Talk:Mac Pro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to Apple Computer, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Apple Macintosh and Apple Computer. We need all your help, so join in today! |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
"At the 2006 Macworld Conference and Expo, Steve Jobs said that the company wanted the word 'Mac', referring to Apple Macintosh, in the names of all their computer products. Following the pattern of their release of the MacBook and its professional counterpart, the MacBook Pro, it seems logical that the professional desktop Macintosh will use the name Mac Pro." This conclusion is a little dumb... It already had "Mac" in it´s name, why would they wan´t to change it?
Delay 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe because the word "Power" in "Power Mac" refers to the PowerPC and they are using Intel processors now. Duh – (empoor) 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
i like future product wikis!. like vapourware until it is released, it causes alot of excitement.
Visik 14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Terrible Image
Doesn't anyone have a better image? This one looks terrible, with all the yellow and stuff. For example, this one is much better:
http://img.kakaku.com/images/productimage/fullscale/00109018423.jpg
[edit] Announcement!
MacRumors.com's live coverage of the WWDC confirms the Mac Pro as the successor to the PowerMac G5! Let the editing begin.
--68.199.31.28 17:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Models" section removal
Simple lists of features and statistics does not an encyclopeda article make. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thanks and regards! —Celestianpower háblame 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it should just be revised, like the iMac article. Compressed and condensed. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment at the end
I hope everyone likes the edits -- the history will prove that one way or the other -- but I am curious if I have gone too far with that last statement? Is that reasonable, or does it seem like rumor mongering? Maury 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is the price comparison fair?
The price comparisons with PC vs Mac on the Mini, iMac, iBook etc... are all debatable. I'm not sure if the statement about the price is appropriate.
- I only left it there because it was already there when I started editing. I kinda agree, but only to an extent. Certainly the current mini is by no means comparable in price to a similar PC, but the Mac Pro appears to be within a few percent. This is a big change, perhaps worth mentioning. That said I can understand removing it, at which point you're still left with the points about the industrial design, which I think everyone would agree are worth pointing out (notably the card slots, tip-o-the-hat for that one Apple). Maury 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be doing competitive market analysis on Wikipedia. It creates unnecessary argumentation and friction in articles and it doesn't really contribute anything of encyclopedic value. Let's focus on what the Mac Pro is as a computer. -/- Warren 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comparisons to the G5 Power Mac
Hello all, thanks for adding in the citation for the Mac Pro's low noise. I removed the bit about the G5's noise being "extremely quiet"; not because I think it's a loud machine, but I felt that the G5's article would be a more appropriate place to talk about this.
Also, is it good wiki-etiquete to modify an article and then justify your reasoning behind the edit, or should one talk about a proposed edit before performing it? Just wondering as I am a relatively new wikipedian. Thanks!
Hoff10000 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Guy Harris 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just go ahead and modify the article! Don't forget to write an edit summary stating what you did... your fellow editors will appreciate it. Apart from Guy Harris's suggestion there, another good article to read is Wikipedia:The perfect article, which is a concise summation of everything we should aim for when writing articles. Don't worry about making mistakes, they can always be fixed,. -/- Warren 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] some mistakes
there are some, misnomers in this page.
"The Mac Pro does not support SLI or CrossFire, limiting its ability to use the latest "high-end gaming" video card products."
not disagreeing with what this statement is saying, so much as how it is said. macs have traditionally been workstations or high end desktops. but not gaming machines. SLI/Xfire would be useless anyway. because neither fireGL nor Quadro video cards support Xfire/SLI. neither do i think an informed person would use the terminology "high-end gaming" video card products.", something more like "the Mac pro chipset does not support either SLI or Xfire". the statement comes out as a misnomer in my opinion.
"The PCI-Express slots are also not backwards compatible with earlier PCI slot specifications and hardware, such as PCI-X"
(possibly) insinuating that PCIe SHOULD be reverse compatible with "PCI", or PCIx, when in fact it is a totally different protocol, and bus logic, and has more to do with RAM controllers then legacy PCI slots. again, it seems mostly the wording more then the point of the statement. in this case the statement is not needed.
- The statement about PCI Express is in a section named "Compatibility"; the intent is to indicate that if you have add-on PCI cards in your PowerMac G5, you won't be able to plug them into your Mac Pro, i.e. the Mac Pro isn't compatible with PCI or PCI-X add-on cards from a G5 (or the cards aren't compatible with the Mac Pro). As such, the statement is correct (i.e., not a mistake), conveys arguably useful information (especially to users who might not know the technical details about different system busses), and does belong in that section. Guy Harris 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Or, rather, one of the statements is in the Compatibility section; the one you cite isn't, but, again, the intent is the same.
- What, BTW, "has more to do with RAM controllers then legacy PCI slots"? "PCI Express" is not the correct answer to that question, as PCI Express is an expansion bus, not a main memory bus. Guy Harris 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
