Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does anyone else not like the new "Mac" computer names?
- Thread starter mozmac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AlBDamned said:
I would have made Classic work on the Intel Macs, of course. Why not?
I've thought about Apple's excuses for not providing Classic compatibility - and that's all they are, excuses. Apple must provide ROI to the stockholders, for example; it's not cost-effective to provide backward-compatibility. Perhaps not. But so what? Nobody is forcing Apple to make this transition at all, let alone to do so in such a brutal fashion.
It's eye-opening to perceive how Apple has treated their user base in comparison to how Microsoft has treated theirs. Microsoft may be a gorilla, but Apple has become a snake.
(edit) So why am I still here? ... Why, indeed. :-(
I agree.cubist said:
I disagree, if I understand you right.cubist said:
I very much doubt it.cubist said:
It's an ideal, but it still almost certainly will never happen. Do you think that future Apples or Dells will revert to accepting data from tapes or punch cards?cubist said:
But the platform has changed so should OSX run programs written for other discontinued platforms such as Atari's? or Altair?cubist said:
What software written for a current OS, either Mac or MS Windows, in the last 5years won't run on the Intel Macs?cubist said:
No, Apple's trying to get you to upgrade so it can have more of your money. If you're happy with you ten-year old software stick with any Mac from this time last year or better still grab a current PowerMac and you'll be good for years yet.cubist said:
No.cubist said:
Your call but from what you're saying your software won't work so keeping a system is does work on makes more sense for you than buying a system it won't work on so I'm gonna say, Yes.cubist said:
Can you do good work that benefits anyone on your current system? If so then, Yes. If not and you'd be able to on a new Mac then, No.cubist said:
If you choose not to progress you can't blame Apple or anyone else. You not having to do anything doesn't sound un-friendly to me.cubist said:
No, I don't like the new names. I really liked the i/power distinction. Now they all sound too alike, and clunky/awkward to boot. Oh well, given the speed increases we've seen, it's worth it.
As for supporting very old software, I don't have a problem with apple not doing it. It would be nice if they did, but anything more than 5 years old is fair game to drop support for, IMO. If you're happy with older hardware and software, as many people are, then so much the better for you. But apple's decision to drop classic support makes sense from a business standpoint, and apple is a business.
As for supporting very old software, I don't have a problem with apple not doing it. It would be nice if they did, but anything more than 5 years old is fair game to drop support for, IMO. If you're happy with older hardware and software, as many people are, then so much the better for you. But apple's decision to drop classic support makes sense from a business standpoint, and apple is a business.
AlBDamned said:
I generally refer to them as "Macintosh" rather than "Mac" but I'm old skool like that.
"Look at my new Macintosh?"
"Don't touch my Macintosh"
"This is a Power Macintosh G4"
"Go buy a Macintosh!"
Everybody seems to know what I'm talking about.
cubist said:
The fact that Windows essentially works with every version of every PC software title ever written since DOS 1.0, on thousands of different types of machines from hundreds of vendors is the very reason why Windows is not elegant or user friendly or seamlessly integrated to anythng.
I personally do not understand what you're complaining about. How much faster do you want to run that old software from 1998? Why don't you just keep the Mac you have now, which I'm sure runs that software much faster than it was ever intended, as a second computer whose sole purpose is to run that software? Does buying a new Intel Mac automatically mean you must set fire to your existing system and toss it out the window?
mpw said:
I really doubt it. One other factor that nobody mentioned is how synonomous "iMac" is with the Macintosh platform. Almost everybody I know that doesn't know anything about Macs refers to all Macs as iMacs.
Wow, a lot of people have replied to this post. Awesome
I totally agree with the i/Power naming model. I thought it was great. It provided a great distinction between consumer and pro models. Just adding "Pro" onto MacBook makes it sound like you're getting a slight upgrade from a MacBook, when really you're getting an entirely different computer. I might even go as far to say that adding "Pro" to a computer name sounds like Apple's taking a page out of Microsoft's book....which isn't a good thing here.
I'm all for them coming up with a new naming stucture for their amazing new computers, but I do not like the one they've come up with. I think Apple is far too creative to stick with these crappy names.
Give consumers some credit. Three years ago, before Apple was a household name, of course people wouldn't know what an iBook and PowerBook were. However, now that people know a lot more about Apple, they are beginning to understand. Having a name like "PowerBook" helps them feel like they are part of an elite group, like they really understand. Whereas "MacBook Pro" is so obvious that any joe schmoe on the street knows what you're talking about. What's the fun in that?
If anyone has eaten at In-N-Out burger and knows about their "secret menu" (animal style, flying dutchman, etc), you'll know what I'm talking about here.
I totally agree with the i/Power naming model. I thought it was great. It provided a great distinction between consumer and pro models. Just adding "Pro" onto MacBook makes it sound like you're getting a slight upgrade from a MacBook, when really you're getting an entirely different computer. I might even go as far to say that adding "Pro" to a computer name sounds like Apple's taking a page out of Microsoft's book....which isn't a good thing here.
I'm all for them coming up with a new naming stucture for their amazing new computers, but I do not like the one they've come up with. I think Apple is far too creative to stick with these crappy names.
Give consumers some credit. Three years ago, before Apple was a household name, of course people wouldn't know what an iBook and PowerBook were. However, now that people know a lot more about Apple, they are beginning to understand. Having a name like "PowerBook" helps them feel like they are part of an elite group, like they really understand. Whereas "MacBook Pro" is so obvious that any joe schmoe on the street knows what you're talking about. What's the fun in that?
If anyone has eaten at In-N-Out burger and knows about their "secret menu" (animal style, flying dutchman, etc), you'll know what I'm talking about here.
By the way, it just occurred to me that I often don't even refer to the PowerMac G5 by its name. Usually when I'm talking to people, Mac User or not, I just say "G5." They often use the same name. So even if Apple does go with the horrid name of "Mac Pro" maybe they'll give us something cool like "G5" to go by so we don't have to be embarassed all the time. 
mozmac said:By the way, it just occurred to me that I often don't even refer to the PowerMac G5 by its name. Usually when I'm talking to people, Mac User or not, I just say "G5." They often use the same name. So even if Apple does go with the horrid name of "Mac Pro" maybe they'll give us something cool like "G5" to go by so we don't have to be embarassed all the time.
Yep, gotta love the "G5". Would have loved a PowerBook G5 (seriously).
All software comes and goes with time; you cannot progress with an OS and keep everything 100% compatible with what it had before. Xbox 360 can't play all Xbox games perfectly, PS2 can't play all PS1 games perfectly. Same thing applies to an OS.
For example, I have many apps and games that ran just fine on Windows 95, but they do not run well/at all on my Windows XP box. Do I blame MS? Heck no! It is now a more robust OS, and although it has its own problems, it is substantially better than 95. Vista comes out before too long, likely early next year, and I can guarantee there are some apps that simply won't work with the new architecture without a patch.
Same concept applies to Mac OS. Classic was not cost effective to keep implimented, and with the current architecture with the new chips, would have cost substantial money to give acceptable emulation for these applications. I'd much rather Apple pour R&D money into something for the future, rather than trying to support 5+ year old applications.
For example, I have many apps and games that ran just fine on Windows 95, but they do not run well/at all on my Windows XP box. Do I blame MS? Heck no! It is now a more robust OS, and although it has its own problems, it is substantially better than 95. Vista comes out before too long, likely early next year, and I can guarantee there are some apps that simply won't work with the new architecture without a patch.
Same concept applies to Mac OS. Classic was not cost effective to keep implimented, and with the current architecture with the new chips, would have cost substantial money to give acceptable emulation for these applications. I'd much rather Apple pour R&D money into something for the future, rather than trying to support 5+ year old applications.