[Svenmagnus]

What do you think?

[Commodus]

I'm thinking that Apple will be conservative and use G5; after all, there have only been two "G" CPU models (the G3 and G4) since Apple started using the designations.

If they decide to be a little more interesting, they may opt for something like "Xmac" (although that would leave them open to all kinds of jokes), or do what AMD and Nintendo have done and slap a 64 on the end (i.e. "PowerMac 64").

This is assuming, of course, that the PPC 970 does get used in Macs, but it's a distinct possibility.

[Svenmagnus]

I think that because this is such a significant upgrade, as well as a new case design(as the rumors point to) Apple will choose to keep the same theme as the Xserve and Xserve RAID. Most likely they will be conservative and name it Powermac G5, but IMHO Xstation has a nice ring to it.

[mac freak]

Power Mac G5 all the way!

"Xstation" is far too reminiscent of "Xbox" (as is any x-name). People have been hyped over the "G5" for years, give 'em what they want!

[DrBoar]

The pentium, pentium II, pentium III and now the pentium IV all have been very competetive CPUs. So there is a valid reason to keep the name.

The G3 was a good CPU 1997-1999. The G4 was a failure form the start in 1999 it took it years to get faster than the G3 it replaced and it fell far behind the AMD and Pentiums right from the start. 4 years later and it still show no signs of caching up.

For me "G5" smells of an overhyped underperforming Motorola CPU.

It is a IBM 970 and it should be called "970" or "IBM 970" or perhaps just "970" and then mention "By IBM" just like the Radeon cards by ATI
In the Apple store the GPU manufactures nVIDIA and ATI is named, why not the CPU?

Years ago IBM would be problematic for Apple as a "PC" was a "IBM compatible computer" that is really not the perception any more. A "PC" is a box with Windows of some kind for most people.

If I was a small car manufacturer and was allowed to use a BMW V8 engine I would tell my customer that my car lets call it "F1" used a tuned BMW V8 I would not call it some new age name like "velocity engine"

With the G4 it was mirrors and smoke screens, with the 970 there is something wicked coming this way

[D'Espice]

Assuming we will get the PPC970 in PowerMacs to come, it'll probably be the PowerMac G5.
We've had the PowerMac G3, the PowerMac G4 so now it's time for a G5 powered PowerMac.

[Lateralus]

PowerMac 970 or something similar.

The G4 clock speed fisco has forver tainted the Gx naming scheme.

[-Q-]

"PowerMac: This one goes to 11."

[:XI:]

I hope they ditch the 'Powermac' name and go back to 'Macintosh'. Powermac just makes me think of power suits, power walking, power sleeping (all of which are either unfashionable, lame or both.)
Then, give the new Macintosh a name. Not something like 'Mirrored Drive Doors' more like the SGI scheme: O2, Octane, Fuel, Origin & Onyx. Maybe take something from the Powerbooks and use elements (and have a stab at the 'Pentium' name too. "Macintosh Einstienium" )

[spiznet]

what about "MacX5"

-speed racer

[voodoo]

Originally posted by :XI::
I hope they ditch the 'Powermac' name and go back to 'Macintosh'. Powermac just makes me think of power suits, power walking, power sleeping (all of which are either unfashionable, lame or both.)
Then, give the new Macintosh a name. Not something like 'Mirrored Drive Doors' more like the SGI scheme: O2, Octane, Fuel, Origin & Onyx. Maybe take something from the Powerbooks and use elements (and have a stab at the 'Pentium' name too. "Macintosh Einstienium" )

Yeah revive the Macintosh name. Go retro!

[Simon]

For the pro lines (PowerMac, PowerBook, Xserve) I'd like to see Apple introduce a more technical naming scheme.

Like PowerMac 97d18 = a dual PPC970 running at 1.8GHz.

So today we'd have for example the Xserve 74d13 and 74s13 and the PowerMacs 74d14, 74d12, 74s10

And if they have different revisions (like a QS and MDD) they could just put a, b, c, etc. at the end like 74s12a (first MDD revision) and 74s12b (second FW800 MDD revision).

I know it's ugly like hell and I would never want to see them write that on the box, but it would be great for all technical aspects. Try doing tech support when somebody says the have a G4 800MHz... Over 4 product lines that could be about eight different models/revisions.

I wouldn't use the proposed naming scheme for ads or marketing, but in the AppleStore, on the Tech notes/KB and when it comes to computer specs.

And again, I'm proposing this for technical reasons, not for marketing or because it's nice to look at. For that I'd just use PowerMac.

[cube-dude]

I've always wondered why we have the names Power Mac (with the space) and PowerBook (no space) from the same company.

(And, yes, MacNN's link to the "PowerMac" forum at the bottom of this page is incorrectly spelled.)

[Commodus]

I like spiznet's idea, although it'd probably end up being something like "Power Mac X5." Apple still has a thing about identifying which systems are the consumer and pro models.

[Superchicken]

We should just have
eMac
iMac, iBook
Xmac, Xbook, Xserve

Personally when I started using Macs I thought the Power Mac name was totally stupid... still kinda do. It's grown on me a bit... but they really should list that the processors are made by IBM.

[BurpetheadX]

It will probobly be G5, but I think "PowerMac 970" sounds phat.

[CheesePuff]

I think Power Mac 970, since thats what the chip is. It isn't a G5, its a 970.

[Mohammed Al-Sabah]

i like G5 we dont need more names! more #'s G5 would do fine

[tikki]

I would like a "Macintosh G5"

To hell with this Power stuff.

[Souljah]

Apple's new "iQ Power" or "iQ Power9"
"Q" also because it comes after the "P" in P4 as in a generation ahead.

[euphras]

quote:
Originally posted by :XI::
I hope they ditch the 'Powermac' name and go back to 'Macintosh'. Powermac just makes me think of power suits, power walking, power sleeping (all of which are either unfashionable, lame or both.)
Then, give the new Macintosh a name. Not something like 'Mirrored Drive Doors' more like the SGI scheme: O2, Octane, Fuel, Origin & Onyx. Maybe take something from the Powerbooks and use elements (and have a stab at the 'Pentium' name too. "Macintosh Einstienium" )



Good one

But i think they�ll stay with "Power Mac"

Maybe one could call it: Macintosh G5 - powered by IBM

(of course not as a label on the actual machines, only in the advertisements)

[Eug]

Big Mac, of course.

[Sarc]

well, the G3 came up because -obviously- it was a 3rd generation of PPC processors.
then came the G4 ...
now the G5 sounds logical, it's the fifth generation powerPC processor, no matter who produced it.

although they could get more creative, the PowerMac scheme is somewhat old, but I wouldn't care if they stayed with it though.

[k_munic]

nice - have seen these kind of thread on other forums - this one is more...- say, conservative.

i think, apple is very good in talking to the target audience: introducing the consumer model iMac, they combined the traditional Mac with a very fancy "i" (now you buy all kind of "i"products...)

for technicians they offered an xserve(r) - also nice, x sounds very technical PLUS very msterios/good/improved/ you name it...-

the next generation after 4 is 5, that's true (please comment this line - Thank you) - BUT who does know this?? who is interested in generation 5? which generation is the best?

next: is it important what kind of processor is inside a computer? intel says yes, they produce these cute buttons "inside"..- and we've all heared of the GigaHerzMyth...- so, probably the technical inside has some interest for the masses (and not only for nerds like us).

the next name has to imply: it's new, it's improved, it's better, it has something the competiton doens't have ("... oh, your old computer has just 32-something? my brand new apple has 64something - that's twice something of yours!!")

as i wrote on antother forum: i do like the idea of

APPLE MACINTOSH NEXT

i do think, there's no huzzle with the owner of the �

and for the nummerologistics of us: 64= 4 x 4 x 4 //i'm sure, the neXt has not only a 64bit processor but a cubic case!

[Leonard]

Originally posted by DrBoar:
It is a IBM 970 and it should be called "970" or "IBM 970" or perhaps just "970" and then mention "By IBM" just like the Radeon cards by ATI
In the Apple store the GPU manufactures nVIDIA and ATI is named, why not the CPU?

You seem to be talking more about the CPU than the whole machine, but you may have a good idea in there. Maybe Apple should use the IBM name in advertising more and put a sticker on the box "IBM PowerPC 970 Inside". Don't alot of businesses have a high respect for IBM? Shouldn't Apple capitalize on that?

As for a name for the machine, I think I like the retro idea of going back to the Macintosh name or the shortened form of Mac. The power designation has gotten a bad rep since the G4 fiasco. Add the G5 or X5 after that maybe.

[cgc]

How about skipping the vaporware G5 and calling the 970 Mac a G6? I hate to even mention this, but Motorola used to use an odd number for a minor change in a chip number to be a small upgrade and an even number would be a major upgrade to a chip (e.g. 68000-->68010 = minor, while 68010-->68020 = major).

[firefly]

I'd prefer the name Power Mac 970 to G5. I'm getting bored of the Gx designation now - what next? G6, G7.. bah. its a new computer, so why not give it a new naming scheme? Revitalise the branding a bit. It would also be unexpected and more interesting, just as the name 'G3' was when everyone was used to 6500/7300/9600 etc.

[sodamnregistered2]

too late?

[pcd2k]

I prefer G Whiz

[MindFad]

God-damn-it-took-long-enough...

...5

[superfula]

You all are assuming that the 970 will even be in Macs at all. We still haven't heard any official announcement yet. History has taught us not to rely on the mac rumor sites for big stuff like this.

In actuality, I do think the 970 will be in Macs (beginning of next year), but with everyone just assuming the 970 will be here this year, there has to be some of us with common sense. jk

[Glenstorm]

Isn't the "G" an Apple designation? Motorola refered to all their chips as the PowerPC601, 604, 750 etc.

I think is an important part of the equation.

I also think it is time for a new naming schema to deliniate the the new architecture inside.

[HCRefugee]

Macintosh X970

[ZOM 77]

i think apple will come up with some sort of creative name for their next powermac.

its true that if you look at the history of apples macs, and the way they were named, it would seem logical that the next mac tower would be named the powermac G5,
but i have to think about the fact that since the intro of the powermac g4, apples naming scheme has been greatly changed.
after the powermac g4, their has been:
imac
ibook
xserve
the big hype of apple jaguar!
macworld being renamed to : create

im sure their are many other things im overlooking here, but it seems apple might name their next powermac something we're not expecting.

can anyone think of a creative name .. more creative than powermac 9700?

come on!

[ArcticBear]

The possibility of an Xserve-type name is interesting, but I think they'll keep the current theme going, therefore "Power Mac G5".

Just as long as it's not "Macintosh Extreme"
--

[sunrunnerfire]

And the magic name is...

Im guessing Apple is going to throw out somthing completely new for this next generation of desktops...I doubt they will try to piggyback of either Gx or X-blahblah.

[_bigfatPanda.]

xMac? bLeh.. Sounds a LOT like xBox... which is kind of dumb name as it is. And everyone knows copying a dumb name is dumb. G5 is almost cursed.. stay away you evil apparation. PowerMac970.. ok I guess- not much pop there though..

How bout 'Apple X5' -

[Liquidity X]

ok from what I'm told rom 2 different sourses on the inside due to some legal stuff with Moto. apple can't use the "G" name. So they will be like the xMac or some other named machine.

[mnb]

Ever since Steve came back to Apple the Macs have had BORING names. As a matter of fact, users have to resort to stupid mechanisms to identify their mac, like MDD, or B&W or revB and the like.

UNACCEPTABLE!!!

I long for the days where each line had a name and each new model was named differently, making identification easy. You say Centris 650, everyone knows EXACTLY what you mean and why it's different than a QUADRA 650 (the later model).

Come ON Steve. You run a creative company in Pixar and the creative computer company with Apple. GET CREATIVE!

But what will they do? Probably just call it the Power Macintosh. I agree, it's time to dump the word Power. Been there, done that. It's also time to dump the boring names.

[Truepop]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
We should just have
eMac
iMac, iBook
Xmac, Xbook, Xserve

I like that. However I think Apple is going to run the whole X thing in to the ground. I really think they have fell with their names. Newton, Macintosh, Lisa, iMac. Great names, even PowerBook is ok, but the Xserve is just crap. I think Macintosh Server would be better. Drop Power Mac and go back to to Power Macintosh or just Macintosh. Simple and Sweet. And thus the space issue is resolved.

Power Macintosh and PowerBook and then they shorted Power Mac. Power Notebook just doesn't work.

[archinla]

In everyday conversation you'd never come across:
"Hey - is that a Mac?"
"No - It's a Power Mac!"
Also I agree about the ruinously bad non-naming of the Power Macs and PowerBooks. My friend has an early Power Mac and I've got no idea what damn hardware revision number it is. the same applies to an old G3 PowerBook that is kicking around the office. Designating Macs with ad hoc names like Mirrored Drive doors is pathetic.
The Centris and Quadra naming system with numbers designating their power was better - apart from the cornball names, that is. And any naming system is likely to be problematic. Look at, for example Porsche, who used to use only numbers for their car models, and now they use awful names like Boxster and Cayenne. (You may like those names - but many people don't - and that's the point.)
The trendy practice of sticking an "i" or an "e" or whatever letter on the front of a noun is overdone (mLife? - give me a break). Stick a fork in it.
In the end the Macintosh name is what matters, and individual machines should, in my opinion be given straightforward designations - without being anally technical. Macintosh G5 Dual 2GHz Series 1... Perhaps. It sounds boring, but at least it's descriptive and you know what it is.
I'd hate to think they'd start using names like "Symbion" or "QuadStation" or "Imagimax", etc. etc.

[simonjester]

Originally posted by Liquidity X:
ok from what I'm told rom 2 different sourses on the inside due to some legal stuff with Moto. apple can't use the "G" name. So they will be like the xMac or some other named machine.

Apple has sold both G3 and G4 systems with IBM processors already... so the possibility of some sort of Motorola copyright on the 'G' designations isn't going to come into play.

In the G3 family, Apple has used IBM and Motorola processors relatively at-will, sometimes using both within the same product release. Apple produced G3 Blue & White's with both chips, for instance.

The IBM based G4's were to shore up the shortage of Motorola chips when the G4 first came out. (remember the G4 speed-drop debacle?) Check out this vintage macworld article.

[exa]

Lets call it the Apple IV!

[brainchild2b]

It won't be called the G5 you'll see.

Apple wants to set it apart from anything they've ever offered before because it is 64bit

[steavey]

This is a straight forward branding dilemma. If Apple ditch the "Power Mac G5" name and use a different one, then most of the accumulated brand equities will be lost - Apple will have to re-invest resources in marketing campaign to bring up brand recognition & awareness level. The point is, unless the company is really in trouble, it should not drastically change its brand elements.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by Svenmagnus:
What do you think?

Although I voted PowerMac G5, Xstation sounds good

Perhaps an Xstation ought to either be a thin client for networked Macs. Or alternatively a hig powered workstation.

Though isn't that what the PowerMac is?

[rmendis]

Originally posted by :XI::
I hope they ditch the 'Powermac' name and go back to 'Macintosh'.

Yeah...how about Macintosh G5?

[willed]

Originally posted by Commodus:
I like spiznet's idea, although it'd probably end up being something like "Power Mac X5." Apple still has a thing about identifying which systems are the consumer and pro models.

What, is it going to be a 4x4? BMW X5

[mr_craig]

How about "G5/970"

[danamania]

Originally posted by Eug:
Big Mac, of course.

That can go with a Quadra Pounder. More seriously, I don't see apple doing much with the name, keeping the G prefix seems most likely, with all the machines following being labelled after the same odd features that distinguish them from other ones. Hence I think we'll see:

Power Macintosh G5
Power Macintosh G5 (Summer 2003)
Power Macintosh G5 (Shinier side panels)
Power Macintosh G5 (Upside down speed holes)
Power Macintosh G5 (opaque handles)

and so on until steve's sick of it