What to call "them"...

What should we call "them"?

  • Macintel - MacIntel

  • intel Mac - Intel Mac

  • MacX86 - Mac/X86 - Mac-X86

  • Mactel

  • intelliMac - IntelliMac

Results are only viewable after voting.


Staff member
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
Mac/x86 and OSX/x86

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

(quietly mumbles something...)
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.
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.
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.
...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'
no, no, not individual products, just to divide them from the PPC Macs... I'll add the poll now, then...
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)?"
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.. ?
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...)
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.
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)
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".
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 :rolleyes:
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.