[dancrane2]

So, a PowerMac is a PowerMac because (supposedly and conveniently) they use the PowerPC chips inside. It was a great tie in with the chips and the machine.

Well, since iMac is already a line of machnes (and now totally appropriote IntelMac, iMac), what the heck will they call the new tower machine line of hardware?

Is this the possible reason for the rumors on new machines being call xStations???? It could make sense....x86 chips using OS X?

What would other good names be for these new tower machines be????

[anamexis]

Just because the PowerMac was originally so named because of the name of the CPU architecture doesn't mean it has to change with the introduction of a new one. If you've got name recognition, you might as well stick with it, I don't think many people would care.

[nonhuman]

iMacs and iBooks also use PowerPC chips and yet aren't called PowerMacs and PowerBooks.

[matsimpsk]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

iMacs and iBooks also use PowerPC chips and yet aren't called PowerMacs and PowerBooks.

This is true, but I'm sure Apple will want to give the new machines some kind of snappy identity, and I'm also sure they'll want to avoid using any Intel-owned branding (to make it easier to switch to AMD or whoever if (when?) they grow unhappy with Intel).

I'm already trying to clean the dust and crud off my old Amiga 500, just in case Apple choose to call them something stupid like Extreme.

[tigas]

not powermacs, pentimacs!

(lame joke, sorry, just couldn't help it...)

As for chip supplier, I'm pretty sure that Apple is really interested in the manufacturing muscle of Intel, not on the chip technology. Otherwise they would've gone with AMD.

Besides, Intel feels betrayed by Microsoft jumping in bed with AMD for Windows 64-bit, and this is payback.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by tigas

not powermacs, pentimacs!

(lame joke, sorry, just couldn't help it...)

As for chip supplier, I'm pretty sure that Apple is really interested in the manufacturing muscle of Intel, not on the chip technology. Otherwise they would've gone with AMD.

Besides, Intel feels betrayed by Microsoft jumping in bed with AMD for Windows 64-bit, and this is payback.

Intel makes superior chips in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Apple needs better laptop chips as the G5 simply isn't going to work any time soon and the G4 obviously isn't going anywhere fast. Intel's chips are the best choice for this.

Intel x86 technology will not be replacing the G5 however, the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines make it clear that it is a 32-bit architecture. It would be a tremendous PR mistake for Apple to downgrade their professional line from 64- to 32-bit chips. When the professional line is switched over it may very well be to AMD chips, but only time (or a well-placed, loose-lipped informant) will tell.

[wtmcgee]

I don't see them changing the naming scheme.