would be reason to change the name, since it wouldn't be a Generation-Whatever, but a whole new line. This might happen one day, but until then, we'll see the Gx naming scheme.
 
Re: Re: ohhh Alpha~

Originally posted by dukestreet


Yes, but if they change the chip - I know the issues here and don't really want to get into, I don't think it will happen- but that would be reason to change the name, since it wouldn't be a Generation-Whatever, but a whole new line. This might happen one day, but until then, we'll see the Gx naming scheme.
Click to expand...

the G refers to the chip. so if they change the chip, it'll become a PowerMac G5 (shudder) or PowerMac FancyDancer or something. it'll still be called a PowerMac. get it?

and we can see that this pattern's already happened: the powerbook's been called a powerbook since jesus was a child, and despite obvious generational differences...its retained its name. this consistancy appears to be what apple's moving towards.

so don't expect a Macintosh Sephia, or a Corolla or something...
 
Re: Re: Re: ohhh Alpha~

Originally posted by boymerang


the G refers to the chip. so if they change the chip, it'll become a PowerMac G5 (shudder) or PowerMac FancyDancer or something. it'll still be called a PowerMac. get it?

and we can see that this pattern's already happened: the powerbook's been called a powerbook since jesus was a child, and despite obvious generational differences...its retained its name. this consistancy appears to be what apple's moving towards.

so don't expect a Macintosh Sephia, or a Corolla or something...
Click to expand...

I'm glad that other people are understanding my point on this 'issue'... The current naming conventions that Apple is using makes it very easy to identify what kind of system you are talking about. Someone says, "I have a PowerBook G4" you know it is one of three sets (400/500, 550/667, 667/800) for speeds and you KNOW what the computer looks like. If they add the speed to it (like 800) then you KNOW EXACTLY what the person has. Pretty much the same with the towers, such as "I have a PowerMac G4 933" or "QuickSilver" then you know either what system or range of speed's he/she has. Not many other computer companies have naming conventions that are that easy to follow...

If it's not broken, don't d*ck around with it.
 
Re: Re: Re: ohhh Alpha~

Originally posted by boymerang


the G refers to the chip. so if they change the chip, it'll become a PowerMac G5 (shudder) or PowerMac FancyDancer or something. it'll still be called a PowerMac. get it?
Click to expand...

I wasn't questioning that, sheesh, I was responding to the G arguement. I understand the difference. We also had the PowerMac G4 Cube, remember? So that is a quantifier in the whole naming process as well, which could be used in the future, OK?

I actually think this whole thread is silly, and all I was trying to point out that the G names weren't necessary.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: ohhh Alpha~

Originally posted by dukestreet



I actually think this whole thread is silly, and all I was trying to point out that the G names weren't necessary.
Click to expand...

you're right, they're not neccessary. but they're part of the apple naming convention, at least currently. the G4 cube was a strange step-child to the rest of the powermac line...in many ways it was more characteristic of the consumer line than it was the professional (limited upgrade potential, white plastic [ahem]). and i think this was part of it's demise...that, and in many ways the cube transformed itself into the iMac G4.

but the only way we'll know for sure is when it happens...all of this is pure conjecture on the part of interested consumers...we'll see it all play out in July.
 
I've always been under the impression that the "G" designation for the G3 & G4 were particular to them being 3rd & 4th generation systems...

as a matter of fact...that's what I've been told by many people...

as for Motorola labeling them as "G" series chips....isn't this particular to the fact of new technologies built into them? (ex., G4 was Alti-Vec...)
 
Apple's own marketing places the name G4 firmly and squarely on the actual chips. they refer to it as a G4 Processor. in other words, what you're being sold is a computer with a G4 Processor in it. they're branding the processor seperately and independantly from the computer systems themselves. which is to say, that regardless of what 'generation' the powermac line is in (and i'd wager we're deeper into it than just G4, give the differences between even the old desktop beige G3 and the Blue and White).

so to clarify, if the G stands for 'Generation', it only stands for generation in relation to the processor...not the rest of the beast :)
 
Is it just me, or are things just way to confused on this thread?

PowerMac is the name of the top end Apple computer. The Processor name is just used as a adjective, for description, like Alpha was trying to say.

We've had the PowerMac G3 (blue and white) and the PowerMac G4 (two different color cases), the next machine will most likely be a PowerMac G4, with a third case design. With the new design there will be another adjective to describe it Yikes, Sawtooth, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back