Forums | MacLife

the g1 and g2 chips were powerpc (601 - 604e or something like that)

the g3 began with the 750 line.

I have information from Deep deep throat that the next version of Mac cpu is going by the code name GX, GXM and GXD

yes boys and girls, you heard it from me first

stoned, remember that pontiac is selling it's car as "the first ever G6", knowing that G6 is only logical to follow G3, G4, and G5.

Try reading the thread before responding.

,xtG
.tsooJ

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

Dishonest?  WTF?!?!  It's their name.  They can do with it as they please. 

They can do what they please, including being dishonest.

Continuing the G- naming convention suggests continuity, which is not the case.

Intel doesn't make PowerPC chips. It would be absurd for Apple to re-christen whatever Pentium they use as a "G6" as if it's just a new model of the processors they used before.

Macskeeball wrote:

Alien wrote:

As for Apple "ditching" Motorola for IBM, who do you think makes those G4 CPU's used in all of Apple's currently shipping computers except the PowerMac G5 and the Xserve?

You forgot the iMac.

You mean like the iMac G5 I have ion my desk?

Damn.

,xtG
.tsooJ

Everyone is sure the G is being dropped because the PPC Generation processors (G3 = Generation 3, G4 = Generation  4, G5 = Generation 5) are being dropped and understandably so. But then if you think about it, there's also also a good chance that it's the end of the Power Macintosh/Power Mac line's name all together. The Power in the Power Macintosh/Power Mac name is derived from the Power PC chip.

ScifiterX wrote:

The Power in the Power Macintosh/Power Mac name is derived from the Power PC chip.

But the Power in the PowerBooks was implemented before they switched to PowerPC...so I'd bet that Apple's going to keep Power in PowerMac anyway.

i'm willing to bet they stay with the g* naming scheme. i'm only betting $5 though.

Is Steve going to have a funeral for the G series processors like he did for OS 9?

after-life wrote:

The G stands for generations of the PPC chip. Keeping it in the switch to x86 chips would be dishonest, though might make sense from a marketing perspective.

Sure, just like re-branding NeXTSTEP as "Mac OS X" was dishonest, but it was a good marketing move.

I don't think it would work, though.  You could argue that Mac OS X has Classic, it has Carbon, so it "kinda sorta" carries on some bit of legacy from Mac OS.  You can't say that about the Intel's processors, they aren't related to PowerPC in any way.  I think enough people are aware of this, so that trying to call any X86 processor a G6 would really ring a sour note.

Another catch is that Intel have their own far-reaching marketing plans for their processors.  It wouldn't make sense to sell the same processor as a "Pentium M" to the rest of the PC world, while calling it a G6-M (or whatever) when it's in a Macintosh.  That would only cause widespread confusion, and it would waste all the marketing dollars that Intel have put into building *their* brand recognition.

I feel that the Mactel thing is merely preventative.  If somebody else made a Mactel product, we start to have problems.

We can speculate all day, but we really won't know what Apple will call their chips until the day Steve hits the stage.  I imagine it'll be known by its "real" name... the Pentium [insert Intel selected name/number here].  I hope Apple renames them, however.

The PowerMac Intel Pentium 5 just doesn't work.

But to get away from the history and speculation for a moment and return to the original question. The G will become a term of endearment when talking about computers from a better time. We'll say, yeah, that was a G-Thing (or thang depending on the region and dialect - which does not even take into account non-US Centric variations - of which I am sure there are many). For example, "Remember how much more work we could get done per clock cycle before Mactel?" "Yeah, that was a G-Thing."

Last edited by Tomacorno (2005-06-21 5:04 pm)