[Hinson]

I've seen some articles and individuals calling the forthcoming Intel-inside Macs "Mactels" and some calling them "Macintels." I thought I'd delve into the realm of irrelevancy and ask... which do you prefer and (if you really want to dig deep) why?


-Jay

[buggsuperstar]

I don't like either of them.

[d.fine]

Neither, Mac will do.

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by d.fine

Neither, Mac will do.

Okay, Okay...

I knew that "neither" would get too many votes if I put it up, but I wanted people to face reality and pick the one they'd rather see if it has to be one of these. It's going to be one of these, I think. We'll see it over and over for quite a while--at least until the Intel-based Macs become old hat. So, since you're likely to be seeing one of these, which should it be.

That's the question.


-Jason

[discotronic]

It's a Mac no matter what processor it runs. We don't currently call them MacPPC do we.

[Big Mac]

No, we don't call them MacPPCs because they are Macs. These Intel PCs are Mactels. It will take me a while to view them any differently. Here are some of the factors that cause me to make the distinction:

*Intel and Microsoft are so inseparable that long ago people dubbed their platform Wintel. Now Apple has gone with Microsoft's consort.

*Although the platform was based on IBM technology, the PowerPC was a joint venture of Apple, IBM and Motorola. Motorola's contribution linked the PPC to the 68k line that powered the Mac theretofore. In addition, Apple will likely have little to do with Intel's development process, despite the marketing we saw at WWDC.

*Mactels will not run Classic. The ability to run Classic represents a connection to the Mac heritage. It is a psychologically meaningful link back to 1984 that these Mactels will never have.

*The developer boxes contain standard Intel motherboards. Nothing Mac-like about that. (And note, I do recognize that Apple is likely developing its own boards for the real Mac-tels, but right now it's standard Intel fare.)

*And, of course, all of Apple's negative campaigning against Intel over the years has had its effects as well.

Mostly for those reasons, I will continue to refer to this new line as Mactel. This transition also represents a very substantial risk to Apple. If it goes over successfully, I may reconsider my view on the matter.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

No, we don't call them MacPPCs because they are Macs. These Intel PCs are Mactels. It will take me a while to view them any differently. Here are some of the factors that cause me to make the distinction:

*Intel and Microsoft are so inseparable that long ago people dubbed their platform Wintel. Now Apple has gone with Microsoft's consort.

*Although the platform was based on IBM technology, the PowerPC was a joint venture of Apple and Motorola. Motorola's contribution linked the PPC to the 68k line that powered the Mac theretofore. In addition, Apple will likely have little to do with Intel's development process, despite the marketing we saw at WWDC.

*Mactels will not run Classic. The ability to run Classic represents a connection to the Mac heritage. It is a psychologically meaningful link back to 1984 that these Mactels will never have.

*The developer boxes contain standard Intel motherboards. Nothing Mac-like about that. (And note, I do recognize that Apple is likely developing its own boards for the real Mac-tels, but right now it's standard Intel fare.)

*And, of course, all of Apple's negative campaigning against Intel over the years has had its effects as well.

Mostly for those reasons, I will continue to refer to this new line as Mactel. This transition also represents a very substantial risk to Apple. If it goes over successfully, I may reconsider my view on the matter.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Such a meaningful response!

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It's a Mac no matter what processor it runs. We don't currently call them MacPPC do we.

Ah, but when we first switched to the PPC processors, the Macs with PPCs in them were called Power Macs. In fact, all the consumer desktops with PPCs in them (not counting the workgroup servers) were called Power Macs until the iMac came along.

Now, I don't see apple selling an intel-based Mac called the MacIntel Tower or the MacTel P4, etc. However, in the media, in forums, in conversations, etc. you'll see/hear the MacIntel and MacTel terms for quite a while. That's the reality. So, which should it be?

My $0.02: While MacTel matches with WinTel, I tend to like MacIntel for the Apple-made computers because it’s pretty close to Macintosh and a little more distinguishing from the WinTel nomenclature. If we ever have the MacOS running on generic Intel machines, then I’d use MacTel. But if the hardware comes from Apple, I say we use Macintel. Like I said delving into irrelevancy.


-Jay

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Such a meaningful response!

Better than the crap you have been saying for the last couple weeks. Haven't you jumped ship yet?

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Hinson

Ah, but when we first switched to the PPC processors, the Macs with PPCs in them were called Power Macs. In fact, all the consumer desktops with PPCs in them (not counting the workgroup servers) were called Power Macs until the iMac came along.

Now, I don't see apple selling an intel-based Mac called the MacIntel Tower or the MacTel P4, etc. However, in the media, in forums, in conversations, etc. you'll see/hear the MacIntel and MacTel terms for quite a while. That's the reality. So, which should it be?

My $0.02: While MacTel matches with WinTel, I tend to like MacIntel for the Apple-made computers because it’s pretty close to Macintosh and a little more distinguishing from the WinTel nomenclature. If we ever have the MacOS running on generic Intel machines, then I’d use MacTel. But if the hardware comes from Apple, I say we use Macintel. Like I said delving into irrelevancy.


-Jay

The PPC going into the towers might have had a little to do with the name. On the other hand the Powerbook had it's name well before the PPC came along. Power = Power User not PowerPC.

That's my take on it

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Better than the crap you have been saying for the last couple weeks. Haven't you jumped ship yet?

Harsh - but I actually appreciate your candor. Tell me how you really feel. I'm not jumping ship for now, and I've tried to limit my comments on Mactel. Every so often I cannot resist posting about it, though.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Harsh - but I actually appreciate your candor. Tell me how you really feel. I'm not jumping ship for now, and I've tried to limit my comments on Mactel. Every so often I cannot resist posting about it, though.

For a couple days after the announcement I thought you where going to blow up and turn into a Double Whopper

I believe all us Mac heads will survive. It is just too early to jump ship. I actually agree with some of the points that you have had. I just can't remember any of them right now. I think the only thing that will drive me from the platform is if OS X can get installed on any crap Dell or HP. You gotta stay calm Big Mac. You will give yourself an aneurysm

[wulf]

Back on topic:

They're both awful, but the 'soft' middle syllable in 'Macintel' makes it sound a little easier on the ear. And of course it's the one part that's shared between the two names, so it would be particularly obtuse not to include it.


'k, back to to the pantomime.

[d.fine]

Originally Posted by Hinson

Okay, Okay...

I knew that "neither" would get too many votes if I put it up, but I wanted people to face reality and pick the one they'd rather see if it has to be one of these. It's going to be one of these, I think. We'll see it over and over for quite a while--at least until the Intel-based Macs become old hat. So, since you're likely to be seeing one of these, which should it be.

That's the question.

-Jason

Macintel then

[discotronic]

Macintosh

[Maflynn]

Neither

Another vote on for Macintosh, as I type this on my MacPPC

[exca1ibur]

Neither. I hate both choices with a passion. Macintosh gets my vote as well.

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Neither

Another vote on for Macintosh, as I type this on my MacPPC

Okay HOLD IT, hold it, hold it....

I'm talking about situations where people want to distinguish current, PPC based Macs from the forthcoming Intel-based Macs. Do you think everyone will type out "Intel-based Macs" or "Macintosh with Intel-inside?" Nope. It's going to be MacTel or MacIntel. You don't have to like it, but those are most likely our realistic choices.

As noted above, when the PPCs came out, and a user wanted to talk about buying a new PPC-based Mac, all they had to say was "Power Mac" because that meant it had a PPC inside. Whether "Power" was because it was a "Power"PC inside is irrelevant--it was a distinguishing name nonetheless. By the time the iMac came out, it was obviously based on a PPC and no one needed to note that when they talked about it.

We haven't had another situation since then where specifying your CPU architecture/manufacturer was necessary. Now we do, and since we've already got the WinTel name, its natural that the Macintel (or MacTel) label will follow suit. People will start using one of these labels over the near term, don't you think? So which should it be?


-Jason

[Luca Rescigno]

If you're in a conversation with someone and they ask if you have a PPC Mac or an Intel Mac, what would you say? "I have a Macintel"? No, you'd either say "I have a PPC Mac" or "I have an Intel Mac." Or maybe you'd give the model name, i.e. "I have a PowerBook G4" or "I have a PowerBook M (or whatever they'll call the Intel PowerBooks when they come out)," and which architecture you're using will become apparent once you reveal the computer you're using.

So I vote for "Intel Mac," as a counterpart to "PPC Mac."

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Hinson

Ah, but when we first switched to the PPC processors, the Macs with PPCs in them were called Power Macs. In fact, all the consumer desktops with PPCs in them (not counting the workgroup servers) were called Power Macs until the iMac came along.

I used to have a Performa with a PowerPC cpu . A 603e . And there has always been a PowerBook.

[Luca Rescigno]

Yeah, Apple got really confusing when they decided to name several of their computers both PowerMacs and Performas. Even setting aside the fact that "Performa" is a terrible name (for anything), it sure didn't help that they were selling Performa 6400s at the same time as they were selling Power Macintosh 6400s with nearly equal specs (I think they might have had slightly different bundles, with monitors, TV cards, and so on).

[Turias]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It's a Mac no matter what processor it runs. We don't currently call them MacPPC do we.

The current ones have always been MacBMs. That, or IBMacs. And before that, we ran Macorolas. Sheesh, get with the program.

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I used to have a Performa with a PowerPC cpu . A 603e . And there has always been a PowerBook.

Okay, I forgot about the PPC Performas... CURSE YOU, PERFORMAS!


-Jay

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

If you're in a conversation with someone and they ask if you have a PPC Mac or an Intel Mac, what would you say? "I have a Macintel"? No, you'd either say "I have a PPC Mac" or "I have an Intel Mac." Or maybe you'd give the model name, i.e. "I have a PowerBook G4" or "I have a PowerBook M (or whatever they'll call the Intel PowerBooks when they come out)," and which architecture you're using will become apparent once you reveal the computer you're using.

So I vote for "Intel Mac," as a counterpart to "PPC Mac."

Yes, Okay, people will use "Intel Mac" and such at times (personally, I don't like putting "Intel" first ). But many (especially in print) will use MacTel or MacIntel. Just google the terms and see what I mean. Try googling the news and you'll find plenty of computer-bases sights using the terms.

Again, you don't have to like it, but its still happening. Of course, I guess we can't force them to use "MacIntel" vs "MacTel" or vice versa, and we can't make them use "Intel Macs" vs either of those. So I guess we're all in the same boat.


-Jason

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Turias

The current ones have always been MacBMs. That, or IBMacs. And before that, we ran Macorolas. Sheesh, get with the program.

[TheMosco]

http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-5746741.html

Looks like its going to be "Mactel".

[osxisfun]

can i change my vote to "mactel"????

[DeathMan]

New Macs works for me. I'm waiting for the New Macs to come out. We don't call them IBMacs, or Macorrola. Wintel came about because you would otherwise have to write "Windows Box" or "Windows Machine" since you'd get flamed if you just write PC (A mac is PC, too, so is linux blah blah blah.) Wintel needed a generic noun, but a Mac is just a Mac.

Its contrived, and you sound stupid when you write it.

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by DeathMan

... blah blah blah...

Its contrived, and you sound stupid when you write it.

Wait... you can hear me when I'm writing.... When in the world did this happen and who was going to give me the memo?


-Jay

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by TheMosco

http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-5746741.html

Looks like its going to be "Mactel".

Yeah, its sad, really.

I mean, come on. Wintel flows because you took the "in" in Windows and replaced the "dows" with "tel." That also gives you the full word "intel" in the name "Wintel." Macintel flows because you just take the "in" in Macintosh" and replace the "tosh" with "tel." Again, you get "intel" in the name "Macintel." Mactel doesn't flow at all. Anyone can see that.


-Jay

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by buggsuperstar

I don't like either of them.

Ditto!

[Eug Wanker]

Yeah, both Mactel and Macintel sound stupid.

[Scooterboy]

Introducing the all new iMacTel Pentium M with Intel Integrated graphics....
Introducing the PowerMacTel P4....

Introducing the PowerMicrosoft G5 TrebleCore, the fastest PC on the planet!

Anything can happen™

[Benton]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Macintosh

MACINTOSH today, MACINTOSH tomorrow and MACINTOSH forever!

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Hinson

Yeah, its sad, really.

I mean, come on. Wintel flows because you took the "in" in Windows and replaced the "dows" with "tel." That also gives you the full word "intel" in the name "Wintel." Macintel flows because you just take the "in" in Macintosh" and replace the "tosh" with "tel." Again, you get "intel" in the name "Macintel." Mactel doesn't flow at all. Anyone can see that.


-Jay

Way to overanalyze my friend!
I say: Macintosh. Mac. Apple. G-[#]. There is no need to specify what proccessot the box is using or who made that processor. I mean I dont refer to my windows box as a winamd box. Whatever

Between Mactel and Macintel, your analysis would be technically correct. However, because the Macintosh is so commonly reffered to as the Mac, saying Macintel at first appears to be simply the splicing of the two words "Mac" and "Intel." Lame if you ask me. Just keep in plain ol' Mac and we'll all be fine. Ah crap, now I'm over analyzing... see what you've caused? jk lol

[albook]

Originally Posted by Benton

MACINTOSH today, MACINTOSH tomorrow and MACINTOSH forever!

Exactly!
Its a Macintosh (Mac) whatever cpu brand its using.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Mactel sounds like a Scottish telephone company.

[Randman]

Better that Mactel enter the lexicon than Wintel.

[mitchell_pgh]

Neither... if you feel the need, Mactel.

[Talleyman]

Apple already applied for Mactel...there you go.

The real question is: will it be faster or slower when it's consumer ready. Please don't quote recent benchmarks..we've all seen them and thy don't matter right now.

[Wiskedjak]

I'm calling them "The Beginning of the End". Once people figure out how to get MacOS onto their Dells, Apple hardware will wither up

[Talleyman]

DOOOOOOOMMMMM!

hehe...you doom guys are funny.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Talleyman

DOOOOOOOMMMMM!

hehe...you doom guys are funny.

Notice, I said "hardware". Apple software will do fine, perhaps even increase in sales. It's hardware that's always held Apple back; of course, the MacOS will lose all of it's stability if Apple loses it's 100% control of the hardware it's OS runs on. Being stable is easy when you don't have to worry about several million different combinations of hardware with varying degrees of quality.

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm calling them "The Beginning of the End". Once people figure out how to get MacOS onto their Dells, Apple hardware will wither up

The point is that 97% of consumers won't bother because it will be too difficult for them to set up, let alone cope with the stability and driver issues.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by esXXI

The point is that 97% of consumers won't bother because it will be too difficult for them to set up, let alone cope with the stability and driver issues.

97% of consumers seem to be able to deal with Windows, and it's difficult setup, stability and driver issues, just fine.

[Talleyman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

if Apple loses it's 100% control of the hardware it's OS runs on. Being stable is easy when you don't have to worry about several million different combinations of hardware with varying degrees of quality.

Apple will not lose 100% control of it's hardware. That's chicken little thiking. Only the hackeristas will be willing to put the time in to get it working. The rest will buy Apple hardware and use Apple's OS. Windows folks will buy the Windows compatible hardware and use Windows.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Talleyman

Apple will not lose 100% control of it's hardware. That's chicken little thiking. Only the hackeristas will be willing to put the time in to get it working. The rest will buy Apple hardware and use Apple's OS. Windows folks will buy the Windows compatible hardware and use Windows.

Not chicklittle thinking ... more like wishful thinking. I'd like to see Apple get out of hardware.