# What to call "them"...



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

I'll add a poll to this thread later. What should we call those future Macs which will be using intel processors? I've personally been calling them intel/Macs most of the time, or intel Macs. Others have been using 'Macintel' and other names... Here's my list. Add a few, please.

And, yeah: Please do _not_ let this thread become yet another thread about whether it's a good or bad decision by Apple to use intel's chips instead of IBM's...

- intel/Mac
- intel Mac
- Macintel
- MacX86


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 12, 2005)

Mac/x86 and OSX/x86
also
Mac/PPC and OSX/PPC

and soon...
Mac/x86-64 and OSX/x86-64?

(quietly mumbles something...)


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 12, 2005)

How about just a Macintosh? It wasn't MacPPC before was it?


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 12, 2005)

Personally, I don't like slashes in the name. I mean, how are you supposed to pronounce that? Bleh.

My favorites are:

Intel Mac  What I use most, because it's generic, descriptive and pronouncable

Mactel  A bit shorter than "Macintel", and it seems to contrast better with "Wintel". And it seems a bit less pun-y than "Macintel", which I consider a good thing. I still think it's too pun-y, though.

x86 Mac  generic, descriptive, and short to type, but not great for pronouncing.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 12, 2005)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> How about just a Macintosh? It wasn't MacPPC before was it?


I'm all for that within most contexts...

But I do see a need for a convention on the name when dealing with technical aspects.

We originally had 68k Macs and PowerPC (or PPC) Macs, so it would seem logical that we are now going to have Intel (or x86) Macs.

Of course if this were Apple of 10+ years ago, I would guess that we would be facing a new name for the product line. The mid to high end systems went from Macintosh (68000) to Macintosh II (68020/68030) to Macintosh Quadra (68040) to Power Macintosh (PowerPC), which was shortened to just Power Mac.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 12, 2005)

I was looking at it from a techie point of view, seems to be a common way of doing it.  How to pronounce the slash? You dont ;-)

If we are talking about user-level decriptions then:

Intel Mac

seems logical, things like Macintel or Intellimac or whatever just don't sit right with me and reminds me of "Wintel" other things I'd rather forget.


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 12, 2005)

...with the new chips...

PowerMac i5

PowerBook i5

...and those numbers change with the new chips... its keeps the naming convention in line with 'G4, G5' etc - but puts a new streamlined twist onto it... the word 'power' will stay - its now synonymous with the brand - and the brand is stronger than ever so changing that aspect would be foolhardy.

i think OS X will always stay OS 'insert number here'


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

no, no, not individual products, just to divide them from the PPC Macs... I'll add the poll now, then...


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 12, 2005)

i just call em "new macs", though its all macintosh to me.


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

Well: We only need the name when we want to talk abou them specifically. As in "Does Photoshop CS 1 work on (enter chosen name for the intel-based Macs here)?"


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 12, 2005)

for your poll, you forgot intellimac (different from intel mac) and "new macs"


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 12, 2005)

Since I'm a UNIX systems engineer, I voted accordingly.  But as a user or for general conversation, I'd use "Intel Mac", by 2007 it will be just "Mac".

Macintel like I said before reminds me of Wintel, Mactel sounds like a cheap phone company who'd rip you off and IntelliMac.. does anyone else think it sounds a bit like an IBM IntelliStation.. ?


----------



## TommyWillB (Jun 12, 2005)

Today we simply say we have a "Macintosh". Tomorrow we'll say the same thing regardless of the CPU chip.

To me the more interesting question is in how we identify our specific machines. i.e. "QuickSilver G4".

Will we instead say I have a "BlackDiamond P-IV"? (Or whatever number Pentinums are  on these days...)


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Jun 12, 2005)

MIBs      (Mac Intel Boxes)

Kap


----------



## symphonix (Jun 12, 2005)

I'd assume we'll still see a few Mac G4s and G5s in the next couple of years, but that they'll be complemented and slowly replaced by "P4's". 

On the other hand, its unlikely any real designation is needed at all. A year from now, the hardware will still say "iMac" and "PowerBook", and only the spec sheets and "About This Mac" box will tell you the truth.


----------



## pds (Jun 12, 2005)

Macintosh for me.

Mactel and Macintel sounds like a phone company.
Intel Mac sounds like a spy in a trench coat.
X86 Mac running OS eks???

Nah, I'd stick with Macintosh, and if necessary - new Macintosh.
For marketing, the silly Intel Inside thing on the outer box should be enough.(please make it removeable on the hardware)


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 12, 2005)

erm, I think you guys sort of missed the point


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 13, 2005)

mmmmm, it's a tricky one.

On one hand you want it to be simple. And I like how in the recent past we have had short catchy names for each processor development, ie: G3, G4, G5, regardless of who is making the chips (IBM or Motorola). I'm thinking that we need to continue that tradition so there isn't a huge difference.

On the other hand, the name needs to signify the transition to an "intel inside" processor. And in keeping with Apple tradition the name needs to pay reference to that. However both X86 and Intel don't seem to conjour up images of the lastest and greatest. It sounds like a step backwards. Remember the initial awe and power of "G5"...

Personally, I don't like any of the names in the poll. Despite the fact that it will most likely be called one of these - at this point in time; it just doesn't sit right.
> MacIntel = sounds wrong / like some weird Scottish IT company.
> Intel Mac = the most appropriate / and most likely / but too literal.
> MacX86 = sounds like a game box / too many syllables.
> Mactel = agreed, sounds like a dodgy telco company.
> IntelliMac = sooooo over done - (technology isn't intelligent).

I really liked the guy who came up with the "PowerMac i5" idea. He made a good point about branding. Plus, I like the abstract reference to Intel = "i" - which funnily enough fits in with all the other Apple "i" stuff; ipod, imac, etc. But for that very reason doesn't work. Because then confusion would surround whether an iMac had an Intel in it...

I think in the end it will be just a "Mac". Because although it is a different processor  - we never went around saying "i've got a Motorola Mac" or "I've got an IBM Mac". But then again, I also understand that this is a major architectural shift that needs some sort of distingishing codename. 

Like I said "tricky".

I'm really hoping that Apple officially create a new name for the new Macs. Something that signifies the new processor but isn't so blatently literal as "Intel". Not "G6" or "P4", but something similarly abstract. Crossing fingers...

Otherwise, I can't wait to buy my "Intel PowerMac".


----------



## smithy (Jun 13, 2005)

Personally why should the name Macintosh change just because of the new processor. I think everyone has become a bit predijuce of the change. The real soul of the computer is the OS and the OS has always been called Mac/Macintosh. 

I hope they continue the G3, G4, G5 thing - even though if it was done in the name of the intel chip they are only up to P4. But by the time they bring out the intel Macs  there should be a Pentium 5 out or something. However it would probly confuse a user between a PPC and a Intel chip. Then again it may be in the agreement of Apple and Intel to stay with the name Pentium 4(etc.) otherwise (on intel's side) its a total new product (not physically) just with a new name. I reckon the G5 thing sounds cool and i hope Apple come up with some as cool as the G# line. 

I think we are only refering to them as intel Macs because of the significant change that will change our perception and use of Macs. But really i don't really care, as long as Apple create stunning hardware and OS's. 

Thats my 2 cents


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

Nononono, smithy. Please _read_ what this thread is about. It's not about the product name, it's about how we talk about them so we can differentiate. Sure, I can just talk about "Macs", but how would you know that my specific question is about one using intel's processor. Currently, people are using many different names, that's why I wanted the poll. So we can 'agree' on one. Right now, two winners, though.


----------



## smithy (Jun 13, 2005)

Shit, i posted in the wrong thread then sorry lol. But personally those names just dont catch on. I think just intel macs then.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 13, 2005)

Intel based Apple computer I'd say


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 13, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Please _read_ what this thread is about. It's not about the product name, it's about how we talk about them so we can differentiate. Sure, I can just talk about "Macs", but how would you know that my specific question is about one using intel's processor. Currently, people are using many different names, that's why I wanted the poll. So we can 'agree' on one.



Looks like little'ol'me slightly "missed the point" too. 
Thought I better quote the above - again...


----------



## Damrod (Jun 13, 2005)

I find it hard to decide. But remembering coversations I had with friends about the topic, I always refered to the machines as Intel Macs.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 13, 2005)

How bout a POS Mac that runs half the speed of my G5.


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

Read before posting, please. You angry?


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 13, 2005)

You all guys are make no sense for changing different name. Because Mac going to use Intel? Oh come on! What about different chips ATI, PIONEER, USB, and more that Apple use their chip on logic board. Macintelatipionner. Oh please. Bottom line that Mac is Mac. Apple always using many chips from different companies such as rams, ata, usb, pci bridge, video and whatever. That where it come from off the shevles to make best machine for Mac.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 13, 2005)

How aobut we just keep it simple??

iMac Mini
iMac 
eMac
iBook
iPowerbook
iPowerMac

i refering to the Intel Inside, and using the current names...nice and simple


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

Wrong thread?


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

Is it my imagination? or are people just NOT getting this?

We know it's a Mac, a Mac is a Mac, ok, move on.
We're not talking about individual products or systems, ok, move on.

We ARE asking what people call the Intel based Macs when referring to them in conversation etc. i.e. "Intel Mac"

We KNOW THEY ARE MACS! But we are talking about when we refer SPECIFICALLY to Intel ones rather than all Macs, i.e. when talking about technical points, then we HAVE to have a distinct name.

Like 68k Macs for example.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 13, 2005)

My votes for the new powerbooks are still one of:

SlowassBook
PowerPuff
Sh*tBook
VaioOnSteroidsBook


----------



## Randman (Jun 13, 2005)

Boy, this idiot above me is a true troll.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

jzdziarski, you're not making any sense, what makes you think that a machine which won't even surface until probably 2007 is going to be so bad, also READ what the thread is about.  If you want to have a go about the Intel move, there are a number of threads about that, God knows, I've vented my rage about it.  This thread is not the place though.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

A friend of mine has just said that since they look like they are going to be PCs with maybe DRM, the term ApplePC or MacPC would be apt.

brrrrr...  That's MY optimism killed!


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 13, 2005)

Personally I'd prefer to call them Mactels. To fit in with Wintels


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 13, 2005)

Umm.....iMac, eMac, iBook, ProBook, ProMac


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

Oscar Castillo said:
			
		

> Umm.....iMac, eMac, iBook, ProBook, ProMac


NO NO NO NO NO

BEFORE POSTING, READ WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 13, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> NO NO NO NO NO
> 
> BEFORE POSTING, READ WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!


I don't like any of the choices, so I made my own.


----------



## chevy (Jun 13, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> I was looking at it from a techie point of view, seems to be a common way of doing it.  How to pronounce the slash? You dont ;-)
> 
> If we are talking about user-level decriptions then:
> 
> ...




what about I-Mac ?
X-tel ?
OX-tel ?


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

But you didn't understand the question. All of your answers are not intended to name the "Mac with an intel processor" as opposed to the "Mac with a PowerPC processor", are they.

"Do you use a PPC Mac or an iMac?" See, doesn't work.


----------



## chevy (Jun 13, 2005)

deleted


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

I meant Oscar.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 13, 2005)

Platform neutral names work best.  Hence the Power name dilemma.  Everyone attributes it to the processor and leaving it will be awkward although removing it will be premature until PPC Macs are discontinued.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

WHAT?
That's obvious, with all due respect I don't think you're understanding this at all. What Power name dillema? Or am I not getting it? The "Power" in Mac machine names existed before PowerPC was the main CPU.

Sometimes, when you NEED to specify the HARDWARE platform, you need to CALL IT SOMETHING! Like POWERPC Mac or 68K Mac or INTEL Mac!!

THAT is what the thread is about!

I'm trying my best not to be rude, but I sincerely cannot understand why people aren't getting this!  Are you not able to understand that there are situations when talking/writing about Intel Macs ONLY, require you to call it something DIFFERENT??


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 13, 2005)

Intel Mac makes more sense.

Think of the naming conventions used today:
1. 68k Mac (or Mac 68k depending on who you ask)
2. PowerPC Mac  (or Mac PPC depending on who you ask)
3. Intel Mac is logical. I read that the x86 is really a legacy thing now, and apple might not even go with the pentium line when the macs ship


----------



## pds (Jun 14, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> erm, I think you guys sort of missed the point


erm - no I didn't. Using Fryke's example, "Does Adobe Photoshop CS2 work on the (insert name of the intel based machines here)?", I think new Macintosh does the trick.

But the whole thing is moot since we'll only have to ask that question once a new Mac actually ships and it will have a name... :-\


----------



## fryke (Jun 14, 2005)

That specific question, yes. But we ARE talking about "them" already. All of the time, it seems...


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 14, 2005)

Apple applied for a trademark for the term "Mactel" through the US Trademark and Patent Office. Oh jeezz!


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 14, 2005)

MacFreak said:
			
		

> Apple applied for a trademark for the term "Mactel" through the US Trademark and Patent Office. Oh jeezz!


!!!
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

I hope this is one of their "oh, what the heck?" trademarks that they obtain with no intention of ever actually using. "Mactel" is okay as a tongue-in-cheek nickname used among geeks, but not as an official title.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 14, 2005)

MacFreak said:
			
		

> Apple applied for a trademark for the term "Mactel" through the US Trademark and Patent Office. Oh jeezz!



WHAT? You have GOT to be ******* joking!

Mikuro, it's not a name worthy of ANY use, beyond a telephone scam.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 14, 2005)

I am serious. Check website.. 

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


----------



## Cat (Jun 15, 2005)

This trademark does not necessarily mean that Apple is going to use it. I suppose they trademarked it to prevent someone else (mis)using it, e.g. to prevent some PC maker to start making Mac-lookalikes and selling them under the name "mactels".


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 15, 2005)

Mactel sounds so ugly!

hmmm... MacTel...eh???
Sounds like apple is going into the mobile phone/MVNO business


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 15, 2005)

Ugly? It's pathetic, I'd be embarrassed to own a machine with such a name. Despite going from 'anti-Intel move' to a position of apathy, I'm slowly becoming 'anti' again. My rational mind is saying "wait and see", but the irrational side is saying things I won't share here.


----------



## fryke (Jun 16, 2005)

Maybe the "MacTel" moniker is actually for the "iPhone"? I don't think I'd ever call my computer a Mactel... but intel Mac's still leading, anyway.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 16, 2005)

Macintelosh?


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 16, 2005)

Hey guys - lets be serious here...

There is _NO WAY_ that Apple is going to be calling their new Intel machines "Mactel". Think about it : Apple is a company renowned for their ultra 'cool' products, savvy marketing, & outspoken declaration to "innovate". Historically, the names and titles of their products have also reflected this reputation and ambition. Being 'cool' is part and parcel of being Mac. So confident am I, that I would set fire to my beloved Mac if Apple were going to call it "Mactel".

Comments by "Cat" on the previous page are more likely the reason Apple has trademarked this name. 

Unless, of course, the Apple Marketing Team have finally snorted too much 'coke' and lost touch with reality...


----------



## fryke (Jun 23, 2005)

So, feel free to call them "intel Mac" or "MacX86". Glad this is settled.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 23, 2005)

I noticed the authors start to use word "Mactel" in different articles.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 23, 2005)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying authors on other sites are using Mactel and that's what everyone should use?

I'll be dead in my grave before I use such an ugly, CHEESY term. It's Intel Mac, or if you're a tech head Mac/x86, I'll look down my nose in an elitist manner at anyone who uses that abomination "Mactel"  ;-) LOL!

Apple are far too smart to use such a stupid name, unless they've really lost the plot.


----------



## karavite (Jun 23, 2005)

Just chiming in here. I have used Macs with 68020s, Power PCs, G4s and 5s... and the chip never, in my mind, made the computer. Macs have always been the most personal of PCs. My Mac works the way I need it to, while your Mac works the way you need it too. It's the OS that makes a Mac a Mac. Behind that OS is a whole history, philosophy and culture about letting people work the way they want to. Perhaps Macs running on Intel will make this clear while also demonstrating that Intel and Windows are two very different things.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 23, 2005)

karavite said:
			
		

> Just chiming in here. I have used Macs with 68020s, Power PCs, G4s and 5s... and the chip never, in my mind, made the computer. Macs have always been the most personal of PCs. My Mac works the way I need it to, while your Mac works the way you need it too. It's the OS that makes a Mac a Mac. Behind that OS is a whole history, philosophy and culture about letting people work the way they want to. Perhaps Macs running on Intel will make this clear while also demonstrating that Intel and Windows are two very different things.



I agree with you. I have my old 68030 PowerBook Duo 230, a 68040 Macintosh Quadra 650, a PPC604e Motorola StarMax (this one might not count, but it's still a Mac by all measure), and have used various post-G3 hardware.  All of them exhibited the same feeling of enjoyment in me because they were Macs running the Mac OS.  Of course, the fact that we spent years trashing Intel and now have come to embrace them in our Macs is something no one ever expected, but I know for sure that the experience with those Macs will be the same if not better than all the Macs before them.  As much as it might also be about the hardware, it's mainly about what's running on that hardware, and Apple will make certain that it's the Mac OS giving us that experience we've come to know for years.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 23, 2005)

fjdouse:

They start to use word "Mactel" Check it. Now you understand?

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/22/windows.apps.for.mactels/
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/zd/20050614/tc_zd/154139
http://www.neilturner.me.uk/2005/Jun/18/mactel_firefox.html

I hate this word and dont accpet people label mac as Mactel. GRRR


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 23, 2005)

Sorry, I had a problem following your broken English, I understand now. 

That's not meaning it's official though, I still think it's a pretty pathetic, ugly name which sounds like a nasty phone scam and I'd never call it that. I'm hoping Apple show a little more style than that.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 23, 2005)

::angel::


----------



## Veljo (Jun 24, 2005)

This thread is just dumb. They're still Macs.


----------



## Cat (Jun 24, 2005)

For the n-th time: of course they are still Macs! But imagine talking to someone and explaining the switch or that someone asks you: what kind of Mac do you have? If you need to indicate a sub-class of Macs, before and after the switch and need to differentiate them according to processor, and not according to model. What would you use then as expression for "one-of -those-newer-macs-which-have-a-processor-made-by-intel"? In that case you could use "a Mac/Intel" or a "Mactel" to distinguish them from the Mac/PPC.
Of course "They're still Macs." and that's not under discussion here.


----------



## mw84 (Jun 24, 2005)

mac INT osh already works, I like mac INT ox too.


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 24, 2005)

in conversation its going to be simplest to refer to both elements of the final thing.

i.e.

'i've got one of the intel macs' or 'i've got a ppc mac'

say it out loud - how how crazy does saying 'i've got one of the macintels' sound?!
it sounds like you are indeed refering to something totally different to the mac lineup and range of apple computers.

its exactly the same with the G4's - you can say 'i've got a mirrored drive mac' - 'i've got a quicksilver mac' - or...

'i've got a pizza box imac' - 'i've got a lamp style imac'

'i've got a Ti powerbook' - 'i've got a Al powerbook'

...were threads (or indeed people worried) done about how we should refer to every incremental change in macs because there might be a world of coonfusion that might happen because when you say to a person 'i've got a mac' they might not understand that you mean 'i've got a mac'...!?!?!

essentially though - when you've bought a new mac after the new intel macs are released (and all this knicker twisting has subsided) the only thing you really need to say is - 

'i've got a mac'


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 24, 2005)

...and with that, the thread has been cleared up, and we can go on with our lives.

well said


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 24, 2005)

I give up!

Can we close this damn thread now?


----------



## chevy (Jun 24, 2005)

Mac'ino... as they will most probably be Centrino based.


----------

