[CubeWannaB]

Will IBM's 970 be branded as the G5 by Apple? It's an interesting question so I've made my own speculation. Let me know what your guess is.

Seems to me Apple has a few naming problems at the moment: G3, G5 and OS X.

G3 is a problem because it's probably going to hang around for a while. It's super great for portables, it's cheap and IBM is still making improvements. No reason not to keep it around, except that G3 is going to sound really old when the 970 hits, no matter what it's called.

G5 might be a problem because the Gx series has a stigma around it as being slow, especially to PC users. G4 are a generation behind the Pentium 4, at least in Mindshare.

OS X is a problem because once we hit version 11 it's going to get ugly. Is that OS X 11 or OS X 2 or OS 11 or OS XI?

I heard someone say that the name XServe is suggestive of a future renaming of the PowerMac to XMac or XMacintosh when the G5 arrives. Pretty crappy name, I think. But let's run with it:

• XServe
• XMac - The new PowerMac
• XProcessor - The 970
• XOS - The new OS X

Not a fabulous list, but I think it's interesting. The XProc might also work as the XCPU or XG. iMac, iPod, iTools: perhaps the G3 will be renamed the iProcessor, iCPU or iG.

Now that my crazy rant is over, what do you think?

[:XI:]

Originally posted by CubeWannaB:
Now that my crazy rant is over, what do you think?

There are better suggestions here.

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by CubeWannaB:
Now that my crazy rant is over, what do you think?

I think that time will come and some day in the future, we will know for sure. Speculations can go either way you know

[Superchicken]

iG? XG? Sounds like underwear to me...

anyway, I'm sure apple marketing will come up with a better naming scheme... they could always just start going with F

haha

Seriously though I hope they give it a REAL name, not just power PC, and not just a G name. People think Pentium because it's a name, Athalon because it's a name, G4 sounds more like a moddel number.

[DaedalusDX]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:

Seriously though I hope they give it a REAL name, not just power PC, and not just a G name. People think Pentium because it's a name, Athalon because it's a name, G4 sounds more like a moddel number.

Apple has had wonderful names in the past and the present... utter the name Titanium and everyone knows what you're talking about...

The PowerMacs, with the issues they've been having, need something killer for a name, cuz there is a strong possibility of the 970 being a formidable processor in every respect.

Find a good name for this new computer, and it will be on everyone's lips...

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by DaedalusDX:


Find a good name for this new computer, and it will be on everyone's lips...

Then Steve will call it iLips.

[bradoesch]

I'd be happy if they called it the PowerPC 970 or the G5. Of course Apple will likely have something super cool and powerful sounding.

[austeros]

rename them steve.. rename the ppc970 and the gobi g3. Set up a naming scheme that makes them both sound new.

who wants to buy a g3 when they could get a g4 or g5? the ibooks are great, with a gobi they could be better. time to rename them steve

[Superchicken]

Amen

[Lateralus]

I want a whole new naming scheme for Apples entire lineup.

I miss the pre-G3 days.

Instead of Power Mac G3, which left much to be known about the machine, we had names like: Power Macintosh 9600/350.

You never had to ask the question "How fast is your 9600/350?", something you have had to ask since the first PM G3 series.

Instead of 'G3', a chip that has gone through numerous revisions since it's introduction, we had names like: PowerPC 604e.

You never had to ask the question "What version of the 604e?", something you have had to ask since the G3, and even more with the G4. (7400, 7410, 7450, 7451, 7445, 7455, 7457, 7470... etc.)

It's all in the name, and the name needs to be more self explanatory. Otherwise, why even name anything at all?

[Superchicken]

The name doesn't NEED to be informative, least not the marketing name. It'd be better to name the product one thing then include somewhere a full technical name.
IE say they did go with an Xmac name.

Xmac F3
Xmac 110/1800 F3a

or something IE if F3 were the processor name
you'd have the family name, release info, IE 100 would be the first year, 200 would be the second year of the product, it would increse in the ten's place by 1 every revistion that year. and then the number after the /would be Mhz.

Not that it matters all that much

[ironknee]

better be a G W(izz!)

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by austeros:
rename them steve.. rename the ppc970 and the gobi g3. Set up a naming scheme that makes them both sound new.

who wants to buy a g3 when they could get a g4 or g5? the ibooks are great, with a gobi they could be better. time to rename them steve

Phil's in charge of this. He's the marketing man. He seems like such an idiot, but looking at Apple's brand, he probably deseries a little respect.

Stupid Phil (not zilla)

[jcadam]

Originally posted by ironknee:
better be a G W(izz!)

The Apple G-Spot

[DrBoar]

After 4 misserable years of G4 we do not need an other Gsomething. "970" is short enough. 970/1.4 -----970/1.6 -----970/1.6Dual or 970/2x1.6 are quite understandable. The Apple name of an other feature is the "Velocity Engine" but as far as I know most talk about it as AltiVec anyhow. If the 970 is renamed along the line of VE to say the " the fast locomotive" or something else as silly as the "Velocity Engine" it will still be called 970.

There has been mcuh interest in the replacement of the G4 (and Motorola) so why call the IBM 970 anything else than IBM 970?
It is a name that is alredy known
It is a short name
The name shows the break from the G4 and Motorola.
If the 970 do well in the Linux sector under the name of IBM 970 why not make use of that free advertisement?

The "G5" is plain stupid As there was no CPUs called G1 and G2 the Gx line start November 1997 with the G3 so then it followed 2 really good years but then we have had since August 1999 with the arrival of the G4 the clock down in 1999, the 500 MHz barrier in 2000, stagnation in 2001, stagnation in 2002 and stagnation in 2003 Is this the legacy Apple shoud market

Getting a silly new age name along the line of " the velocity engine" is as smart as introducing a zebra striped powermac.

[Cipher13]

The name needs to appeal to the general public, and to morons.

The "970" is pointless as a naming scheme - pro's already know its a 970. Idiots and laymen don't care.

"Pentium" - "Celeron" - "Duron" - "Athlon" - "Opteron" - "IBM 970" - spot the outcast, eh?

Fancy names are good for attracting people.

[euphras]

Quote:
"Instead of Power Mac G3, which left much to be known about the machine, we had names like: Power Macintosh 9600/350.
You never had to ask the question "How fast is your 9600/350?", something you have had to ask since the first PM G3 series."


Most people (not tech geeks) don�t care really about the clock frequency of their machine. I know at least three graphic designers, who have absolutely no idea how "fast" their machine is. So this techie naming scheme makes no sense to me.

[Tally-Ho]

You're right. Half the design guys I work with haven't a clue about clock speed and whizzy gizmos, just so long as it goes fast and does the work. If it doesn't, the users start moaning and it doesn't matter what it's called or what the 'gigahertz myth' is all about: they'll push it aside and start dreaming of the latest P4 3 trillion MHz machine with go faster stripe that toasts the office with it's heat output during the summer months (no air conditioning in London, don'tcha know).

I think numbers are for train spotters; sexy computers should have real names. I'm amazed at how the name 'Titanium' has caught on with the general public, even people who know little or nothing about computers. That's strong brand identity at work, something that Apple is very good at. I hope Apple are cooking up a new, fresh, sexy name for a new, fresh, sexy computer.

G5? Sounds like a political summit.

IBM 970? Apple does not build mainframes.

Forget the 'X's'; they're for kids playing video box games.

And I think 'i's' have become a little over-extended.

We need real names for real computers. It'll work. After all, who thought of naming the world's favorite computer after a fruit? and the world's favorite cola after a piece of burnt coal? ........

Anyone for Milk?

T-H

[ae86_16v]

Right on the mark Tally. Couldn't agree with you more.

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
I want a whole new naming scheme for Apples entire lineup.

I miss the pre-G3 days.

Instead of Power Mac G3, which left much to be known about the machine, we had names like: Power Macintosh 9600/350.

You never had to ask the question "How fast is your 9600/350?", something you have had to ask since the first PM G3 series.

Instead of 'G3', a chip that has gone through numerous revisions since it's introduction, we had names like: PowerPC 604e.

You never had to ask the question "What version of the 604e?", something you have had to ask since the G3, and even more with the G4. (7400, 7410, 7450, 7451, 7445, 7455, 7457, 7470... etc.)

It's all in the name, and the name needs to be more self explanatory. Otherwise, why even name anything at all?

[Superchicken]

Way to go you quoted something and didn't add anything to the conversation